The method I propose not only strikes a balance between fortune and skill - skilled exponents have less variable results than unskilled exponents - but it keeps the arithmetic to a minimum and it automatically scales in relation to your opposition The concept is called the dice ranking system: there are 10 dice ranks, in which the middle rank is the standard. The more skilled or able you are in relation to the opposition, the lower the dice rank you roll, and the SMALLER the dice you use.
"Why smaller?"
Because smaller dice have more reliable results, which emulates competency; the more competent you are, the more consistent your results are. Therefore, the point of rolling dice in the dice ranking system is not to roll high, but to roll low. However, skill and ability are relative, so if two equally strong muscle-men were arm wrestling, they would roll the standard dice rank rather than a low one.
"What about modifiers?"
Modifiers don't affect your rolling results directly, but alter the dice rank you roll. So, let's say your skill with a bow is 5 and the target has a difficulty of 5, then you roll the standard dice rank, but a penalizing modifier, such as darkness, might reduce your skill to 4, which means you roll along a higher dice rank.
The following post shows the mechanics for the dice ranking system.
Against Opposition
You compare the skill level of the skill you are using against the skill level of the skill your opponent is using. For every point of skill you are above the opposition's, your rolls are made at 1 dice rank lower than the standard (DR 5). The same rule applies if your opposition is above you in skill.
Attempting a Task
For every point of skill you are above the task difficulty, your rolls are made at 1 dice rank lower than the standard (DR 5). For every point of skill you are below a task difficulty, your rolls are made at 1 dice rank higher than the standard.
Dice Rank Dice Used Effective Range Critical Success Critical Failure
0*_______ 1d4-1____ 0-3_______________ 0-1_______________ --
1________ 1d4______ 1-3_______________ 1_________________ --
2________ 1d6______ 1-3_______________ 1_________________ --
3________ 1d8______ 1-3_______________ 1_________________ 8
4________ 1d10_____ 1-3_______________ 1_________________ 9-10
5________ 1d12_____ 1-3_______________ 1_________________ 10-12
6________ 2d8______ 2-3_______________ --_________________ 13-16
7________ 2d10_____ 2-3_______________ --_________________ 16-20
8________ 2d12_____ 2-3_______________ --_________________ 19-24
9________ 3d8______ 3-4**______________ --_________________ 18-24
*Dice Rank 0 is only allowed for special circumstances, otherwise the lowest rank is 1.
**3 acts as a moderate success and 4 acts as a minor success.
Effective Range
This is the numerical range which you must roll within in order to be successful. There are 3 increments of success. Refer to Section 3 to determine the specific effects roll successes have on your skills.
Minor – A result of 3 on a dice roll.
Moderate – A result of 2 on a dice roll.
Critical – A result of 0 or 1 on a dice roll.
Critical Failure
When you roll within the critical failure range, roll DR 6 on the appropriate critical failure table to determine the effect. Take note that there are some instances in which critical failures do not apply.
Minor – A result of 1-4 on a dice roll.
Moderate – A result of 5-7 on a dice roll.
Major – A result of 8-9 on a dice roll.
Maximum – A result of 10 on a dice roll.
Dice Modifiers
Dice modifiers are applied to dice only, and not your skill levels. Skill levels are considered first in order to determine the base Dice Rank in which opponents are acting against each other, and then modifiers are applied to the base.
On a quick calculation math looks good to me if you use 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 1d10 and after that I'd jump to the 1d20 if the logic of the system is the less experienced your character is compared to the challenge, the more his success is luck-dependant. This is because with 2 dice inevitably you get a "bell curve" on your dice results, meaning it will be harder to obtain the lowest and the hightst results. Yet I think this comes as a nice way to balance success and failure rate for less experienced characters, but I doubt that should be considered on the system. I'd prefer to have less levels and rule that above those levels you automatically fail, and under those limits you automatically win.
And please, I understand what you mean by it and I do respect your accomplishment here but again please don't call it "a more evolved dice mechanic", it kinda gives it bad publicity vibes somehow. Cheers
-Pol
The bell curve is intentional; I wanted to represent the capacity to score a long shot. To make a comparison, a long shot for a d20 is 1 in 20. With the 8 dice rank, getting the minimum result is 1 in 144. With the 9 dice rank, getting the minimum is 1 in 512.
