Comments for My New Game System

[Nybbles]

Hello fellow Forgeries. I have been snooping around on this forum for a while now, but this will officially be my very first post on these boards.

So anyway, I have this idea for an RPG (surprise!) that I personally think has legs to run with. But I might be biased.

The setting for the game is on a unique world that incorporates allot of various mythologies and folklore that I have mined for inspiration. The players can choose to play in a few different eras or time periods on this world, or rather during that time of tumultuous change between the end of one era and the beginning of the next (Ragnorak for those familiar with Norse mythology). The various eras of play range from the high fantasy past all the way up to the sci-fi future near the ultimate end of the world itself when the cycle would begin to repeat itself again.

This is supposed to be a dark and gritty game with a cinematic style of action. The characters, for good or bad, have the power to shape the course of the next era as their deeds help to usher in the next cycle of the world.

What I'm actually having trouble with is in the development of the game mechanics. I would like to have a simple yet inclusive and flexible way for conducting the rules of the game and as for the dice rolling I want each roll to mean more than just pass or fail. Thus far I have been taking the approach of using a pool of dice equal to the character's attribute plus skill (similar to World of Darkness or ShadowRun). To this end I have got two ideas I would like to play out here so I can get a consensus of the pit-falls I should be aware of (and am not seeing) and which might be the best approach to use for my purposes.

The First Method ... d6
The player rolls their available dice pool (± any dice pool adjustments) then looks for sets of die that turn up with matching face values. This would be similar to the width/height mechanic where the height of each set of matching die that was rolled is compared to the difficulty of the challenge/task that has a range from 2-6 (so 5 levels of difficulty). Any matching set with a face value that is equal to or greater than the challenges difficulty indicates a success. The width of the roll, or the number of dice in the matching set, indicates the amount of success the character enjoys. Of course the player would be able to select whichever set of matching die they felt gave them the best results, if more than one set was rolled.

I have also included a special function for 1 dot die (I call them aces b.t.w.) so that any ones/aces that are rolled are wild and can be affixed to any set of matched die that turned up during the roll. That is to say on a roll of 5 dice, if 1-1-3-5-5 turns up the ones can be affixed to the pair of fives but not the 3 because it is an orphan. Ones/aces cannot of course be affixed to each other to form a set (it would be moot anyway because the lowest difficulty rating is 2 not 1) and if the roll happens to consist of only ones/aces, it amounts to a ruinous failure for the character.

The average pool of dice by my reckoning would be somewhere between five and seven, with many being much higher (likely up to 15) and others being lower (as little as 1, which is an auto failure). Because there is a pretty good chance of rolling more than one matching set of dice, I have also been working on the idea that a character can do more than one thing with each roll. Each matching set could be used for one individual action. This has the greatest affect on combat and spell casting. Basically the player would get to assign one function to each set that was rolled. In combat one set could be assigned to defense and the other to attacking for example. During spell casting one set could be for resisting drain and another for determining spell strength. So if I rolled a 1-1-3-5-5-6-6 on seven dice, I have two sets of three or one set of two and one set of four. I can then go about assigning a function to each set, both could be for attacking, one for defense and one for attacking or I could even reserve both for defense.

In the case of two players rolling the same height, the greatest width wins. In the case of two players rolling the same width, the greatest height wins. If both height and width are the same it is a stalemate.

The Second Method ... Special Die (D6)
This method works much like the first in many ways, but with some major differences.

The biggest difference is that each side of the die means something different. 1 dot die or aces remain wild, twos are failures, threes/fours are yang and fives/sixes are yin (I have this plan for custom making these die, but it would not be necessary to have any special dice to play).

After rolling, the player measures the result according to what they wanted to accomplish. This is done by comparing the number of yang (for resistance actions) or yin (for aggressive actions) dice that turn up to the difficulty of the challenge. If the number of yang/yin dice that turn up equals or exceeds the difficulty of the challenge, the character is successful. Should the roll turn up as being all failures and/or ones/aces, the character suffers a ruinous failure similar to the previous method.

Again this allows one roll to mean a few different things, especially during combat and spell casting. Yin die would be used to indicate the strength of an attack or spell while the yang die would equate to your defense or spell resistance. The wild die (ones/aces) could then be counted as being either a yang or yin die, so long as another yang or yin die turned up. During combat one players yang die would be compared to the others yin die to determine success.

Any thoughts or questions on this would be greatly appreciated. I would also like to thank you all in advance for reading this long-winded post and for any comments you might have.

