Toast 6.0

[Mike Holmes]

First, Ethan, what sort of feedback were you expecting when you asked for "reactions" to it? You are getting just what you asked for. And, yes, the Indie Game Design forum is, as it happens, all about design. See the sticky at the top of the Forum. As such, it's not a long leap to assume that a design posted here is looking for design comments. Further, you have a real game that you intend (and apparently use) for play. Which makes it just the kind of thing that should be here. So, again, it should be no surprise that you've gotten the comments that you have.

That said, I have some "reactions" that I'd like to share.  

I'll take a different POV on the whole profanity issue (which has probably been blown way out of proportion already). My view is that all words are good words. Yes, even racial epithets and the like. It's only in the use that a word can become bad. How? By using it to abuse someone specifically, or to miscommunicate, or do other bad things. I think that Ethan has used them to communicate successfully enough. And, obviously he's of the ilk that feels that one shouldn't feel abused by terms on a page that weren't directed at anyone specifically. And he has somewhat of a point there.

Still, however, there is an art to words. As such, even expletive deletives can be used well (see John D. MacDonald for some excellent examples). You, Ethan, have not used these curses well, and have come off as a bit juvenile (or perhaps lazy), IMO. Whether or not your intended audience for play minds this or not, this is the response that you will get when asking for "reactions".

Now, on to the mechanical details:

First, why not just say "# of Attributes * 10.5" instead of the longer formula that you have ffor points to distribute to Attributes? There are other oddities with some of your other formulas as well.  Combined with the "always round down" rule, they are problematic. That is, you require division twice in some cases where it could be simplified to once. I assume that you round at each division (the text seems explicit in this). If that's the case, more break points are created than are necessary.

For example, the Body Mod is:
(((STR + AGI + DEX + PER) / 4) - 10) / 2

which is equivalent to:
(((STR + AGI + DEX + PER) / 8) - 5)

except for the rounding. That is, if I have scores of, say, 9, 10, 9, 10 for a total of 38, using your method, that comes out to a 0 (zero) Body Mod. Using the equivalent method (but rounding only once), these scores provide a Body Mod of -1. Essentially, with 11 as the average Attribute, the equivalent method puts the average total, 44, in the center of the zero range. As opposed to your original method which puts it at the upper third of that range:

Code Select Expand


Total  Orig.  Equiv.    
Stats  Bonus  Bonus
1      -5     -5
2      -5     -5
3      -5     -5
4      -4     -5
5      -4     -5
6      -4     -5
7      -4     -5
8      -4     -4
9      -4     -4
10     -4     -4
11     -4     -4
12     -3     -4
13     -3     -4
14     -3     -4
15     -3     -4
16     -3     -3
17     -3     -3
18     -3     -3
19     -3     -3
20     -2     -3
21     -2     -3
22     -2     -3
23     -2     -3
24     -2     -2
25     -2     -2
26     -2     -2
27     -2     -2
28     -1     -2
29     -1     -2
30     -1     -2
31     -1     -2
32     -1     -1
33     -1     -1
34     -1     -1
35     -1     -1
36      0     -1
37      0     -1
38      0     -1
39      0     -1
40      0     0
41      0     0
42      0     0
43      0     0
44      0     0
45      0     0
46      0     0
47      0     0
48      1     1
49      1     1
50      1     1
51      1     1
52      1     1
53      1     1
54      1     1
55      1     1
56      2     2
57      2     2
58      2     2
59      2     2
60      2     2
61      2     2
62      2     2
63      2     2
64      3     3
65      3     3
66      3     3
67      3     3
68      3     3
69      3     3
70      3     3
71      3     3
72      4     4
73      4     4
74      4     4
75      4     4
76      4     4
77      4     4
78      4     4
79      4     4
80      5     5


Basically, the way you have it creates an unnatural curve. Was that intentional? It would seem to me easier, and more effective to use the equivalent formula.

In any case, these are largish breakpoints (8 point, or larger range). Which is ameliorated somewhat by the fact that you have to put in so many stats to get one of these Mods. Still, I'd guess that the average player is probably going to concern himself with trying to hit totals that are splits like 48 in one group and 36 in the other, or 56, 28 for extreme characters. This seems very artificially limiting.

Can Attributes be improved?

The statement that "Study Skills" can be improved by failing seems odd. Let's say that I roll my Geography Skill, and fail to know the capital of Montana. How does that make me more likely to know it next time? At the very least, I'd have to ask someone or look it up? Or is the roll considered to imply that some study has occurred.

Further, can't people learn from success as well? If a person does something really well, he can remember to do it that way again next time. Perhaps you could allow for a roll when a character gets a "Kick" that's described as a success or something. Just a thought.

Another idea is to allow any result to be a potential learning experience. In that case, to slow down progression, just require some number (three ?) of uses to occur before a roll can be made.