The system is neutral, as I have not tailored it for any specific rpg, and the dice rank hierarchy is modular. Therefore, I could easily just remove one or more of the higher dice ranks in order to suit the purposes of a system. I would typically suggest the higher dice ranks for systems that desire a higher level of complexity and granularity, such as a simulationist system.
As for the language in my title, it's simply meant to entice the reader into the thread because I am looking for feedback. This is because my prosaic titles have resulted in my posts being glazed over and ignored completely. It appears that modesty defeats the purpose of why I am here: critique, consensus and brainstorming. I make no claims of superiority over the other designers here and I do not wish to invalidate them; my claim of superiority is only over what I perceive to be classical rpg conventions.
Well its a really interesting system. I am having trouble wrapping my brain around it all. Could you post your website for it again? I want to check it out a little closer!
Quote from: whoknowswhynot on January 23, 2010, 12:01:33 AM
Well its a really interesting system. I am having trouble wrapping my brain around it all. Could you post your website for it again? I want to check it out a little closer!
This dice system has nothing to do with my other stuff. I designed this to be used with a future game; one that was fast-paced and played without a battle grid. So, this is really all I have right now, unless if you want to see my prototype designs.
Also, I do not have a website of my own, but I post most of my work here (http://www.rpglaboratory.com/ar_kayon).
All I can think of is "Thac0 tables"
Quote from: David C on January 23, 2010, 12:20:41 PM
All I can think of is "Thac0 tables"
If this is meant as a critique, then I agree.
The math in your design here works out just fine, and the basic thrust of what you are trying to do makes sense, but I think your chart is problematic for a few reasons. First, it's not all that intuitive. Your critical threat ranges fluctuate (obviously the need to for the math to work out properly). This makes the 'handling time' for resolving a roll take more time, as the chart will need to be frequently referenced. Granted it isn't
terribly complicated, and given time, I imagine people could learn it, but I really think that you can achieve your goal with something A LOT simpler. Does that make sense?
Maybe it's against my personal tastes, so you can take or leave this next bit, but why are critical failure tables necessary? Why are they fun?
That leads to my next question: what kind of game would you use this system in? You say that it would be for something 'fast-paced', and I am curious what you mean. To me, consulting charts and rolling on critical failure tables does not seem fast-paced at all.
I designed the dice chart with modular granularity in mind, that is that it could be modified to suit differing levels of complexity. Let's say I made a Ninja Gaiden RPG: in order to make it fast-paced, I would remove the critical failure tables (because ninjas don't trip on their own swords) as well as Dice Rank 8 and 9 (so I took two people's suggestions and applied them without any fundamental alterations to the system - thank you for the ideas). Furthermore, I would incorporate the rules I designed with the dice system because combat is resolved verbally, without grids or concrete distance increments. Damage rolls will also be done away with, because it will be based upon the dice rank's effective range: 3= hurt the opponent, 2= cripple (like cutting off a demon's arm), and 1= kill. I will present the rough draft in my next post.
What can this method do that many other methods cannot? Scale well: high-powered opponents won't find themselves scoring hits on each other on every single blow, removing the need for inordinate amounts of hp, or even separate defense values. Secondly, it properly mediates the balance between fortune and ability. Lastly, it removes a significant amount of cumbersome aritmetic: instead of rolling XdX+skill+attribute+/-situational modifier and then rolling damage+strength+skill bonus+situational bonus, you simply switch the dice you use, e.g. a d12 to a d10.
The following is a rough draft system to be used with the graduated dice method:
Turn Order
To determine the turn order of each combatant, roll DR 4 and for every succeeding round of combat. The lower the number, the sooner the combatant acts in the turn order. Combatants on the same turn order act at the same time. When it is not your turn, you can make opposing rolls or opposing actions.
Actions
You can make one full action per round. You can make any action on your turn, or you can make an opposing action outside of your turn, which is limited in choice range.
Combat Action Choices
1. Attack / Fight Back – You make an attack roll or an opposing roll, using your Fighting, Wrestling, Shooting, or Throwing skill. Fighting and Wrestling receives -1 DR bonus against a Shooting or Throwing opposing roll, provided you are within range. If you successfully make an attack on your turn and your opponent's opposing roll is not successful, or if your opponent didn't make an opposing roll and you were successful, then you are allowed another attack on your turn, up to a total of 3 attacks. After that, if you are still successful, then you get a free opposing action (to a total of 3), which applies even if your original action was an opposing roll and not a turn action.
