The Forge Archives

What is it about?
Nevercast is a post-modern rpg set in a made-up world, about 50 or so years technology-wise in the future.  Economic and social decay has crumbled the infrastructure of most nations, and the few thriving communities are typically de-centralized organizations.  This downward spiral was called the Nevercast, and many things suffered or were destroyed in the process: manufacture, emerging technologies, consumer culture, culture in general (including many languages), the enforcement of law, et. al.  Most of the activity is centered on a region of the surviving Urs Prime Republic called the Des Xiac nations: a melting pot of cultures, a place of violence and lucrative opportunities, and a political hotspot, where various national, local, and international groups fight for control.

Who are the players?
Player characters in the game will carve out their niche, typically by hunting for fringe technologies abandoned during the Nevercast, or selling their skill set to any politically-charged group.  Some players may be charged with helping to stabilize particularly chaotic areas, and others may be hopeless philanthropists, emissaries, wandering opportunists, or spiritual warriors.  The setting's complex environment allows for a myriad of playable professions, each with their own useful perks, but flexible enough to allow the player to customize future character development.

What are the mechanics like?
Nevercast's engine in progress is designed with the philosophy that dazzling realism and complexity may be achieved with simple execution, and will be explained in my next post.

Please inquire for further elaboration.

1.  The system is semi-diceless, which means that dice (d4) are only occasionally used. 

2.  There are no character levels and there are no skill levels.

3.  There are no hit-points.  Health and damage is based entirely on an intuitive and vivid effects system rather than abstract numbers.

4.  Resolution is based predominantly upon tactical superiority.  The more skilled you are, the more tactical freedom you are given in lieu of an improved success rate.

5.  There are no experience points.

6.  Combat is based upon an action/reaction exchange; combat time is extremely sensitive..

7.  Via points 1-6, Nevercast boasts an elaborately realistic, yet streamlined and intellectually rewarding engine, while maintaining rules-consistency.

Hey Ar.

I've merged your two threads into this one, just for tidiness sake.

"Intuitive and vivid effects system" sounds great. I'd love further elaboration.

-Vincent
(site tech admin)

Thanks for the merger.  I'm still getting used to this site.

To answer your inquiry, the effects system is my answer to frustration with an abstract health and damage value system.  All my attempts to make a working model of realism using hit points turned out to be overly complex, cumbersome, and just plain ugly.  So I decided to scrap the whole thing entirely, and devised something that is, in my opinion, much more elegant.

It works like this:
*  When you score a hit, the directness of your hit is based upon how much you succeeded your check by.  This is called the "gradient of success".  The range goes from +1 (a glancing blow) to +4 (a perfect hit).  For each gradient, there is a progressively severe effect(s).  The effects are based on the attack type.  So, whereas a +4 from an unarmed punch will knock your opponent out, a +4 from a shotgun blast will kill you instantly. 

*  An effect is a qualifier that alters a combatant's effectiveness in some way.  For example, you get a +2 on your sword blow, and it causes the "profuse bleeding" effect, which means that in x amount of time, you will suffer the "incapacitated" effect, and die sometime after that if not treated.  Let's say you get +2 with a shotgun, then not only do you score the "profuse bleeding" effect upon your opponent, but you also knock him off his feet from the "knockdown" effect.

Oh now that's cool, I like it.

So the rules include a list of effects, linked to their weapons or particular attacks, with their special rules (like "profuse bleeding becomes incapacitation")? How many effects are there? I'm imagining quite a few.

-Vincent

*Effects are split into types for ease of memory.  So far I have: injury, bleeding, fear, and physics (for lack of a better name).
1. Injury effects - Stun, Hurt, Damaged, Crippled (typically for limbs), and Incapacitated
2. Bleeding effects - Bleeding, Profuse Bleeding, Excessive Bleeding (e.g. a severed artery)
3. Fear effects - Fear, Berserk (pending), and Frozen
4. Physics effects - Off-Balance, Knockback, Knockdown
5. Fatigue effects - Winded, Fatigued, Exhausted
6. Pain effects (pending) - Pain, Excrutiating Pain

*For further ease of memory, each effect in a specific type is assigned a category of severity, in which a category 1 will logically degrade into category 2 and so on.  Let's say you take a hard body blow and leaves you hurt for the round: if you get struck hard like that again within the round, you will suffer the "damaged" effect.  The GM might represent this as a fractured rib.

*Several effects don't actually do any lasting damage, but will affect you negatively.  For example, if someone jabs you and you are stunned, you will lose an action.

What if you change physics to force?

How did you gauge tactical freedom and flexibility? What conflicts do you have tactical factors in?

Quote from: JoyWriter on January 18, 2010, 08:56:37 PM
What if you change physics to force?

How did you gauge tactical freedom and flexibility? What conflicts do you have tactical factors in?

Force is good.  Thanks.

When you develop an action-based skill discipline (as opposed to knowledge-based), you learn techniques instead of improving your success rate.  Each technique is ideally suited to certain situations, and poorly suited for others.  For example, it's easier to counterattack after a dodge than a parry, block or evasion, but it's harder to pull off a dodge.  An adept combatant may choose to dodge and counter against an opponent with particularly strong defense.  It's even more difficult to catch his kick and throw him to the ground in one smooth motion (an example of a reversal), but the benefits of pulling it off are great and potentially combat-ending.  A jab may not be particularly destructive, but the higher success rate will allow you to stun your opponent so you can set him up for heavier blows.  Take note, however, that these mechanics are not restricted to pugilism - I just use it as a descriptive example.   

It goes even further.  Since the core of the system is diceless (the d4 randomizer will be explained later), success is determined by comparing attributes in which techniques are based upon.  For example, Kanu Gon throws a jab and Lo Din parries.  The GM then compares the attribute of the jab (quick attack: speed+2) against the attribute of the parry (ward off: dexterity).  Kanu Gon has 6 speed and Lo Din has 6 dexterity, but the technique's bonus to speed gives Kanu Gon the edge.  Therefore, not only do techniques give you freedom of expression, but because they are based directly on your attributes, you can tailor your strategy to your strengths.  So, a strong fighter might plow into opponents in order to deliver punishing blows or subdue you, a dextrous fighter might prefer elaborate and precise counter-techniques, an agile fighter might try to submit his opponents with grappling, and a fast fighter might try to overwhelm his opponents with sheer offensive volume.

So presumably they start off only with jab and block, or other simple actions, but over time gain more skills? One thing I also notice is so far I've only seen flat bonuses, rather than rock/paper/scissors "non-transitive" relations. You talked about this obviously, but I can't quite see where it sits in the rules.

The main trade-off I spot here is play it safe vs gamble, presumably with jab and dodge having high bonuses but lower effect. That's sort of like having power attack (in D&D terms) both on defence and attack, which is still random from your perspective if you don't know how the opponent will react.

Now that's not the only bit of tactics, there's also the idea of matching your behaviour to the terrain/finding advantages in specific moments that won't be there normally. Is this likely to be in the game? I ask because without it, conflicts gain a timelessness that means you can find "the best tactics" and just repeat them against similar opponents. The most rewarding systems are those where old adversaries can duel on different days in different places and have to switch up their tactics in order to accommodate the situation they are in. On the other hand, many games do without heavy environment interaction by just switching up your opponents frequently.

Also what kind of conflicts use knowledge based skills?

My response is about to get very comprehensive, Joywriter, so bear with me.  I'll split my response into several posts.  This one is about the close-quarters tactics.

1. There are 12 basic strategies you may use in close-quarters combat alone: strike, grab, lock, throw, takedown, shove, feint, block, ward-off, resist, dodge, and evade.  Each technique is based off of one of your following attributes: strength, speed, agility, reflex, and dexterity. 
So, depending upon your makeup, you are likely to favor certain strategies over others, until you realize that your speed strategy doesn't work against someone faster than you, so you have to carefully assess his weaknesses to determine your new strategy.  For example, if every time you try to strike your opponent, he hits you first, you may try a feint to agitate his timing (he loses actions), get in close range where there the lack of distance makes lighter techniques ineffective, and dismantle him with heavy blows because he ran out of actions to make an active response.
Also, the jab you refer to is only a qualifier; there is no jab technique per se, but there is a quick strike technique, and it falls under the striking strategy.

2. You likely won't be able to win with safe strategies alone.  Jabbing your opponent repeatedly won't do it because your opponent's Effect Reduction, based off of his strength, is likely to reduce the effect to a superficial status, such as the "stun" effect, or may negate the effect entirely.  In terms of defense, easy techniques do not put you in an ideal position to take the offensive.  If you evade, you move outside of range, which means you have to carefully close the distance all over again.  If you dodge, you get a counterattack bonus because you are already in the position to counter and you have the advantage of timing while your opponent recovers from his attack.