I'd agree with some of the others here that the results of the resolution system seem somewhat chunky. For example, any character with a skill of up to ten or an Attribute of up to fifteen has the same chance to succeed at a "hard" task (roll a "Kick" and pray the GM calls it a success). But if that's OK with you, then I suppose that's not a problem. Just seems odd.

I like the combat in general, but then again, I like Donjon.

What happens in combat if a Defender cannot Dodge or Counterattack? For example, he's unconscious. Auto death? Roll against some low low target and apply damage?

If you made the Body Mod add directly to damage, instead of adding dice, then you could allow for a negative Body Mod to count. Only in the case of really really weak characters would this make the lightest weapons completely ineffective. Anything else just modifies the range. Which seems intuitive.

As to the use of the system, let me approach it from another POV again. What do you use the system for? What sort of game do you personally play with it? You seem to be short a magic system, so I suspect that Fantasy is going to be problematic at this point, no?

Mike

[ethan_greer]

First, Ethan, what sort of feedback were you expecting when you asked for "reactions" to it? You are getting just what you asked for. And, yes, the Indie Game Design forum is, as it happens, all about design. See the sticky at the top of the Forum. As such, it's not a long leap to assume that a design posted here is looking for design comments. Further, you have a real game that you intend (and apparently use) for play. Which makes it just the kind of thing that should be here. So, again, it should be no surprise that you've gotten the comments that you have.

Uh, well, I'm sensing some sort of rebuke here... Was that your intent?  I can't tell if you think I've misused the forum or not.  In any case, all the reactions I've received have been useful, enjoyable to read, or both.  Long live the Forge.

Your suggestions for the formulas make sense to use, so I shall.  Thanks!

...I'd guess that the average player is probably going to concern himself with trying to hit totals that are splits like 48 in one group and 36 in the other, or 56, 28 for extreme characters. This seems very artificially limiting.

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here.  There are no suggested methods of point allocation in the text, and I certainly don't see a problem with the player min/maxing the process to get the mods they want.  How is this limiting?

Can Attributes be improved?

No.  At least, not formally.  If I see a need for it in play, I'll probably add some sort of simple mechanic.  If I remember correctly, a prior version had something along the lines of "if you want an Attribute to go up, talk to the GM and they'll make a ruling."  Pretty informal.  It never came up in play that I can remember, so I left it out of version 6.  Do you think I should formalize something and include it?

The statement that "Study Skills" can be improved by failing seems odd. Let's say that I roll my Geography Skill, and fail to know the capital of Montana. How does that make me more likely to know it next time? At the very least, I'd have to ask someone or look it up? Or is the roll considered to imply that some study has occurred.

The concept being that negative reinforcement is more effective than positive reinforcement, yeah, I'd say if a character tanks a Study Skill roll it's a reasonable assumption they'll crack a book.  To take it to the extreme for purposes of illustration: If the person asking for the capital of Montana gouges your eye out for not knowing, I'll bet you'd know it the next time they asked you... :)

For me, the main thing was to keep skill advancement simple and consistent.  There's all sorts of ways to look at it.  I'm not sure what's best, so I picked something.  You make some compelling arguments, so I'll keep them in mind - maybe they'll end up in version 6.1... Right now I'm seriously considering putting in that suggested Kick provision.  Good stuff.

Another idea is to allow any result to be a potential learning experience. In that case, to slow down progression, just require some number (three ?) of uses to occur before a roll can be made.

We tried this and it didn't work - Tally marks all over the place, forgetting to keep track, and that "shooting random trees" factor...

I'd agree with some of the others here that the results of the resolution system seem somewhat chunky.

Chunky.  What a great word to describe it.  Yes, I agree that it's chunky.  But it's also really fun, for our group anyway.  So the chunkiness is not a problem.

What happens in combat if a Defender cannot Dodge or Counterattack? For example, he's unconscious. Auto death? Roll against some low low target and apply damage?

For an uncontested combat task, the GM would pick a target number, same as any other uncontested task.  That's implied but not explicitly stated.  At least, not yet... :)

If you made the Body Mod add directly to damage, instead of adding dice, then you could allow for a negative Body Mod to count. Only in the case of really really weak characters would this make the lightest weapons completely ineffective. Anything else just modifies the range. Which seems intuitive.

On the fence with this one.  I've done it both ways, depending on which version of Toast you're looking at, and I still don't know which way I like better.  It's worked okay as written, but we don't get into an awful lot of combat, so maybe it'll go back to the other way after more testing...

What do you use the system for? What sort of game do you personally play with it? You seem to be short a magic system, so I suspect that Fantasy is going to be problematic at this point, no?

Actually, no.  I've played it mostly in Fantasy - set on Harn, no spell-casting PCs.  For a long time I was on a kick where the PCs weren't allowed to play spell-casters.  I have one player who really likes magic, though, so I'm going to come up with something.  I have a number of ideas floating around, which I'll probably bounce around here as I start working on them in earnest.

