The Forge Archives

Exactly. The question is not one of possibility, but of support. D&D can be played in ways that do not emphasize combat, but since the majority of the rules and setting are aimed at explaining combat, you will have to do so without much help from the game text.

Now, I see no reason that multiple emphases couldn't be built into the game. You could have one part of the rulebook that covers starting political organizations, and another that covers joining a resistance movement and fighting the system. However, I am skeptical that you could do so extensively enough to cover everything. How extensive are you planning to make the rules on deep sea fishing, for instance?

I did some major editing, especially to the confusing "playing out a chapter" section, and posted a rev 0.61 PDF of the rules. I'd appreciate any feedback anyone wanted to offer. (I'd also appreciate volunteers to playtest with me over Skype, but I understand that is a lot to ask).

Quote from: Kerikath on May 26, 2010, 06:56:53 AMIt is annoyed because you seem to think that a given game must focus on one thing. D&D may only have been about exploring, killing, and looting in first edition, but I once spent four 7 hour game sessions trying to start a temp agency for homeless people. It worked, too.

I have played every edition of D&D except (so far) the newest, from the old white box to 3E, over the course of twenty-some years of gaming, so I understand what you are saying; I've seen such and done such myself. So consider that I pointed out D&D not because you can't do anything with it except one thing, but because every edition of the game is built specifically to support treasure hunting, monster killing, and dungeon exploration, and is focused around playing adventurers having combat-oriented fantasy adventures. I used that example, and the others, to point out the core idea/point of games -- that the core of all those games could be explained very simply, regardless of what else you /could/ do with them.

Keep in mind you're on a board populated by game designers who have, in some cases, spent years studying how games of all styles and types work, and have played, designed, and critiqued many highly different and varied systems over the course of twenty or thirty years. Some of us know a bit about games, and "you can do anything!" is a design trap that we have seen new designers step into quite often over the years (or stepped in ourselves). So I was pushing you to try and figure out, for myself and hopefully for you, why I would play your game, or rather what it offered as a game. I apologize that this aggravated you and will step out of this discussion.

Eero, thanks so much for all this information. I'm going to take some if these pieces and fit them together with a few of my own ideas, see how that looks. How do you normally specify Dracula's wants and needs? Does having him regularly needing to feed off locals seem too obvious a need? Does he actually want to travel to England?

Quote from: Paul T on May 26, 2010, 04:00:06 AM2. If you take exhaustion or injury in the last scene, it still matters, because whenever your character appears in the story again, you'll be stuck with those lower dice unless you choose to "reassign dice" instead of taking a new Particular Strength. And even if you're not on the Owe List, your character could always recur just by someone seeing the oracle results and thinking, "Hey, that sounds like character X, doesn't it?"

Quote from: Paul T on May 26, 2010, 04:00:06 AM2. If you take exhaustion or injury in the last scene, it still matters, because whenever your character appears in the story again, you'll be stuck with those lower dice unless you choose to "reassign dice" instead of taking a new Particular Strength. And even if you're not on the Owe List, your character could always recur just by someone seeing the oracle results and thinking, "Hey, that sounds like character X, doesn't it?"

Ah-ha! That's what I was missing. I had to re-read that section to realize you only choose one from the list. I had it in my head you always got to reassign your forms.

Thanks!

Steven,

QuoteIf it's minor, just say yes. If it's not-so-minor, look at the appropriate character stat, if there is one, and judge on that basis -- Flow for the sort of assertions that go "There's an X there, and I grab it", because a high flow means someone's well in tune with the Universe. Coherence for "I ask a person to go along with X" because high-Coherence people are the sorts owho can sweep others along in their wake. Karma as a modifier for either of those. If it's really big, or there's a clear opposition involved, or the player *insists*, even if their Flow/Coherence/Karma says no -- then go for the dice.

I think that's fine as far as it goes, but the problem I have with this type of system is that I think you're still potentially leaving wiggle-room for GM fiat - because as GM I can, without cost, force the PCs to react in a particular way that requires them to roll.

So say the PCs are trying to escape Pirate Island, and as GM I don't want them to - I have a brilliant idea for a plot twist that needs them to still be on the Island. So the PCs get in a ship, and I have it attacked by a giant squid. The players have to roll, but they manage to beat the squid, so I have a second squid attack them (bigger than the last one). The players roll and overcome that one too (they're lucky players) so now I have a storm drive the ship back to shore. And if they beat that then I'll upgrade it to a typhoon, and then a hurricane, and then I'll have the Kraken awake, or the ghost ships of Atlantis rise up from the deep and force those players to go back to Pirate Island. And if all of that still fails I'll have their bloody compass break and they can sail round in a circle. As GM I can keep on escalating until the Players are forced to go to the place I want them to go.

It's an extreme and perhaps absurd example, but I think it reflect the fact that GMs railroad PCs by simply forcing them into an increasingly narrow set of options. What I'm *trying* to come up with is a system that allows the GM to still do all of the above if he wants, but he will be constrained by having to invest some of his finite resources in order to do it.