3.  I've hinted that combat time plays a very prominent role in your strategy.  If you play it safe all the time and don't use enough combat actions when the situation warrants, then you won't be able to progressively degrade your opponent's defenses and fighting capacity in a death spiral.  Likewise, if you use too many combat actions or run out of them by other means, and you didn't manage to take your immediate opponent out of the fight, then you are in trouble for the remainder of the round because you cannot make an active response, and all attacks made against you will be checked against your Passive Defense score.

4. I've also hinted at the extreme importance of minding your range.  Each range increment in close-quarters combat prefers a different method of fighting because of its influence.  For example, if I'm fighting you in the pocket, I do less damage because attacks need space to be powerful, therefore I can either utilize heavy power strikes to soften you up, or I can grapple with you instead. 
On the other hand, If I am outside of striking range, and I try to charge in, then I am going to telegraph myself to my opponent and he will have a wonderful opportunity to interrupt me with a sharp blow.  Therefore, I need to close the range by 1) distracting him 2) using my "concentration" or  an extra combat action to time his rhythm, which will improve my success rate with the d4 randomizer 3) using the "combat step" to move in without fear of retribution, assuming he wants to fight close and doesn't back up 4) waiting for the opponent to make the first move instead.

Now, as far as the knowledge-based skills go, I haven't fleshed them out much in terms of mechanics because I believe it's important to take a gamist approach only to gamist elements; why should I impose a machine-like structure to aspects of role-playing that many players prefer to freeform?  I don't want to make a game that says, "this is how you should play", but a game that says, "this is the world, have fun".  Granted, I'm not insinuating that you're suggesting that gamist is the only appropriate method to go - I'm merely revealing my rationale.  The reason why the combat is so gamist in nature is because Nevercast is a simulation; it gives you the opportunity to utilize strategies and tactics that work in real life.

At the top of my head, there is only 1 skill that players typically freeform that I added a small amount of structure to, and that's because I've seen a growing consensus that it would be fun.  I'm talking about social exchanges in this case, and the Nevercast system allows you the opportunity to skillfully control the flow of an exchange, without stonewalling by the GM.  Please read on:

"This is decidedly a hairy topic for me to delve in. In role-playing games, I've noticed that social interaction is typically free form. Naturally, a player may assume that introducing mechanics to interaction is essentially non-interactive. I don't want to railroad, however. I want to offer new and exciting avenues of approaching a staple of role-playing.
Sometimes, in a session, players will go in circles trying to gain the upper hand in social interaction or attempting to derive information. In one session, I observed players interrogating a crooked merchant for HOURS. Sure, the role-playing was good, but it was fucking boring, and two of the action-type players were effectively removed from the session.
In Dungeons and Dragons, balance of interaction between the DM and the players is offered via the charisma attribute and the related skills bluff, intimidate, and diplomacy. Without it, no matter how persuasive or clever a player character is, a DM can be as inflexible with his NPCs' responses as he wants. Thus, railroading and circular interaction. However, I feel that these mechanics are...well, mechanical, because a character with many points in these skills may circumvent engaging interaction (Gamist design attributes superimposed over a Narrativist aspect), and serve to undermine the required depth of social interaction. This is why I believe players choose not to invoke these mechanics.
I offer mechanics not to force results from NPCs, but rather to give insights to the player as to how he may skillfully navigate social situations. My proposed method is to combine the effects-based techniques system with the personality and philosophical profiles presented in my previous post.  ((inquire for further elaboration))
For example, a PC wants to coerce an NPC into doing something. So, he uses a technique to discern the NPC's philosophical profile. The GM compares the player's Insight attribute to the NPC's ability to hide his true thoughts and feelings (Charisma). The player passes with flying colors, and the GM reveals to the player that the NPC has an extremely strong bias towards Principles, and since he passed with such a degree of success, the GM will tell the player what those principles are. A resourceful player may then use this information somehow to persuade the NPC that non-compliance will violate his principles. In this instance, GM inflexibility will be noticed, and thus deterred. Another way it could be used is to discern the NPC's profile, and then pretend to act in a similar manner. Because of common ground, the NPC will be more inclined to like or trust you, in which your Charisma adjusts the magnitude.
As a byproduct of this system, I think that these dynamics will bring out vivid, complex NPC personalities and provide for a very organic experience of social interaction."

This all makes a lot of sense to me.

Have you playtested?

-Vincent

And now, to demonstrate tactics from a group perspective:

"In one of my favorite movie firefights - in Tears of the Sun - Bruce Willis and his small team of Navy Seals are caught under heavy fire by an overwhelming opposition. They survive (well, some of them, anyway), by tactfully holding the line and then retreating. Watching this scene made me think of a combat skill that allows you to coordinate your group in battle, called "Battle Tactics".
Since combat time is based on action/reaction, a leader or other combat unit can call out a command or request (e.g. "cover me") and the recipient(s) of the command will be able to react to it, rather than have to wait until their normal turn. Naturally, the team will have to be trained in battle tactics, otherwise they will not be able to coordinate; an unskilled combatant might think, "What? What does he want me to do?".
Commands vary in complexity, especially commands that require the coordination of several units at once, such as formations. When used properly, this skill will give soldier-type characters the edge in combat.
Example: Kanu Gon and Lo Din are behind cover and under heavy fire. When Kanu Gon yells, "Cover me!", Lo Din lays down suppressive fire, which forces their opponents behind cover, while Kanu Gon simultaneously runs toward a more advantageous position. When an opponent gets out of cover to fire back, Kanu Gon already has him in his aim and takes him out with a 3-round burst.
(Notes)
To elaborate on the mechanical side, yelling out a command will allow recipients of the command to react on your turn, or at the beginning of the next round.
Naturally, concerted actions will give you a significantly greater advantage than the sum of its parts. A gladiator might be able to block arrows being shot at him one at a time, but he is much more likely to get hit if all those arrows were fired simultaneously."

Quote from: lumpley on January 19, 2010, 12:46:41 PM
This all makes a lot of sense to me.

Have you playtested?

-Vincent

No, I have not playtested yet, unless if simulations run in my own head count!  Designing the game's architecture has demanded an overwhelming amount of effort and time spent on research and brainstorming, and of course screwing around with dice theories and probabilities to come to the conclusion that semi-diceless with an exploding d4 was the best method for what I wanted to accomplish (the exploding d4 is magical).  The reason why I'm confident the system will work is because the rules are consistent - they all fit together like puzzle pieces - and because the nature of the system is based on small numbers and qualifiers instead of quantifiers, therefore bookkeeping is kept to a minimum.  My design philosophy is to achieve the maximum amount of complexity and flexibility, appropriate to the setting, with as little entities possible.
So, anyway, for right now I'm posting my ideas here because it's imperative that I practice explaining my system as well as recieve critical feedback in order to objectively evaluate the validity of my engine, as well as the clarity of the language I use to describe it.

Very interesting.  This all covers areas that I neglected in MAYA not because I wanted to, but because I simply didn't know how to incorporate.  You explained it well too.

I'll start with combat stuff first:

Quote from: Ar Kayon on January 19, 2010, 12:10:08 PM
Jabbing your opponent repeatedly won't do it because your opponent's Effect Reduction, based off of his strength, is likely to reduce the effect to a superficial status, such as the "stun" effect, or may negate the effect entirely.

I think I see, so does effect reduction behave as a static reduction of effect? And if so, are the various types of defences balanced against each other, so that although someone might have total effect reduction to force or injury, they will not have the same level of defence to fear? That sounds like it would encourage cagey information-gathering tactics at first, until their weaknesses have been discovered, and then focusing on attacks that influence those. How would you deal with the old meta-game information problem? IE where players skip the first step by finding out the weakness of enemies from the books themselves. The solutions I have seen have been players intentionally sabotaging their tactical knowledge appropriate to their character's experience, slight randomisation or customisation of enemy stats in order to make previous knowledge no advantage, or systems that allow people to claim character experience of things they know about in order to smooth suspension of disbelief.

Quote from: Ar Kayon on January 19, 2010, 12:10:08 PM
If you dodge, you get a counterattack bonus because you are already in the position to counter and you have the advantage of timing while your opponent recovers from his attack.

This reminds me of a more fuzzy version of beat-em-up combos, and the chains of attacks in games like soul calibur. It sounds like you could produce some extra complexity by subverting basic chains with resistances, blocking off common successor attacks so people have to shift tactics around a bit. Considering the beat-em-up analogy, have you considered making special "linking moves" or similar that provide different sets of bonuses, and allow someone to create character specific move loops?