2. Defend – A defense is a free action. You can use it whenever you are being attacked as long as you are aware of the attack. You defend using your Fighting, Wrestling or Running, Jumping and Climbing skill and all opponents receive +1 DR penalty against you. If your opponent makes a ranged attack, you must make a moving defense instead (Running, Jumping and Climbing skill only), or else your opponent does not get an attack penalty. The Fighting and Wrestling defense can only be used against a ranged attack if your opponent is within range. If you have a shield, then the Fighting defense works at any range.
3. Moving Defense – Works the same as a standard defense, except that you must use an opposing action. If you successfully use a moving defense, then you get a free opposing action.
4. Take Cover – You can take cover or get out of cover freely on your turn, provided it is nearby. If it is not your turn, you can use an opposing action to attempt to take cover, but only after all of your opponents in the turn order fail their rolls against you. If you've already used a moving defense successfully, you can immediately take cover (if cover is within range) in the same turn order.
5. Move – You can only move any significant amount during your turn or if you successfully make a moving defense.
6. Other Actions – (pending, includes counterattack?)
Movement and Placement
Since all encounters are resolved verbally, there are no distance increments. The GM gives everyone a general idea of placement, and makes a determination based upon the players' abilities and circumstances on how far they can move at once.
Can't Fight Back
For whatever reason that you cannot fight your opponent back (e.g. you are defending, you already used your opposing roll / action for the turn order, or the opponent is out of range), then you get no opposing rolls. If you are not aware or are not able to make any opposing actions at all, then attacker's roll against you is DR 0. If surprised, then the attacker's roll is -1 DR for the round.
Combat Effects
Off Balance* – Your opponents have a -1 DR bonus until you recover. You cannot oppose rolls when off balance.
Stumbling* – You get knocked back and Off Balance until you recover.
Knocked Down* – Standing opponents receive a -2 DR bonus until you recover.
Restrained – Your opponents have a -2 DR bonus and you have a +1 DR penalty until you recover.
Pinned – You cannot make any opposing actions until you recover (a successful Wrestling roll at +2 DR penalty on your turn, which is not an action that can be opposed).
Blinded – Your opponents receive a -2 DR bonus and you receive a +2 DR penalty.
*Recovering from Off Balance, Knocked Down, and Stumbling can only be done on your turn, or you can automatically recover after a successful defense. Recovery is a free action for off balance and stumbling, but not for knocked down.
(other effects pending)
I like it. The Window http://www.mimgames.com/window/ uses that mechanic. I adopted it for an abandoned system a while ago. I ordered some special d14 (or was it 16?) sided dice to even out the leap between d12 and d20 and also a couple of d30s. so I used d3,d4,d6,d8,d10,d12,d14,d20,d30 (d3 being a d6 with appropriately marked sides)
I think it would work well for a system where you didnt actually have a lot of modfidiers and a whole heap of 'skills'. Then you dont have to hunt for the right dice to use so much. If you only have a handfull of skills, you can pretty much have those dice on hand, easilly pick up the correct one when you need to, roll it and everyone can instantly see the result without having to worry about math or modifiers after the role, etc...
Earthdawn by FASA used a similar system. It was kinda cool because you could customize your character in different ways. Check it out. I don't know who owns it now.
Quote from: Ar Kayon on January 22, 2010, 11:13:01 AM
Against Opposition
You compare the skill level of the skill you are using against the skill level of the skill your opponent is using. For every point of skill you are above the opposition's, your rolls are made at 1 dice rank lower than the standard (DR 5). The same rule applies if your opposition is above you in skill.
Attempting a Task
For every point of skill you are above the task difficulty, your rolls are made at 1 dice rank lower than the standard (DR 5). For every point of skill you are below a task difficulty, your rolls are made at 1 dice rank higher than the standard.