Hi Peter

QuoteI proposed the "hacking government lasers" example as an extreme case, but I think it illustrates a general problem. Under this system, future conflicts are harder if the early ones are easier. In practice, this means that you are penalized for coming up with creative ways to make things easier, and rewarded for doing things in an unnecessarily difficult way. I don't think you can get around that without altering it so much that it's a different system.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, but I don't see it this way. Why does the mechanical difficulty of a challenge mean that overcoming it is more or less creative? The system doesn't automatically penalise - or reward - you for coming up with creative solutions to problems. That's up to the GM, who can arbitrarily make your chances of succeeding more or less likely using tokens. You could have your PC take the most circuitously "difficult" approach to a problem within the fiction and still have the GM make it "easy" by assigning a low number of tokens. So how you approach the problem and whether or not you succeed seem to me to be entirely independent of each other, mechanically speaking.

That's not to say the GM should be acting entirely independently of the player's creativity - I would hope that they would use their tokens wisely to pace the story, and invest the most tokens in those bits of the story that the players seem most interested in and respond to most. But fundamentally that's a GM technique, it's not forced by the mechanics (though I guess you could tweak the rules so that GM's received their tokens in installments, to force the pacing a little: so the GM gets, say, 20 tokens to use over the first three scenes, 20 tokens for the next three, and then fifty tokens to use in the climactic endgame).

Quote from: Paul T on May 26, 2010, 03:06:33 AM
So, if they pull that on you, why don't you go straight to "what would happen if the Dogs didn't come?" The Dogs turn and walk away... there's a gunshot and a scream; someone's blood is pooling on the dusty ground.

Yup. Play the town.

I find that the problem with asking others for help here is I can paint only so big-a-picture.
This picture is never close to big enough.

QuoteSorry, it's just a pet hate of mine to see a game that looks like a cobbled together bunch of random components.

The problem with this statement is I can only show you the problem at hand. 1 at a time as I work them out.
My system may seem like a cobbled together mess (and at this point in development - might be)
a statue is just a lump of rock in the beginning. But regardless of that, If you only see the statues elbow you cannot play judge to the entire statue.
Especially if the artist is asking if the thing is too pointy.

Quote
My suggestion is that you get rid of your 11 categories.  Since you are proposing using the average of 3 attributes to make 4 other attributes -- why not just have a 4 Attribute system?

Another big picture problem.
I just can't post everything concerning my game here then ask about 1/12th (an arbitrary number dont get excited) of it.
I can say that the 11 Characteristics are the central most defining part of my character design and growth.
one characteristic or another or group of them + a dice roll will always decide an action. (or near enough to always)

Trimming the 11 down to body mind instincts and trade skills would destroy 1/2 the game i have designed thusfar and am happy with.

QuoteRoll 2d8+1 gives a result from 3-17 not 3-16...

this is a typo .. and not worth taking such offense over.

on the subject of the +1

as I said in an earlier post I will use whatever roll works best
I needed the numbers to be between 3-17  with the average roll around 10
I tried hundreds of rolls - night after night. deciding on what worked best to fit my need.
4d4
3d6
3d20/3
4d10/2
2d10
2d8
on and on and on.
If you have a better way of getting said desired numbers. I will definitely listen.
If you have to try and take a jab at me by suggesting that I am "trying to look like d&d"
Then you're not helping, and in the end being assish (oh yes I made the word just for you)
In the end you ARE trying to help I guess. Thanks . but...

QuoteI don't like having to learn three different sub-games..........

You seem to be from the school of thought that I have seen a lot of lately.
Use one system that resolves all conflicts.
I might be wrong but also from the school that believes in using 1 type of Die only.
That is all well and fine. I have played those types of games and I like them.
I don't want that though. I feel like that should be respected... once known at least.
If you were looking for help on your d10 based game "how can I my my universal conflict resolution system apply to social situations?"
I wouldn't go in there and suggest that you use 6 siders and d20s and make a new set of rules for it. That is not what you are asking for.

<sup>I see that all the time here.
PeteSmith25: I need help figuring out how to best to level characters
JoeSmoe76: Levels are dumb you should go with a point buy system -- blah blah blah
PeteSmith25: My group and I all like levels and I just cant figure out.....
GMsupreme: You should play some different games.

Its rare to see actual help towards the problem getting solved.
People just try to change the problem to something they feel they have figured out a solution to.</sup>

Quote from: Callan S. on May 26, 2010, 03:02:18 AM
Hi,

Do you have it in mind that campaigns (or one shots, for that matter) with this game culminate in some big issue being resolved? Like the big bad is defeated? Or global warming is averted? Or some big thing that is delt with?

Do you want to have stats that deal directly with whether that big thing happens, or do you want to work indirectly, where the GM basically decides if a skill roll in some way effects whether global warming is averted (or whatever)?