Quote from: Ar Kayon on January 19, 2010, 12:10:08 PM
On the other hand, If I am outside of striking range, and I try to charge in, then I am going to telegraph myself to my opponent and he will have a wonderful opportunity to interrupt me with a sharp blow.  Therefore, I need to close the range by 1) distracting him 2) using my "concentration" or  an extra combat action to time his rhythm, which will improve my success rate with the d4 randomizer 3) using the "combat step" to move in without fear of retribution, assuming he wants to fight close and doesn't back up 4) waiting for the opponent to make the first move instead.

What about the old bjj standby? Pushing someone into a wall? I bring this up because it's really easy to envisage conflicts as occurring between two people against a blank background, or even a few people against the same background. Now that may be what you want; if conflict is to be an expression of character first and foremost, but the difference is like the difference between fight scenes in the Bourne films and the corridor scene in old boy. Both have similarities, both cinematically effective, very different dynamics.

On differing ranges, that should make things interesting, but how much does the level of skill vary between ranges? Also how much player learning is required to move from one to another, or are they all on the same basis? (Which I think seems to be roll to hit, effect vs effect reduction)

That tradeoff has been coming up repeatedly in the design of my own game; if I make different kinds of conflict follow the same lines, they will be less distinct, both from the perspective of character differentiation and in-play tactical choices, but on the other hand I don't want to increase player difficulty. I'd rather have anyone be capable of going into a really cramped brawl, without their players becoming confused, but if the specialists could pull out something appropriately special in that situation. In another game I might be quite happy for a player to actually have less information on their sheet about wrestling if their character has no proficiency at it, with minigames opening up for those who do.

Could you give me an example of interruption by faster attacks?

On the tactics side of things, I can see how such a system would simulate that situation well, but I can also imagine an extreme "build" of a team, where most of the team emphasise tactics, and only a few focus on skill, in shooting for example. This would hilariously give the gun guy huge multiples of actions as everyone chucks advice at him from every side. Ways to avoid this being optimum? I'd carefully adjust the advantages of simultaneous action so that it is still better to have a team doing stuff than a single man doing everything. You could also institute diminishing returns on giving people extra actions, but I think that's a less fun alternative.


Also I'd like to hear why the exploding d4 is so magic, I've run some thought experiments myself, but all I can spot about it is that it provides a sort of tiered approximation to an inverse relationship between probability and degree of bonus, so I'd like to hear what's good about it for your purposes.

On social interactions, I agree with the principle, if you can't see a reason for a rule don't put it in, just make it clear who is meant to decide that stuff. On the other hand there are restrictions you can make of a player that are very valuable, because of how they express your setting, and encourage creativity.

On your specific implementation, it sounds similar to what we've been discussing here (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=29201.0), the characterisation of charisma as a shield to people understanding you is logical given your system and an interesting view, it reminds me of the definition I've heard of "polish".

"I think I see, so does effect reduction behave as a static reduction of effect? And if so, are the various types of defences balanced against each other, so that although someone might have total effect reduction to force or injury, they will not have the same level of defence to fear? That sounds like it would encourage cagey information-gathering tactics at first, until their weaknesses have been discovered, and then focusing on attacks that influence those. "
- You have various forms of effect reduction (cutting, blunt force trauma, penetrating, etc.), which generally won't take much investigation to figure out: if he's wearing a bullet proof vest, you can easily assume what attacks will penetrate and what won't: a 9 mm handgun won't, but a .556 assault rifle will, and a knife could get through as well.  This is assuming the Nevercast setting, of course; if I did a fantasy setting then yes, there would probably be information gathering on various beasts.
Much of the information gathering, especially in close-quarters combat, is determining your opponent's abilities based upon how he responds to your actions.  The GM will not tell you what your opponent's attributes are, nor will he reveal the gradient of success or tell-tale qualifiers: instead of saying, "your opponent passed his attack by 2, which means you suffer the hurt effect (sounds stupid anyway)", the GM may say "you get struck hard in the face as your vision spins and goes blurry".  This point will be highlighted in the game mastering section of the manual.


"How would you deal with the old meta-game information problem? IE where players skip the first step by finding out the weakness of enemies from the books themselves."
- In Nevercast, your opponents are humans; they have no peculiar strengths or weaknesses against certain attacks, unless if their armor provides it.  Therefore, I don't see this concern affecting gameplay.


"This reminds me of a more fuzzy version of beat-em-up combos, and the chains of attacks in games like soul calibur. It sounds like you could produce some extra complexity by subverting basic chains with resistances, blocking off common successor attacks so people have to shift tactics around a bit. Considering the beat-em-up analogy, have you considered making special "linking moves" or similar that provide different sets of bonuses, and allow someone to create character specific move loops?"
- Fighting strategies are based upon reality.  For example, as a boxer, I have first hand experience of why dodging is so hard to pull off, yet advantageous should you succeed.  I have no desire to base the combat system on a fighting game, that is a simulation of a simulation.  Besides, the tactical freedom already exists to create a myriad of strategies and counter strategies, which prevents munchkins from exploiting the "best strategy".


"What about the old bjj standby? Pushing someone into a wall?"
- You certainly can.  Grappling rules use the same core mechanics as striking rules, and takes your environment into consideration (being up against a wall creates the "cramped" effect, and makes it easier for an opponent to pin you), therefore you should have no difficulty transitioning from striking to grappling.  However, if you want to push someone into a wall or execute many other grappling strategies, you need to be close.  If I am outside range, I'm going to telegraph myself rushing in.  Even BJJ exponents feint before going for the shoot.


"On differing ranges, that should make things interesting, but how much does the level of skill vary between ranges? Also how much player learning is required to move from one to another, or are they all on the same basis? (Which I think seems to be roll to hit, effect vs effect reduction)"
- You don't roll to hit; success is based upon attribute comparison, modified by whatever technique you are using (e.g. takedown = agility-2 vs. opponent's resist = strength).  You only roll when you use effort or spend combat actions to time your technique.  I decided to utilize diceless core mechanics because they preserve the integrity of strategy.  Although I acknowledge the existence of fortune in Nevercast - especially in regards to things that must be modeled with chaotic elements - I certainly don't want it dictating play and undermining intelligent choices.
Your range dictates which general strategies are ideal.  For example, if I'm really close, a grappler is going to have the advantage, or a strong guy is going to have the advantage over a fast guy.  So, it's less dependent upon how skilled your character is, and more dependant upon what kinds of skills he has, and how you utilize them to your advantage.  Thus, with intelligence on the player's part, exploiting the opponent's mistakes, you can beat the man greater in prowess and skill.  Other systems rely much more heavily on raw ability.


"Could you give me an example of interruption by faster attacks?"
- Chuck Norris attacks Bruce Lee with a spinning roundhouse kick.  Bruce Lee responds with a short front kick.  Since strikes are based on your speed attribute, compare speed vs. speed (Bruce has the advantage because a quick attack has a higher speed than a power attack).  The highest speed strikes first, but that doesn't guarantee a hit.  Since your opponent cannot actively defend while attacking, the strike is compared against his Passive Defense score.  So, only if Bruce is able to stun or hurt Chuck will the attack actually interrupt his blow, otherwise Chuck, the slower opponent, will compare his speed against Bruce's Passive Defense score.  So, what happens if the attribute comparison is equal?  Then the opponents strike at the same time, and there's a possibility of them hitting each other - hell there's even a possibility of them knocking each other out!
You can also try to beat your opponent to the draw in a firefight.


"On the tactics side of things, I can see how such a system would simulate that situation well, but I can also imagine an extreme "build" of a team, where most of the team emphasise tactics, and only a few focus on skill, in shooting for example. This would hilariously give the gun guy huge multiples of actions as everyone chucks advice at him from every side."
Hahaha!  Sounds like when I'm driving with a bunch of women in the backseat!  You misunderstand: you don't get extra actions for responding to a command.  You have 3 actions to use for the entire round, so if you run out and you want to respond, you have to wait until the next round.  Some commands may require you to wait until the beginning of the next round in order to execute it, but I am still working the mechanics out for it.


"Also I'd like to hear why the exploding d4 is so magic, I've run some thought experiments myself, but all I can spot about it is that it provides a sort of tiered approximation to an inverse relationship between probability and degree of bonus, so I'd like to hear what's good about it for your purposes."
- I spent about a long time trying to translate that sentence!
I like the d4 for several reasons: the fortune element is small and doesn't outweigh the static elements (diceless attribute comparison), but when it explodes, it offers me the potential to score a long-shot: 1 in 4 on a single roll, 1 in 16 on a double, 1 in 64 on a quadruple and so on.  I really like the balance and modularity the d4 gives me. 
It also explodes in the reverse to model critical failures.  When you're firing a gun, for instance, natural ones can represent the gun jamming or even failing, depending upon how many you roll in a row.  Therefore, I don't have to roll along a separate critical failure table. 