Dice Rank Dice Used Effective Range Critical Success Critical Failure
0*_______ 1d4-1____ 0-3_______________ 0-1_______________ --
1________ 1d4______ 1-3_______________ 1_________________ --
2________ 1d6______ 1-3_______________ 1_________________ --
3________ 1d8______ 1-3_______________ 1_________________ 8
4________ 1d10_____ 1-3_______________ 1_________________ 9-10
5________ 1d12_____ 1-3_______________ 1_________________ 10-12
6________ 2d8______ 2-3_______________ --_________________ 13-16
7________ 2d10_____ 2-3_______________ --_________________ 16-20
8________ 2d12_____ 2-3_______________ --_________________ 19-24
9________ 3d8______ 3-4**______________ --_________________ 18-24
*Dice Rank 0 is only allowed for special circumstances, otherwise the lowest rank is 1.
**3 acts as a moderate success and 4 acts as a minor success.
Effective Range
This is the numerical range which you must roll within in order to be successful. There are 3 increments of success. Refer to Section 3 to determine the specific effects roll successes have on your skills.
Minor – A result of 3 on a dice roll.
Moderate – A result of 2 on a dice roll.
Critical – A result of 0 or 1 on a dice roll.
Critical Failure
When you roll within the critical failure range, roll DR 6 on the appropriate critical failure table to determine the effect. Take note that there are some instances in which critical failures do not apply.
Minor – A result of 1-4 on a dice roll.
Moderate – A result of 5-7 on a dice roll.
Major – A result of 8-9 on a dice roll.
Maximum – A result of 10 on a dice roll.
Dice Modifiers
Dice modifiers are applied to dice only, and not your skill levels. Skill levels are considered first in order to determine the base Dice Rank in which opponents are acting against each other, and then modifiers are applied to the base.
That's interesting. I created these mechanics without preceding knowledge of Earthdawn. However, it seems as if Earthdawn's mechanics scale in the opposite direction. In my opinion, that is more cumbersome.
Now I now it's futile to try to create completely original mechanics. I can, however, create original executions of mechanics by tailoring them specifically to my goals and setting designs. I suppose I should look at it from the viewpoint of, "So what if they did it first - we can do it BETTER!"
This is something I came up with a while ago that might give you some ideas. It's a different way around it, but I was essentially shooting for the same thing, higher skill levels equating to both higher median chance of success and more consistent results.
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=27533.0 (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=27533.0)
http://www.mimgames.com/window/
Similar concept, less math and less complication.
The exercise was to create a dice mechanic that scaled very accurately. The result of the dice rank design shown is that characters will always be at the correct scale in relativity to any challenge. For example, if someone of great skill was challenging someone of little skill, he will have a high consistency of success whereas two men of great but equal skill each have less consistency. So, instead of high-level characters hitting each other constantly due to huge skill modifiers, their to-hit ratios will be more believable.
Implications:
*Large amounts of hit points are not needed.
*An independent, static defense value (such as armor class) is not needed.
*Conducive to simulation style.
I'm sure I can make it much better, however, but I haven't bothered to critically analyze the system as I no longer have a setting to attach the rules to.
I think its an interesting idea. It reminds me of Talsilanta's Action Table where the 'target numbers' are always the same regardless of the action being performed.
In any event, I wouldn't change too much...
Rank 0 would be 1D3
Rank 6 would be 1D20
Rank 7 would be 2D6
Rank 8 would be 2D8
Rank 9 would be 2D10
Makes it so your Effective Range would never change from...
3 = Partial Success
2 = Success
1 = Critical Success
I propose this idea because I'm sure there would be lots of moments where players suffer penalties and might end up using Rank 6 a lot more often than might be readily apparent. Plus, I think while Rank 0 would end up being rare... applying math to the rolls wouldn't fit the style of this dice mechanic. =)
I'd like to see this mechanic attached to a game... though, my personal preference is toward heroic/cinematic style games. Also, the Attack / Fight Back rules on the other page are a bit wacky. =P
Also, another excellent Die Step system is Spellbound Kingdoms... Though it operates similarly but more simply than Earthdawn.
The fight back rules were designed with the super-heroic character in mind, like a ninja who can take out multiple opponents in a minimal time frame. Also, instead of blow-for-blow, I wanted to model a general melee exchange where both combatants are attacking and defending toe-to-toe. So, instead of specific manuevers such as block, thrust, parry, etc., the system presents general tactical manuevers, resulting in faster combat resolution*. Thus, with the core system intact and by tinkering with the special rules a bit, such as removing the chain-of-attacks mechanic listed in the first sentence or installing concrete distance increments, the system could also encourage party-based strategy against a potentially large group of opponents without too much combat molasses.