Basically, I've found Toast to work well for my group which consists of an eclectic membership, all of whom are friends outside of the gaming.  The high percentage of "special" results ensures a somewhat wild and unpredictable flavor to the stories, sometimes humorous, sometimes surprisingly dramatic.

[Mike Holmes]

...I?d guess that the average player is probably going to concern himself with trying to hit totals that are splits like 48 in one group and 36 in the other, or 56, 28 for extreme characters. This seems very artificially limiting.

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here.  There are no suggested methods of point allocation in the text, and I certainly don't see a problem with the player min/maxing the process to get the mods they want.  How is this limiting?

You are only likely to ever see characters with +1/0 and +2/-1 for their Mods. This means, as far as these statistics go, you'll only ever see 4 characters. That seems limiting to me. To get to +3/-2, the slighted attrributes will average 5 (64/20). That seems pretty extreme. And going to 72/12 (to get the whopping +4/-3) is just silly, leaving the character either retarded or crippled. In any case, these would only add another four possibilities.

The concept being that negative reinforcement is more effective than positive reinforcement, yeah, I'd say if a character tanks a Study Skill roll it's a reasonable assumption they'll crack a book.  To take it to the extreme for purposes of illustration: If the person asking for the capital of Montana gouges your eye out for not knowing, I'll bet you'd know it the next time they asked you... :)

Actually, positive reinforcement is more powerful than negative. There's a thread on that subect somewhere here if you care to investigate. And then there's the question of having the resources on hand to study. If the resources are required for a roll, then why require the failure?

We tried this and it didn't work - Tally marks all over the place, forgetting to keep track, and that "shooting random trees" factor...

And picking the same door repeatedly. This is indicative of a GNS problem in intent vs. use. That is, you seem to want Sim, but the system is producing Gamist attitudes.

What player behavior do you want the advancement system to produce. Because it's the only reward system that you've presented, and as such will inform a lot of play.

Basically, I've found Toast to work well for my group which consists of an eclectic membership, all of whom are friends outside of the gaming.  The high percentage of "special" results ensures a somewhat wild and unpredictable flavor to the stories, sometimes humorous, sometimes surprisingly dramatic.

Well, just what concerns do you have? If you can tell us what you'd like to hear as far as feedback, that would be helpful. If you have no concerns, then why put it up to public scrutiny?

Mike

[ethan_greer]

You are only likely to ever see characters with +1/0 and +2/-1 for their Mods. This means, as far as these statistics go, you'll only ever see 4 characters.

Ah, now I gotcha.  However, the wide array of possible different attribute scores within those 4 characters counteracts that IMO.  Attributes are about as important as skills in play, so choosing low Perception and really high Strength would produce a very different character than high PER/low STR, but the Body Mod would be the same for both characters.  The homogeneous nature of the skill mod Derived Attributes is intentional.

As far as whether or not to reward failure, success, both, or neither: I just don't know.  Prior versions of Toast had Skill-Ups for using a skill, which went too fast, so I limited that growth by choosing Failure.  This will increase skills more quickly early on, but that growth rate will slow as the skill level goes up.  Whether it really makes sense or not, or is realistic?  Hmm, dunno.  But it's a sensible abstraction that I'm hoping will work, and playtesting will tell.  In any case, I've filed your comments and plan to use them along with my own observations in order to shape Toast in the future.

And picking the same door repeatedly. This is indicative of a GNS problem in intent vs. use. That is, you seem to want Sim, but the system is producing Gamist attitudes.

I don't particularly have a problem with Gamist attitudes among players - I don't share that attitude, but I won't discourage it because I see it as a non-issue.  If you want to min/max because that's what makes the game fun for you, then do it.  And unfortunately I have no idea what Sim means, so I can't speak to the claim that Sim is what I want.  I've heard Sim described as "Exploration of System" but to me, the system is a means to an end - it provides a framework for describing character abilities and a method of task resolution and possibly combat management.

What player behavior do you want the advancement system to produce. Because it's the only reward system that you've presented, and as such will inform a lot of play.

Gwen pretty much nailed it.  To summarize: I want players to be involved in both the game and their characters.  Basically, the Skill-Up system strongly encourages PC involvement - if you do stuff, you improve.

If you have no concerns, then why put it up to public scrutiny?

Well, I will say that your comments and those of others have been useful to me.  My intent in posting was to show people Toast.  I could (perhaps should) have just submitted a link to the Resources section, but I tend to value the comments of others.  While I do not have any specific concerns, things have been pointed out to me that need changing/improving.  So, if you want me to voice a specific request or concern, I guess it would be as follows:

How, in your estimation, could Toast be made better?

This question has been answered by everyone who has responded.  Thanks to all.