Nevercast Professions (Please inquire for further elaboration)

1. Wanderer

2. Hunter
-Technology Hunter
-Information Hunter

3. Master
-Master of Martial Arts
-Master of Internal Arts
-Master of the Sciences

4. Special Operations
-Soldier
-Mercenary

5. Operative
-Intelligence Operative
-Assassin
-Freelance/Rogue Operative

6. Emissary

7. Smuggler
-Arms Dealer
-Technology Dealer

8. Mastermind
-Securities Mastermind
-Systems Mastermind

Quote from: Ar Kayon on January 27, 2010, 01:42:58 PM
I like the d4 for several reasons: the fortune element is small and doesn't outweigh the static elements (diceless attribute comparison), but when it explodes, it offers me the potential to score a long-shot: 1 in 4 on a single roll, 1 in 16 on a double, 1 in 64 on a quadruple and so on.  I really like the balance and modularity the d4 gives me. 

Yeah, that's what I was talking about; the more bonus you get, the more unlikely it is. You can accentuate that process though, by rolling a single dice and going odds or evens, with evens corresponding to a single success, and odds to a single failure. In that version you would line up d6s as you rolled them, either as positives or negatives, stopping when you stop your run of failures or successes (you could do the same with coins too, heads vs tails). This is the most pure system I can think of that represents that above idea. I referred to the d4 system as a tiered approximation because if you draw the probability graph there are steps of constant probability corresponding to 1->3 on a particular dice (corresponding to the numbers 0->2), and then the next tier down for numbers 1->3 on the next dice (corresponding to numbers 3->5), if you use something like the runs idea, then you still get the same 1 in 4, 1 in 16, but the intervening results scale more smoothly, as 1 in 8. Now naturally this difference in scaling will change things: (the table ignores critical failures)

value	old probability	new probability
0	1/4	1/2
1	1/4	1/4
2	1/4	1/8
3	1/16	1/16
4	1/16	1/32
5	1/16	1/64
6	1/64	1/128
7	1/64	1/256

ie although it is a purer representation of that idea, it gives a slightly lower variance on results, but more importantly, half the average bonus. You can doctor this by adding 1 automatically to the roll, but that obviously has it's own effects!

Quote from: Ar Kayon on January 27, 2010, 01:42:58 PM
The GM will not tell you what your opponent's attributes are, nor will he reveal the gradient of success or tell-tale qualifiers: instead of saying, "your opponent passed his attack by 2, which means you suffer the hurt effect (sounds stupid anyway)", the GM may say "you get struck hard in the face as your vision spins and goes blurry".  This point will be highlighted in the game mastering section of the manual.

Interesting, so as much as possible, game terms are to be transferred into description? Presumably that's a big part of why you have effects rather than a wound system or hp, although in order for players to make decisions they'll still need to know how it effects their stats/ability to do actions. This naturally has an impact when it comes to doing calculations and recording effects; presumably you'll want the GM to do all calculations? But then the impression I get is that is just comparing values, subtracting the lower and reading off lookup tables for the effect right? Subject to prevention characteristics that the characters have. Straightforward, providing you create a set of really clear and easily differentiated tables.

Where it does get interesting is the split between what players will presumably have in front of them; a record of effects on their character either in their own terms or in official game terms, possible actions and stats/skills/equipment that relate to them. What the GM needs to have in front of him; stats/equipment that character has relating to effect reduction, but also all the effects their equipment/stats/skills are capable of.

The GM will also then be required to narrate all the results of everyone's actions, because the players won't have access to the information to do the narration themselves, because they don't know their degree of success.

It's an interesting split, players would be able to engage only with descriptions of intent, or with the description of their own actions divorced from others, mentioning only how they fire or move to punch, not the effect on the other character, and nor would the player effected be able to narrate the effect on their character. This means that one kind of narration division, a very traditional one, is built into the game from the start.

One friend of mine would be very fond of this, because he likes as much of that as possible to be behind a fog of ignorance, and base his decisions on imaginary inference. Another friend of mine would very much dislike this, because those systems that allow you to narrate your own character's failure allow him a bit of face-saving this does not provide. On the other hand, part of why he wants to do face-saving is because of the danger of random chance to make his supposed super-spy look like an idiot, so he might feel more secure with a system that means the only threat to success is a greater-skilled opponent. A third would immediately start to try to reconstruct the rules system from the descriptions given!

It also has some slightly dull results, of duplication and syncing of the two equipment records/announcing equipment changes, etc, which can be mostly covered by quick questions back and forth or by particularly mentioning the equipment used either in the player's narration or from GM's who listens out for corrections. Or just by frequent sheet passing.


You've said about terrain types, and their effects. How do you envisage the distances between different parts of the terrain factoring into the abstract range system you've got going on? At the moment I can easily envisage two people in a pretty sparse environment, as I mentioned before, with the distance between them being the priority. What about when obstacles start getting added to the environment? And how will you represent that in play? Grid/hex maps? Networks with different locations as nodes? Sketches and mental pictures with some looseness as to exact distance, and looseness in movement to match?

Quote from: Ar Kayon on January 27, 2010, 01:42:58 PM
You can also try to beat your opponent to the draw in a firefight.

I see, but what contests are not down to speed? It seems that many of the actions your characters will be getting into; shooting vs shooting vs dodging vs strikes depend first and foremost on speed. There is a certain realism in that naturally, speed vs accuracy being the basic tradeoff in marksmanship, but at the moment I can only see a single variable being used. Do you distinguish fast shot/aimed shot or fast strike/precise strike?

Response 1: On Dice
-  I will admit that the d6 method your propose is a smoother scale, however I can imagine it would slow down play more so than the d4.  When I work out mechanics for Nevercast, I usually weigh granularity against calculation speed.  If the slowdown is greater than the benefit offered by the increased granularity, then I choose not to implement the rule.  You said so yourself that the d6 method presents a decrease of granularity, so I cannot sacrifice that along with calculation speed for the sake of a smoother scale.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a stickler for dice purity, and I will store this idea for contemplation when I'm working on my other projects.


Response 2: On Player Ignorance
- To really suck players into my pocket universe, I don't want to give them more information and feedback than they would get in real life.  When I hit my opponent in a sparring match, I generally have little idea on how my strikes affect him; it may feel like I struck him hard, but he could have a very high threshold for injury.  So, what I want to portray to the players in the heat of combat is only what is apparent.

Now, it's not a rule that the GM play exactly like this - I choose not to interfere with style - however, it is a guideline that will be presented in the Game Mastering section of the manual.  On a side note, guidelines on altering the rules will also be covered in the Game Mastering section, and it will advise against altering specific rules (especially the finely-tuned numbers, which could unbalance play) and propose altering general rules instead, such as the choice to remove dice completely.

Lastly, I don't care who doesn't like these rules, as long as my target audience loves them.  Who are part of my target audience?  People who love crunchy and gritty games.  Although Nevercast certainly doesn't inhibit narration what with its vividly-realized, complex and charged setting - along with what you stated, that how the system controls fortune provides security to narration - it is not aimed at those who prefer the rules-lite, role-playing/narration style of gaming.

"It's an interesting split, players would be able to engage only with descriptions of intent, or with the description of their own actions divorced from others, mentioning only how they fire or move to punch, not the effect on the other character, and nor would the player effected be able to narrate the effect on their character. This means that one kind of narration division, a very traditional one, is built into the game from the start."
- This is exactly the intent, and I'm glad it's apparent.


Response 3: On Terrain and Range
- Distance increments are very concrete in Nevercast and utilize a grid map.
Example:

"Fighting Ranges
There are 5 available fighting ranges in close-quarters combat: very long, long, outside,  inside, and cramped.  Each range type is ideally suited to particular expressions of close-quarters combat, and ill-suited to others.  (See table x for applicable bonuses and penalties to various attack types.)

Range 4: Very Long Range
The very long range is 4 range increments away from a determined opponent.  Fighting from this range is only available if  a combatant is using a long range weapon and has acquired the "Long-Range Strike" ability.

Range 3: Long Range
The long range is 3 range increments away from a determined opponent.  Fighting from this range is only available if a combatant is using a long range weapon, or is using an outside range weapon and has acquired the "Long-Range Strike" ability.

Range 2: Outside Range
The outside range is 2 range increments away from a determined opponent.  Fighting from this range is only available if a combatant has acquired the "Long-Range Strike" ability, or if the combatant is using a weapon that normally allows attacks within this range.  You may only utilize striking or weapon attacks from the outside range.  This range is best suited for melee weapon strikes.

Range 1: Inside Range
The inside range is 1 range increment away from a determined opponent.  You may utilize all forms of close-quarters attacks within this range.  The inside range is best suited for unarmed strikes and small melee weapon strikes.

Range 1: Cramped Range
The cramped range is 1 range increment away from a determined opponent.  Opponents who are fighting in the cramped range are very close to each other, often in contact.  The cramped range is best suited for grappling techniques.  Despite being at 1 range increment away, a combatant can only use a combat step to move to the cramped range from the inside range, and not from the outside range."