*Armor or any other sort of passive defense in this system could also be represented in a general method as well. For example, a full suit of plate armor would have a dice rank attached to it instead of a static defense value, such as 1d4, where a roll of 3 nullifies a minor attack success, 2 nullifies a moderate and minor, and 1 nullifies those as well as a critical success. Naturally, lesser armors will have bigger dice assigned to them and will follow the same dice rank logic where you need to roll within the 1-3 range.
*Along this train of thought, I would also consider narration post-roll instead of pre-roll where the player and GM describe what happened after the action has been resolved.
Example:
Player - "I attack the Black Knight."
GM - "The Black Knight engages you in combat."
Player rolls a 3; GM rolls in secret, which is a 1 for the combat action and 3 for the armor check
Player - "I move in close, shove the Black Knight with my shield and then smash him in the helmet with it."
GM - "The Black Knight rolls with the blow as the shield deflects off his helmet and then counterattacks by bludgeoning your sword arm with his mace, opening up your guard as he follows up with a mighty blow to your head. The mace smashes into your helmet and shatters your skull as you drop to the ground dead like a sack of potatoes."
Player - "What?! That's bullshit! Fuck you, I'm going home."
That makes a lot of sense. =) Personally, I prefer lots of abstraction, hand-waving and fast yet colorfully narrative moments.
I would imagine the health system for this game like this; 1 Critical box, 2 Moderate boxes, 3 Minor boxes. Armor adds boxes. When a category fills up it spills over to the next category. Taking a Critical always defeats the individual which is a condition under which the opponent decides their fate (AKA not always death).
Heroic PCs would probably have a resource they could expend to demote a damage type.
Super characters gain special abilities that increase boxes... or special defensive powers that can break Critical and Moderate damage down into manageable chunks.
Classy example, by the way! =P
Quote from: MacLeod on April 12, 2010, 04:00:38 AM
I would imagine the health system for this game like this; 1 Critical box, 2 Moderate boxes, 3 Minor boxes. Armor adds boxes. When a category fills up it spills over to the next category. Taking a Critical always defeats the individual which is a condition under which the opponent decides their fate (AKA not always death).
Heroic PCs would probably have a resource they could expend to demote a damage type.
Super characters gain special abilities that increase boxes... or special defensive powers that can break Critical and Moderate damage down into manageable chunks.
These are good ideas which I will take into consideration. Instead of special powers, however, I'll introduce skilled maneuvers. The difference is primarily connotation as I want to differentiate heroic characters and normal characters by virtue of skill and training rather than superhuman gifts.
How will special skills be used? There will be a small but renewable resource pool that represents a character's ability to focus in combat and time complex maneuvers. I may simply call it "skill points". Here's a rough draft idea of how it will work:
1. When a special skill is used, a skill point will only be depleted if it is not successful.
2. A combatant can spend a turn to regain his focus, renewing skill points.
3. Scoring a critical success may also renew a point, but I'm not sure if 1 and 2 are already enough to keep things flowing. Perhaps a special skill may be self-renewing like #1, except only on a moderate or critical success.
So let's say you wanted to spend your turn trying to disarm your opponent. A normal disarm may incur tough penalties, but a well-timed disarm (using a skill point) may have no penalty. You roll a 1 and refer to the rules. The standard rule says you don't lose a skill point and the specific rule (pertaining to the individual maneuver) states that you successfully disarm the opponent and may follow up with a free attack (no opposing action, such as "fight back") in the same turn.
Other special maneuver ideas:
1. Counterattack - gives you a free attack after a successful defend action.
2. Group Fighting - allows you to attack more than one opponent in the same turn.
3. Sidestep - flank an opponent after a successful moving defense. On a roll of 1, you may follow up with a counterattack if the skill is available to you.
4. Shield Mastery - gives you a free attack (with an improved success rate) to knock your opponent off balance after a successful defend action.