I don't see how this is relevant to skills (unless i misunderstand your question) but none-the-less I'll answer
No. Not Necessarily. If the GM wants to design a game about tackling a big issue then he/she can. If they want to make it a matter of gathering ingredients for soup it will not be evident in the rules what-so-ever.
and I am pretty sure that I don't understand your 2nd question. at least enough to give a good answer.
I will state (and this may clear it up) That my main 11 characteristics represent the person. Those representations govern how and how well that person reacts to situations or conflicts or trials - big or small. Meaningful or Trivial.

QuoteYou've got 4 groups...strangely the "Knowledge" characteristic fits into two groups, but no other characteristic does this. Does this mean that you think knowledge is twice as important as the other characteristics? Because that's the implication.

_{i havent mentioned (again the big picture issue) that knowledge is the accumulation of  things learned or understood or remembered. That is its function.
as opposed to reasoning being - problem solving, understanding things, logic, thinking. common sense.}


Implied or not. It takes Knowledge to do both of those things. its one aspect Mental skill (or mind) as well as acquired knowledge from trade skills or practiced things. to work a forge and temper steel - you need to remember the process for doing so.
to read requires your mind to remember (or recongnize) the shapes of letters and words. The definitions to those words.
Its a fact not an implication.
I refuse to change the rules to "even out" the lumpiness of the truth. Knowledge is important. More important than reasoning? Up the the player as far as I am concerned. If they will pile all their points on knowledge for some kind of advantage thats their choice. ( a poor one by my standards though)

I am tired and feel like I have wasted a lot of time being defensive about something I shouldn't have to be. All while aggravated.
I did NOT proof read this. I type far too fast and my grammar and punctuation suffer horrible . so do me a favor and ignore all the typos.
don't whore-like and point them out. also try and excuse my irritability.
There was some help. but mostly BS. Hard not to get irritated.

Armor
When you get struck in combat, an armor check is made using the appropriate dice rank.  There are two main attributes of armor - strength and coverage - which directly affect the success of your armor check and are based upon the overall protection of your entire body.  The coverage attribute affects how likely it is that you will be protected at all.  Thus, the better your armor's coverage, the lower the dice rank you roll.  The strength attribute affects the quality of protection you receive within the success range.  There are three possible degrees of protection from any given integer within the success range: critical (3 points), moderate (2 points), and minor (1 point).  If the degree of success from the opponent's attack is greater than the degree of protection offered by your armor check, then you subtract the point value of your armor check (listed above) from your opponent's attack to determine the actual effect of the attack.

For example, let's say your opponent's attack is a critical success.  You roll your armor check, which comes out to a 3 (the attributes of your armor determine that this is a moderate success).  Subtracting the value of your armor's success (2) from your opponent's attack (3) means that the actual effect of the attack is 1, which results in a minor success for the attacker.

To account for all possible combinations of armor (and thus, adhering to design criteria demanding mechanical fluidity), the system uses a formula for determining the exact range of coverage and strength.


Determining Coverage
Your overall coverage value will start at a base of 0, which represents dice rank 0 and the maximum amount of coverage possible.  Coverage does not consider individual armor types (plate/mail/leather, etc.); if the body is covered by some type of valid armor type, then it counts for consideration.
1.  Add 1 dice rank for each half of torso area unprotected (2 increments of coverage). 
2.  Add 1 dice rank for each half of total leg area (with both legs in consideration) unprotected (2 increments of coverage). 
3.  Add 1 dice rank if less than 2/3 of the total arm area (with both arms in consideration) are unprotected (1 increment of coverage).
4.  Add 1 dice rank for each half of head coverage unprotected (+1 for open-faced helms or if the visor of a full coverage helmet is raised) (2 increments of coverage).

Formulas will be pre-calculated for common armor combinations to minimize effort. 
Examples:
Tournament Armor / Gothic Armor / Maximilian Armor - DR 0
Three-quarters Plate - DR 1 (1d4)
Reduced Plate (helm and cuirass) - DR 4 (1d10)


Determining Strength
Each armor type (padded, leather, studded, jack of plate, mail, plate, tournament / heavy plate) has a base value of protection per increment of coverage.  Add up the values of each increment to determine your overall armor strength.

Overall Armor Strength - Lists the degrees of protection, or success, for the given number rolled for your armor check.

Very Poor
1 = Minor
2 = Minor
3 = Minor

Poor 
1 = Moderate
2 = Minor
3 = Minor

Moderate
1 = Moderate
2 = Moderate
3 = Minor

Good
1 = Critical
2 = Moderate
3 = Minor

Very Good
1 = Critical
2 = Moderate
3 = Moderate

Excellent
1 = Critical
2 = Critical
3 = Moderate

Maximum
1 = Critical
2 = Critical
3 = Critical

Formulas will be pre-calculated for common armor combinations to minimize effort. 
Examples:
Gothic / Maximilian Armor - Excellent
Tournament Armor - Maximum (Note: combined with 0 DR from the armor's overall coverage value means that every hit that isn't precisely aimed at a vulnerable area or doesn't have an armor penetration value will not harm the combatant.)

In my next post, I'll discuss other aspects of armor.