Response 4: On Speed
- Speed governs strikes and interruptions, along with how much maximum distance you can cover in a single movement.  Grabs, locks, and warding off (including parries, weapon disarming and many reversals) are based upon dexterity.  Feints, combat sequence, blocks, slips, taking cover from gunfire or dashing out of the way is based upon reflex.  A great deal of grappling is based upon agility, along with dodging, evasion and complex movements.  Strength allows you to brute-force grappling, taxing your stamina effort pool.  It also allows you to take hits better, and along with speed, determines your Power attribute.  Focus and Awareness make up your Concentration effort pool, which is extremely important for combat characters and especially the Master of Martial Arts profession.  I've spent a great deal of time balancing out attributes, and  right now I see no preference that a player can exploit; it all depends upon your style. 

Shooting a gun is based upon your Focus attribute (as Focus models depth perception as well as your ability to concentrate on a single thing with intensity).  However, when it comes to two people shooting each other at the same time, speed comes into play. 

As far as precision is concerned, that is modeled by either using your Concentration effort pool or using extra combat actions.  Naturally, if you're using extra combat actions to aim at your opponent, the guy who responds is going to shoot first and the shot will be compared against your passive defense score.  So if you want to aim, do it behind cover! 

On a side note, a gunman can assume a profiled position when firing single-handedly in order to improve his passive defense score.

QuoteInteresting, so as much as possible, game terms are to be transferred into description? Presumably that's a big part of why you have effects rather than a wound system or hp, although in order for players to make decisions they'll still need to know how it effects their stats/ability to do actions. This naturally has an impact when it comes to doing calculations and recording effects; presumably you'll want the GM to do all calculations? But then the impression I get is that is just comparing values, subtracting the lower and reading off lookup tables for the effect right? Subject to prevention characteristics that the characters have. Straightforward, providing you create a set of really clear and easily differentiated tables.

You've nailed my intentions here.  It's good to know that I'm communicating clearly.

I firmly believe, for the purposes of my game, that a descriptive method will offer more exciting gameplay than a numerical method.  I also think it makes for more streamlined gameplay.  This is important because a game with such complexity needs to be as streamlined as possible.  My goal is to create an elegant system, not a clunky hodgepodge that includes everything but the kitchen sink. 

Players do not need to know in quantifiable terms how effects influence their actions.  All they need to know is that they're weaker from exerting so much physical effort, or that they're limping from being shot in the leg.  Obvious effects should be clear, however; the player should be informed that they are off-balance so he knows to spend a combat action to recover.  The GM is going to have to play around with how he presents information to the player, and I will be able to expound upon effective ways to do so in the Game Mastering section after a few playtesting sessions.

Quote from: Ar Kayon on January 31, 2010, 04:26:01 AM
On a side note, a gunman can assume a profiled position when firing single-handedly in order to improve his passive defense score.

And minimize the use of his vest, by the way.


On topic:

Do you have in mind any kind of upper limit for how much handling time the average combat will take? For example, if it takes 50 minutes to resolve a typical combat, is that okay?

The system of aggregating and aggravating conditions looks an awful lot like a death spiral. Does the first person to land a blow get a significant advantage?

Real fights are chaotic and unpredictable. Outside of controlled sparring, such as boxing matches, it is rare to really plan a strategy during a fight. People just sorta grab each other and throw wild punches. Most fights end up on the ground. Outdoors, you might be slammed down onto asphalt or a broken bottle. How does this reality match up with the "realism" of your game design?

QuoteDo you have in mind any kind of upper limit for how much handling time the average combat will take? For example, if it takes 50 minutes to resolve a typical combat, is that okay?

The system of aggregating and aggravating conditions looks an awful lot like a death spiral. Does the first person to land a blow get a significant advantage?

Real fights are chaotic and unpredictable. Outside of controlled sparring, such as boxing matches, it is rare to really plan a strategy during a fight. People just sorta grab each other and throw wild punches. Most fights end up on the ground. Outdoors, you might be slammed down onto asphalt or a broken bottle. How does this reality match up with the "realism" of your game design?

On Combat Length
- How long combat takes to resolve is not a concern of mine, especially if the players are engaged.  I believe that the system is intellectually rewarding, and that some players may even desire a long exchange as a result.  To put it into perspective, a lot of people love chess, but chess games can easily take up an hour or more.  In my opinion, it is the complexity and intellectual substance of the game that allows it to be playable for extended periods of time.

As of right now, I cannot comment on how long it actually takes to resolve combat on average, as there is the possibility for a 1-round resolution as well as a stalemate between the same parties involved.  Well played strategies on both sides could mean a lengthy bout, but a long exchange will never be inherent of the system in of itself.  For example, in Dungeons and Dragons, players and enemies may have large quantities of hit points, along with healing powers to keep the fight going (in 3.5 especially, rules bloat alone can cause lengthy encounters).  In contrast, there are no abstract health quantities here (skilled combatants are just as mortal as everyone else), and there are no instant health boosts or powers, such as potions/stimpacks/spells etc.  Also, my mechanics are designed to be easily referenced and memorized, and all numerical values are kept as small as possible in order to keep calculation times to a minimum.


On the death spiral
- It is possible to catch your opponent in a death spiral, however that usually happens if you play the fight well.  Just because you hit someone doesn't mean they're fucked.  Your opponent still has a chance to recover from the blow in time (combat time is a very important factor in combat, and doesn't just affect turn order).  Or if the effect of your attack is lasting, he may still alter his strategy to compensate.  For example, your opponent may tax his concentration effort pool to improve the chances of his defense.  The tactical freedom exists to stave your opponent long enough to recover.  In other games, your choices may be generalized (e.g. your defensive abilities and your armor is all lumped together into Armor Class) and subject to flat penalties, which makes it easier to be caught in a death spiral.


On realism
- NPCs in the Game Mastering section of the manual have a strategic profile, meaning, "this is what they typically do" in a given scenario.  Thus, depending upon the competency of the given NPC type, the GM will be encouraged to increase or decrease your opponent's command of strategy as is appropriate.  An experienced soldier is not going to spray and prey wildly on maximum kill mode, but fire short precise bursts, stay behind cover and coordinate with his team.  A master of martial arts (a playable profession) is not going to slug it out wildly, but cautiously tease out your responses and force a mistake.  A regular person is going to slug it out and/or take it to the ground, or just avoid the fight entirely.

As far as the player is concerned, the GM may decide to impose a time limit on how long you may take to determine your action, and then take away that action if you take too long, meaning that you hesitate.  This idea was adopted from another forge poster's ideas, who touted its success in execution, and it will be covered in the game mastering section.  Basically, all meta-game concerns will be assigned to the game mastering section.

Regarding realism, why does the responsibility for the realism of some things go to the GM while that of other things goes to the mechanics? I mean, I understand that you have to draw a line somewhere. Why have you drawn a line where you did?

Maybe the answer is as simple as, "I am just not interested in simulating certain things." That's fine. But you tout this as "a hyper-simulationist role-playing game," and I'm trying to understand what that means to you.

For example, in my mind, the inexperienced fighter takes the fight to the ground because he sorta has to.* It's instinct. Being on the ground minimizes the other guy's advantages, even if he's had some fighting experience (perhaps especially if he's had some typical martial arts experience). But also there's this psychological thing that happens in fights where most of your fucking training goes out the door and you're just fighting like a madman. Maybe some of your training is back there subconsciously helping a little. Why leave that to the GM?

You said, "Basically, all meta-game concerns will be assigned to the game mastering section."  Why do you call this a meta-gaming concern?

* Yes, for this example, I'm intentionally ignoring martial arts styles that "live" on the ground.

Quote from: Adam Dray on February 01, 2010, 02:59:22 PM
For example, in my mind, the inexperienced fighter takes the fight to the ground because he sorta has to.* It's instinct. Being on the ground minimizes the other guy's advantages, even if he's had some fighting experience (perhaps especially if he's had some typical martial arts experience). But also there's this psychological thing that happens in fights where most of your fucking training goes out the door and you're just fighting like a madman. Maybe some of your training is back there subconsciously helping a little. Why leave that to the GM?

You said, "Basically, all meta-game concerns will be assigned to the game mastering section."  Why do you call this a meta-gaming concern?

The psychological response is covered in the mechanics, and is not up to the GM's subjective interpretations.  Therefore, I do not consider it a meta-game concern.  If you fail your composure check, then you suffer penalties to fine motor skills and concentration.  If you fail your composure check by a moderate amount, then skilled maneuvers will not be available to you.  If you fail by the maximum amount, then you are frozen in fear.  The concentration effort pool may be used to eventually subdue those effects and get you back into fighting form.  This represents your ability to overcome to some degree the initial shock of the experience.