4. Open Guard - Break your opponent's defense with a free attack allowed after any success.
Quote from: Ar Kayon on April 12, 2010, 02:54:29 PMThe difference is primarily connotation as I want to differentiate heroic characters and normal characters by virtue of skill and training rather than superhuman gifts.
I guess the importance of this decision relies heavily on what you are going to apply this rules set to. If you are building a toolkit then you'll want room for Super Heroes, Mythical Monsters, Wizards, Vampires, etc... Then again, if the core of the rules is most definitely Mundane then it wouldn't be too difficult to build a supernatural powers add-on. =)
QuoteHow will special skills be used? There will be a small but renewable resource pool that represents a character's ability to focus in combat and time complex maneuvers. I may simply call it "skill points". Here's a rough draft idea of how it will work:
1. When a special skill is used, a skill point will only be depleted if it is not successful.
2. A combatant can spend a turn to regain his focus, renewing skill points.
3. Scoring a critical success may also renew a point, but I'm not sure if 1 and 2 are already enough to keep things flowing. Perhaps a special skill may be self-renewing like #1, except only on a moderate or critical success.
This reminds me of the mechanic I use in my own lil' game called
Intergalactic League of Brawlers. The special resource that powers special abilities regenerates constantly via special moves, time and rolling very well. What I found worked for me is to have lots of different things to do with that special resource to force players to think strategically about its use. Rarely does a particular option stand out as The One, so it turns into a game of calculated gambles. =D
Quote from: MacLeod on April 12, 2010, 03:54:20 PM
I guess the importance of this decision relies heavily on what you are going to apply this rules set to. If you are building a toolkit then you'll want room for Super Heroes, Mythical Monsters, Wizards, Vampires, etc... Then again, if the core of the rules is most definitely Mundane then it wouldn't be too difficult to build a supernatural powers add-on. =)
The core system will not have attributes. Instead, in order to differentiate natural abilities, I was thinking that upon character creation you can buy talent or ineptitude along broad skill categories. For example, you can buy "powerful" or "fast" talent prefixes and ineptitude prefixes such as "clumsy" or "stubborn".
Implications
- Prevents incompatibility with an external system that values different natural abilities. By not having a separate attribute module in which core rules are designed around, you could easily insert your own set of natural abilities without having to rework the system. Thus, designing a system around super heroes with fantastic abilities shouldn't be too much of a hassle; you could simply increase the range of a particular prefix in most instances (e.g. "super-powerful")
- Encourages diversity of natural abilities rather than min/maxing.
I've been on a player-defined qualities kick lately... Trying to find ways to combine a narrative type system of that previously mentioned nature with something a little more gamist...
So what I'm trying to say is, I think that is a great idea. =)
Are you going to establish an optional shopping list of 'keywords' or will it be entirely player-defined? One of the issues with letting players do as they please is the broad versus specific use of words. Of course, GM intervention can stop that but it's a concern nonetheless. Nothing like that guy who writes down Athletic and Towering Mental Faculties and pours points into those two aspects. =P
Talents and inaptitudes (thought it would be better than "ineptitude") will be system-defined, but those individual qualities will not be part of the core rules, only the concept. They will be system-defined and have a narrow quantitive range in order to prevent munchkin saboteurs from doing their dirty work. I don't want a pimp-my-character system; I want something where players focus on what's actually going on.
I took Mass Effect 2 as the perfect example of a game where attributes are absent and special skills enhance tactical color without unbalancing the system.
This is true. =) ME2 is awesome.
I think system-defined is a strong path to follow. I imagine that the Talent choices will have differing levels of broad versus specific. Such as Strong being decently broad then you'd have specific spells or narrow paths of magic.
Well hey, I don't really have any more illuminating questions as of yet... but I'll be watching this thread for further points to comment on. =D
Quote from: MacLeod on April 12, 2010, 08:42:09 PM
This is true. =) ME2 is awesome.
I think system-defined is a strong path to follow. I imagine that the Talent choices will have differing levels of broad versus specific. Such as Strong being decently broad then you'd have specific spells or narrow paths of magic.
Well hey, I don't really have any more illuminating questions as of yet... but I'll be watching this thread for further points to comment on. =D
Hmmm I haven't played ME, but will have to check it out. It kinda seems like the talents and what you talk of are similar to what I have done in my system. Check it out in sig.