QuoteMaybe the answer is as simple as, "I am just not interested in simulating certain things." That's fine. But you tout this as "a hyper-simulationist role-playing game," and I'm trying to understand what that means to you.

It would be absurd for me to try and simulate style.  That is entirely up to the GM, and it is a meta-game concern.  I am not interested in pigeonholing style as long as the GM's methods aren't arbitrary and do not interfere with the internal logic of the game.   

Here is a list of some style topics I have so far:
1. Adjusting the difficulty via tactical/strategic change
2. Streamlining play by imposing time limits on choice
3. Creating meaningful party combinations for session/campaign construction
4. How to avoid revealing quantifiers and qualifiers; narration roles (I should emphasize that narration roles are concrete and do not change; it's not part of style, but is a reference point for style).
5. Encouraging the creative use of character skills during social interaction and preventing circular/boring exchanges; balancing out GM/player input.
6. Pacing the session and prodding the character's motivations without railroading.
7. Role-playing the character development process.

Hi Ar,

I dig your goals, ideas, and many of your techniques.  Here's a scattershot response to various topics from this thread.  Feel free to use other threads (or whatever organizational technique you'd prefer) to address ones that don't fit into the discussion you've got rolling now.

"Realism"
I'm pondering the "simulation of realism" here. 
- There seems to be a high priority on sensible outcomes. 
- There seems to be a low priority on simulating in-game time (a fight that takes a character 2 minutes may take a player 30 minutes). 
- There seems to be a high priority on simulating characters' imperfect information (describe damage taken only in ways understood by the character), except when there isn't (a successful skill use conclusively reveals an NPC's philosophy, something the PC has no way of knowing in-game).  Combat is a huge departure from real-world information levels, for reasons Adam's already explained.
- The priority regarding experiential simulation in terms of emotion is unclear; this is something that sensible outcomes and character-POV info will help, and high mechanics handling time (if present; I'm not assuming!) will hurt. 
- There is no priority regarding sensation -- we're playing table-top, not LARPing.

Is this an accurate take?  If so, are you comfortable with all of it?

I know you're interested in honing your explanation of the game.  Thinking about it in this manner might help.  Different gamers focus on different elements of "realistic simulation".  Some prefer to observe it, some prefer to feel it, and others demand both.

Familiarity, reference
There's an interesting disjunct between the familiarity given by realistic resolution and the complete unfamiliarity of playing some badass in a partly alien setting.  As a player, I'd be wondering, "What's my frame of reference here?"  What sorts of stories are supposed to come out of this game?  Is there a genre, movie, or book I ought to know?  Do I need to read tons of setting info to know what my character would know, thus informing his decisions?

Play activity
Is this a cooperative game?  If so, what brings the player characters together, keeps them together, and rewards them together?

Combat
The details of the combat system tell me little about the core of what I'd be looking to experience if I played Nevercast.  For players who've never been in a fist-, sword- or gun-fight, "realism" gets pretty abstract.  If I was playing a character who thought the way real people do, I'd probably try to avoid violence anyway.

First, I need to highlight some of your points that require clarification in order for me to address properly.

For example, you said,

QuoteThere seems to be a high priority on simulating characters' imperfect information

But you follow up with,

QuoteCombat is a huge departure from real-world information levels, for reasons Adam's already explained.

1. How do you believe combat is a huge departure from real-world information levels?
2. And which of Adam's points are you referring to?

Quote- The priority regarding experiential simulation in terms of emotion is unclear; this is something that sensible outcomes and character-POV info will help, and high mechanics handling time (if present; I'm not assuming!) will hurt.
- There is no priority regarding sensation -- we're playing table-top, not LARPing.

I'm going to need a plain speak translation of these two points as I don't understand them.


On realism
- The things I chose not to model were a deliberate choice.  This is because I simply cannot expect my players to calculate so many factors without imposing upon the play experience negatively.  For example, you don't have to make an agility check every time you take a step in your house to make sure you didn't trip over something.

The same goes for translating real world time to game time.  Naturally, combat takes longer for players to resolve in real time.  You're describing your actions and the GM is describing the results; you're not actually performing these actions.  Therefore, in a turn-based, descriptive format, it only made sense for me to accurately model the sequence of events unfolding in real time.

Quotea successful skill use conclusively reveals an NPC's philosophy, something the PC has no way of knowing in-game

-Those mechanics are still in their infancy.  The idea is you have generalized philosophical and personality profiles, which can be ascertained by paying close attention to various nuances in the NPC's speech and behavior.  So what I didn't intend to imply was that you knew he was against abortion by how he scratches his beard!  You make a good point though, and I will use it to refine my goals toward these mechanics.

QuoteFamiliarity, reference
There's an interesting disjunct between the familiarity given by realistic resolution and the complete unfamiliarity of playing some badass in a partly alien setting. As a player, I'd be wondering, "What's my frame of reference here?" What sorts of stories are supposed to come out of this game? Is there a genre, movie, or book I ought to know? Do I need to read tons of setting info to know what my character would know, thus informing his decisions?

- I'm not sure I can adequately answer these questions.  As far as the motif is concerned, please refer to the setting discussion on the various elements (iron element, heaven, etc.).  What I intend to do is provide the GM with all of the appropriate tools to flesh out his own stories and interpretations without imposing restrictions on style.

In relation to the players, I don't expect them to read a huge amount of setting info.  To offer some perspective, I live in America, but I don't know a damn thing about at least 35 of its states or its various subcultures.  So, why should I expect the player to know what a positronium gamma ray laser or the Cult of the Star is in order to be properly immersed in the setting?  What the player should know is the area they come from as well as their ethnic and racial backgrounds, and maybe a passing knowledge on the politics (e.g. who hates who?).  However, a player may need to know more based on their profession, especially the Emissary, who's expected to have a sound grasp on politics as well as various languages and cultures.

QuoteIs this a cooperative game? If so, what brings the player characters together, keeps them together, and rewards them together?

- The game is cooperative by necessity; they aren't just all tossed into a tavern and expected to coalesce into a party.  Why is it by necessity?  Because there are a lot of things any single character or profession cannot do alone in order to achieve their goals.  The securities mastermind needs muscle.  The master of martial arts needs a contractor and leads.  The info/tech hunter may need the aforementioned professions to safely secure his objects of pursuit.  And the elite foreign operations soldier needs a combat unit as well as local intelligence. 

In many instances, the leader of the party is the guy who hired the other characters (not necessarily with his own money), which keeps everyone together by contract.  In other cases, group members may come together as a motivation towards the same goal, in which the person who planned the endeavor could reach out to them via contacts and networks; they don't have to arbitrarily be present in the same location in order for them to band together.

QuoteThe details of the combat system tell me little about the core of what I'd be looking to experience if I played Nevercast. For players who've never been in a fist-, sword- or gun-fight, "realism" gets pretty abstract. If I was playing a character who thought the way real people do, I'd probably try to avoid violence anyway.

- I would like to flatly point out that Nevercast is not about combat.  It's not really about anything in specific.  It's not even about realism; that's just a tool I use to present the world in concretely defined manner so that the players fall into the illusion that the game world exists independently of them.  My intention is to present the game in the manner of, "This is the world of Nevercast.  This is how it works.  Enjoy".

Secondly, I don't expect players to have an understanding of combat, which is why I plan on writing basic tutorials on complex skill usage ("It's generally a good idea to do this when..." ; "General Strategies:").  Also, I will be writing scripts for NPC types.

Furthermore, I also expect players to be inclined to avoid combat because it is gritty and extremely lethal in this system, which can only reinforce the game's intention of making the world and its characters believable.  Of course, some professions must get in harm's way as dictated by their skill set (they may not know how to make money any other way), so discretion will be required in order to play these character types for any extended length of time.

Professions in which combat is guaranteed: Master of Martial Arts; Special Operations; Operative (assassin)

Professions in which combat is likely to happen: Operative; Information/Technology Hunter; Wanderer

Professions in which combat is unlikely: Master of Internal Arts; Systems/Securities Mastermind; Smuggler

Professions in which combat is highly unlikely: Master of the Sciences; Emissary

Thanks for the responses.  I have a lot of follow-up questions, but first let me ask: is this useful to you?

I'm trying to figure out why I might want to play this game, and what sort of fun I could expect, and how the play group could come to an agreement on those two things. 

"No specific fictional influences referenced" and "PCs come together to derive mutual benefit from disparate abilities" might cause problems for me in those areas.

On realism:
You seem comfortable with what you've got in terms of outcomes and timing.  You seem to know what you want in terms of the match between (a) information apprehended by the character and (b) information given to the player, and I assume you'll get that finalized just fine.  So I don't have much to contribute here.  Just for the sake of comparison, though, here's an example "realistic" game: "GM describes a simple fictional area in extreme detail, then play begins.  Players stay in-character the whole time.  You can only speak (a) in-character or (b) to describe your character's actions.  The GM describes unfolding events at real-time speed, and their consequences as well.  If the players don't decide and act in the allowed time frame, their characters don't either.  All resolution is handled invisibly by the GMs brain."  So, y'know, there's different flavors of realism out there.  For your pitch, it might be worthwhile to specify which flavor Nevercast is.

Your example specifies realism via the meta-game agenda, or social contract.  To clarify, my intention is to specify realism via mechanical simulation, and encompasses the following:

1. Characters' personality and philosophical profiles, as well as their physical and mental makeup (e.g. no umbrella attributes)
2. Skill usage and character development
3. Physics
4. NPC behavior, and to some degree PC behavior (things that the player cannot directly control, such as how their character experiences fear)
5. Setting dynamics (politics, social theory, economics, science and technology, culture, etc.)
6. "Concreteness", to maintain internal logic and to minimize superfluous, subjective interpretations of events.

On Stealth (pending; rough draft mechanics)
The system takes 2 major factors heavily into consideration: line of sight and sound.  Thus, there are two checks made to determine success when sneaking: one for sight and another for sound.  If any of these checks fail, then you are noticed.  How much you are noticed is dependent upon the gradient of success by the target's awareness check.  For example, a minor success might convince the target that what he noticed was inconsequential.

1. Line of Sight (awareness vs. cover)
A direct line of sight is a base +10 modifier to the target's awareness, 0 modifier in the target's periphery.  If behind the target, then you do not need to make an attribute check for sight.
*Hard Cover
*Camouflage
*Lighting - if a light source extends your shadow, then the target's awareness is compared against the visibility of the shadow itself (a passive score determined by the GM).
*Distance
*Movement
*Number of Entities (such as in a crowd)
If the target is actively looking for you (to improve awareness attribute check), then he needs to stop and pay attention (analogous to using combat time).  If he's moving around, he has to use his concentration effort pool.  The randomizer is applied, as usual.

2. Sound (awareness vs. agility)
The type of movement you use to sneak determines the base modifier to your agility attribute: sprint (-6), run/dash (-4), standard movement (-2), combat step (0), still (automatic success). 
The amount of external sound in the area improves upon your base modifier.  Noise increments are as follows: extremely loud (+10; like a nightclub), very loud (+8), loud (+6), moderate (+4), minor (+2), and minimal (0).  Distance and insulation also provide a noise buffer.
If your equipment is making noise, you are on bad flooring, or you are breathing heavily from a failed composure check, you suffer penalties to your sound check.


Continued...
1. If the attacker is in plain view, is the target aware of his hostile intentions?  This requires the insight attribute, and you get a bonus to your check if you are actively using your concentration effort pool to read the potential assailant's signals (body language, tone of voice, etc.).  Failure means the attacker gets a surprise attack bonus vs. your reflex score.   If you fail the reflex check, the attack catches you unaware (your passive defense score is terrible when you are unaware; if your opponent is using a lethal weapon, it's practically a guaranteed kill.)
(Note: If you suffer a critical failure when reading someone's intent, they will notice your overt facial expressions).  Your opponent uses his charisma attribute to hide intent. 

2. If you notice your opponent, combat time is in play.  The standard rules for combat (pending) is that when it is initiated by someone else, you may not make turn actions in the first round if your reflex score is 5 or below (although you can make response actions).  You also lose 1 action, and for every reflex point below 5, you lose another, which means that if your score is 3 or below, you may not take response actions and any attacks made against you are compared against your passive defense.  Your opponent also receives applicable flank and back attack bonuses if he uses his first combat action to attack you from those positions.

(Note: Still tooling around with mechanics for when you are surprised during combat.)

This seems very thorough, so I'll throw in the few things I didn't see covered:

Lighting:
In addition to shadow-casting, there are issues of general visibility, backlighting, and luminescence.  If it's very dark out, I may be able to see you moving slowly at a great distance atop a bare hill, but not be able to see you 70 feet away from me at the hill's base (with hill instead of sky behind you).  Also, if you are brighter than your environment, I can see you based on the difference -- a torch at midnight stands out more than a candle at dusk.

Terrain:
In addition to ambient noise and type of movement, there's also type of terrain.  So, the noise you create is a product of both your speed and whether you're moving over twigs, pine needles, concrete, mud, etc.

Regarding surprise, how do you intend to handle the following situation?

I am walking along the road.  I am partly on the lookout for trouble, but partly distracted by reading a map.  You are hiding in the bushes, hoping to jump out and put your knife to my throat (after which you may kill me instantly if you wish).  The bushes are two long strides from my path along the road.

How hard is it for you to achieve your goal?  Imagine you are the PC and I'm an NPC.  Then, imagine you are the NPC and I'm the PC.

Sounds like a fun thought experiment.

Ok, first we'll assume that the traveler has 7 awareness and the highwayman has 5 agility.  With 7 awareness, the traveler is able to concentrate on two things simultaneously.  So we'll only penalize his concentration roll by 1.  His roll comes out to 7 awareness +3 - 1= 9 awareness for the contest.

Now, if he's traveling alone and following a map, I'm assuming it's the middle of the day, so light is not added to the attacker's cover score for the sight check, but the distance will give him +2 (1 for each stride).  I'll also give him +2 for being still and +5 for 50% sight cover from the bush.  So the total is 9.  The highwayman is not spotted.  As the traveler gets closer to one stride away, he thinks he spots something (+1 gradient of success = minor effect), so he *could* try a second look, except that the highwayman is leaping out of the bushes.

Since the attacker's intent is to leap out of the bushes and strike, combat time starts at that moment and the stealth contest is over.  For the first scenario, we'll assume the traveler is a merchant and the highwayman is the PC.  Since the traveler has 5 reflex, he:
1. May only take response actions during the first round.
2. Loses an action for the first round.
However, since he's not accustomed to violent acts, he's scared shitless from the attacker (composure: major fail = "frozen" effect); he can't act at all.
The highwayman successfully brings his knife up to the merchant's neck and demands payment in exchange for his life.

For the second scenario, the traveler is a PC swordsman and has >5 reflex. 
1. He may make turn actions during the first round.
2. He does not lose any actions.
The highwayman sees the sword and doesn't take any chances.  He's going for the kill.  Since he's using his first action to attack from the side with a concentration point added to the attack, his attribute for the attack is 6 speed + (1d4=3) + 2 (flank bonus) = 11.  When the PC sees the attack, he has no time to draw his sword to defend himself, so he leaps back from the assault: 7 reflex + 2 (evasion response) = 9.  The attack passes by a gradient of 2 ("profuse bleeding" effect), and makes a nasty gash in the swordsman's side.  He's in deep trouble now...

What are Internal Arts?
Internal Arts are part of the Philosophy skill discipline.  They are concerned predominantly with meditational and breathing practices.

How is this useful?
Aside from developing your Insight, Awareness, and Focus attributes, the Internal Arts can be an effective practice for maintaining a clear mind during tough in-game situations.  Any situation that affects your Composure or Concentration effort pool may be positively enhanced via Internal Arts.  Thus, an excellent student can use their Concentration more often and more intensely, and are less likely to be perturbed under psychological stress - obvious benefits for any combat character.  At higher levels, many benefits become ingrained; you may be psychologically unaffected by extreme intimidation or physical pain.

How does it work?
Aside from the passive abilities you develop, there are few techniques.  As of right now, there are only 2: meditation and breathing exercise.  Meditation takes time, but it may give you bonuses for a few hours after practice.  Breathing exercise can be used during combat time, and it helps you to recover your Stamina and Concentration effort pools more quickly.

So I'm working on developing the grappling combat right now.  It's quite chaotic right now, and I plan on refining and streamlining the ideas significantly.  The following are some features that will be available, and will seamlessly integrate with hand-to-hand combat:

Grip (dexterity) - Head (choke/eye gouge), grab arm/leg sets up for other grappling maneuvers, hands (fingers) for bone breaking

Locks and holds (dexterity or agility)- Full lock, half lock depending upon intent and/or success (full locks limit your own movements as well): arm lock/leg lock sets up dislocations and causes "pain" effect, leg hold sets up lift, wristlock(hands) for disarming and causing "pain" effect, head: headlock sets up chokehold, clinch increases striking power, prevents many defenses against striking (evasion, dodge, slip, cover-up) and sets up takedown, body hold (bear hug)

Takedowns (agility)- Shoot (long range), standard takedown (requires a successful grip, lock, lift or hold), trip, tackle (requires momentum)

Throws (agility)- grip throw (difficult), hold throw (easier), slam (from full lift; very easy or from choke), toss (from lift; requires immense power)

Lift (power vs. resist (strength) ) - from body hold (difficult), from leg hold (easier)


Positioning - effective ways to pin or submit a target is to control from the side or rear.  While standing, you can use the combat step movement (attack penalty) to bring a hold or lock to the side, or a dash movement (larger attack penalty) to bring a hold or lock behind the opponent.  The ground or a wall are also good places to pin.  Side control and rear control on the ground will also be available, but I haven't any mechanical concepts yet. 


Available defenses against grappling:
Ward off
Resist
Evade (while standing, reposition yourself and regain balance with a combat step)
Leg Guard


Reversals:
Evade-and-throw
Ward off-and-throw
Ward off-and-grip
Ward off-and-takedown
Evade-and-takedown (rear control)

Cool.  All sounds like stuff I'd like to potentially see in play.

I have a question: where do you intend to draw the line between reference vs ad-lib?  Like, if my character tries to put a minotaur in a choke hold, are you going to direct me to some charts and tables to calculate how that works, or are you going to say, "Talk it out with the GM and figure out what makes sense"?  Now what if I try to choke a were-fish?  When does the answer ("look it up" vs "figure it out") change?

Sorry for the crappy examples.  Also, I don't claim that you must think about this.  It's just something I'd be trying to define if I were in your shoes.

I'm trying my best to have a systemic answer - or at least an algorithm for GM determination - for any situation, while at the same time maintain a streamlined quality without special rules (i.e. consistency).  The core rules that exist now are the result of this design philosophy.  This helps the GM because he may not have the creativity or perspective to freeform his own rules effectively.  For the purposes of this game, I believe that because a great deal of responsibility is placed upon GM, the machinery ought to be autonomous and efficient so that he may focus on the story-telling aspects.

I should probably make a point that if rules for a specific situation aren't clear, then the GM has free reign to determine for himself as long as they don't contradict the core mechanics.  Every peripheral rule set in my system is based upon the logic of the core mechanics, so I'm certain the GM can figure something out without appearing arbitrary.

Gotcha.  Sounds similar to the goals of GURPS and some other "universal" systems, though yours may inject a bit more color (based on the examples in your first post).

When I design rules, GURPS is my cautionary tale.  It seems bloated and intimidating.  Just yesterday I was fiddling around with uber-realistic effects mechanics, where a body diagram tells you how you broke bones, cut muscle and tendons, blew off limbs, and damaged organs, and estimated about 200 or so ways to harm your opponent, all without the need to roll any dice!  The graphic potential makes me drool, but organizing the rules into a refined, easy-to-digest format is going to be a nightmare.

Yeah, search time (how long it takes during play to figure out how to proceed) is my main fear with such thorough systems.  Memorable visuals would go a long way (for me, anyway).  I think the body diagram idea is great!

On Critical Hits
So, I figured out a nice and simple method for scoring precision attacks on general body areas.  Your general body areas all have the same chance to hit in close quarters combat, but are somewhat different in ranged combat.  I'll get to that later, however.

Let's say you wanted to take your opponent out of the fight with a sharp kick to his kneecap.  You score your hit to the leg normally, but if you roll well on a 1d4 (25-50-75% depending on skill), you will compare the gradient of success to the vital area instead.  So, whereas a 3 effect might cause the "damaged" effect to the leg area, it will outright cripple the kneecap and cause immense, lasting pain.  Striking vital areas will most likely require concentration use in order to balance out the mechanics because precision attacks are quite difficult to pull off in the chaos of combat, and so that players don't get cheap and just start going to town on everyone's balls as an ultimate offensive strategy.

To be fair, going to town on everyone's eyeballs is a pretty good offensive strategy.

Upon contemplating recent forum conversations, I have decided to make some alterations.

Basic Rationale: I haven't been doing any streamlining lately; a required protocol of my design philosophy.

1. The charisma attribute will be removed.
Rationale: Charisma is an umbrella term.  Confidence, insight, and actual social skills are aspects of charisma, which are already modeled in the system: confidence = composure (a value based on individual skill disciplines); insight is already an attribute; there is already a skill discipline based on social interaction.

2. The power attribute will be removed.
Rationale: Power is awkward because it's a secondary attribute, but acts as a primary one.  However, with my updated method of determining effect for task resolution, power is naturally modeled by the interaction between speed and strength.

3. The endurance attribute may be removed.
Rationale: From my athletic experiences, I'm not convinced that endurance is an ability someone naturally has.  Sure, untrained skinny people can typically run and fight longer than untrained fat people, but that's because they're more fit.  Therefore, the stamina effort pool would be based upon physical fitness: strength, speed, and development in the physical skill disciplines.   

Previous:
1. Strength
2. Power
3. Speed
4. Endurance
5. Agility
6. Reflex
7. Dexterity
8. Insight
9. Logic
10. Awareness
11. Focus
12. Charisma

With alterations:
1. Strength
2. Speed
3. Agility
4. Reflex
5. Dexterity
6. Awareness
7. Focus
8. Insight
9. Logic

4. Updated task resolution for effects. 
Rationale: In the previous model, once you determined the gradient of success, you then subtracted the attack's power (based on your power and/or the weapon itself) from the applicable Effect Reduction type.  You then subtracted the sum from the base effect.  Upon reviewing the method and simulating damage scenarios in my head, I found two problems with this: 1) It's difficult to calculate in your head quickly because it's not a linear progression.  2) It doesn't take into account that a glancing blow from a 20 year old Mike Tyson is a glancing blow from a 20 year old Mike Tyson.  Or put more obviously: being struck by a speeding train will probably kill you no matter how it hits you.
The new progression will be linear.  The gradient of success automatically determines effect for resolutions not compared against resistances, as always.  However, for attacks, the effect = gradient + strength (of combatant and/or weapon) - applicable resistance.  This also has the added bonus of letting me consolidate effects lists for attacks while actually improving realism.

Another change I'm considering:

Firearms may utilize 2 task resolution methods.
Rationale: In consideration for the unique dynamics of the action/reaction system, there are two distinct tasks which need to be resolved: the speed in which you aim the firearm and the accuracy in which you fire.  In the current design, your opponent may always respond to a firearm attack as long as he's aware of his opponent.
Change: The initial task resolution would be speed vs. the target's reflex (penalty imposed).  If reflex passes, then the target may use a response action, otherwise the shooter compares focus vs. passive defense.

Thoughts?

That was a deeply profound insight.  I shall return to my lotus and meditate upon this.

Don't respond to idiotic posts, please. It makes my job harder.

For those who missed it, Ar Kayon was responding to a troll. You can see his/its post in the Inactive File if you want, when it becomes visible again like it's supposed to be.

Please return to the regularly-scheduled thread topic.

Best, Ron

That firearms resolution sounds functional to me.  I'm a little fuzzy on Speed there, though.  Presumably, it represents how quickly you can aim accurately.  It might be fun, though, to be able to trade off speed and accuracy.  Like, opt to shoot faster (penalty to their Reflex roll?) to circumvent your opponent's response actions, but suffer a hit in accuracy for doing so.

I'm also not so sure how granular "accurate aiming" time is.  My guess would be that anyone with X amount of training in the weapon would do about the same.  Training would be big.  Speed?  I dunno.  You'd have to ask someone with shooting experience.

Quote from: David Berg on March 29, 2010, 01:08:43 AM
That firearms resolution sounds functional to me.  I'm a little fuzzy on Speed there, though.  Presumably, it represents how quickly you can aim accurately.  It might be fun, though, to be able to trade off speed and accuracy.  Like, opt to shoot faster (penalty to their Reflex roll?) to circumvent your opponent's response actions, but suffer a hit in accuracy for doing so.

I'm also not so sure how granular "accurate aiming" time is.  My guess would be that anyone with X amount of training in the weapon would do about the same.  Training would be big.  Speed?  I dunno.  You'd have to ask someone with shooting experience.

Speed only recognizes that you aimed onto an aware opponent before he has a chance to react and has nothing to do with accuracy.  Focus represents your accuracy when actually firing, and if your opponent gets the opportunity to move away from your aim, then he gets a huge bonus to his chances of not being hit at all. 

By separating aiming and firing, I can create a realistic sequence of events.  In particular, this mechanic allows me to clearly differentiate between large and small barreled guns in close-quarters firefights: because shorter barreled guns have a higher "maneuverability" score, you can aim faster with them, giving you the advantage when you need to quickly turn a corner and fire. 

Also, you may opt to draw and aim faster at a penalty to your focus check.

Furthermore, if you're entrenched and don't know the exact positition of your opponents, I can easily model this by penalizing your aim when you come out of cover to fire.

Another interesting mechanic is that you don't even have to actually aim onto an opponent; you can aim onto a small area, like the area right above your opponent's cover, and when an opponent crosses that area, you get a speed, reflex and accuracy bonus against him.