[xenopulse]

Welcome to the Forge. I'm Christian--what's your name?

I like that first variant you've written up--being able to assign rolled values to different tasks.  Right now, though, it's a tactical decision because it appears as though all of the options are of a tactical nature. That is, I'm assigning dice to different attacks and defenses, rather than, say, various goals that could express a thematic statement ("should I put the 3s on saving the kid and the 5s on gaining glory or the other way around?").

You were asking for each roll to mean more than just pass and fail.  What you have here, as you've written it up, is a multiple action option, but still seems to retain the pass/fail dichotomy.

So--as a tactical roll, I like it, but I think you might need to structure it differently if you still want to break out of pass/fail. One simple solution might just be to give more options for what you can assign your successes to, as I said above regarding goals. Another would be to introduce another layer of options: if you can't meet the target with a roll, you can sacrifice x in order to succeed anyway, with x being related to the theme of your game (a relationship, your honor, your salvation, etc.). I'm sure there are plenty of other options, too.

[Nybbles]

hey Christian ... the name is James.

i'm glad that you found the strategic component at least interesting enough to consider it useful. you are right though, either way you look at it it still boils down to a pass/fail roll. while having multiple options and graduated levels for success is nice, i still feel like i am missing something. the goal i guess is to get as much out of a single roll as possible.

i tried to use playing cards at one time becuase there are so many more vaibles to muck about with, but it got complex and time consuming to figure out what exactly you had in your hand of cards and to actually use them. i still may include playing cards that can be earned and then spent as a way to twist fate in the character's favour (World of Darkness Willpower, Lord of the Rings RPG Courage etc). The basic idea would be to make playable hands out of the card you had earned and then lay down the best hand you had at the time, the higher the hand the better the results. You could hoard cards until you got that uber hand (the royal flush in poker) or spend them more rapidly to gain smaller but more frequent bonuses (two of a kind). This would pretty much meet the criteria for sacrificing X in order to achieve greater/better results than you could normally. as well as pulling of those rather unlikely but heroic stunts. i'm still indecided on this though.

as for more options on assigning actions to any matching sets of die that turn up, i guess that would only be limited by the situation at hand. but more skilled characters will definately have more options open to them than non-skilled characters.

perhaps simply having more options on each roll is enough and worrying about anything other than pass/fail (with varrying degrees of each) becomes more complex than it really needs to be?

[wild_card2007]

Hi James,

I've been hard at work on a resolution mechanic myself.  It's kept me busy for the past couple months .  Your idea of allowing multiple actions per round if you have multiple sets is new to me.  I'm intrigued by it, and it seems sound: as you get better in a skill (especially combat), you are quicker and more effective at getting past your opponent's defenses.  I also like the way you've handled a 1 as either a "botch" or a wild.

As for getting as much as possible out of a roll, I'm not sure how much more you can get (or want to get), although I understand your motive.  Resolving an action normally amounts to answering two questions: (1) Did I succeed? (2) How well did I succeed?  You've got both with a width/height mechanic.  And there are lots of directions in which you can take increased degrees of success, to help in getting a lot out of the roll.  Such as more damage, less time, increased duration, fewer resources used, increased range, increased accuracy.  In my game the player will decide what kind of better result(s) they want, and depending on the situation the final effect will be either pre-determined (how much more damage you get) or GM-determined (okay, you've talked the guy into telling you everything he knows...).

The "extra actions" option for multiple sets seems very geared towards combat.  What about non-combat success rolls that get multiple sets?  Could they be used in some fashion?  Or maybe a generalized rule for multiple sets with a specific option for combat?

A cinematic game speaks to me of characters doing near-impossible things, probably on a regular basis.  Your mechanic allows for 5 difficulty levels.  This is not inherently good or bad, but whether or not it's a good choice for your game depends on your goals with respect to how fine-grained you want to be in modelling difficulty.  If you want to ignore things that have a relatively small effect on difficulty (weapon reach, flank attack), this works.  Otherwise you'll need more "buckets", a larger range of difficulties.

[Nybbles]

well at least i know i'm on the right track anyway ... thanks for all the possitive feedback and suggestions, it has definately given me some food for thought.

without going into too much agonizing detail ... the mechanic probably seems combat orientated at the moment only because that is what i am the most concerned about getting right. combat seems to be the hardest thing to get a grip on and combat is probably also the most complicated set of rules that exists for any game. if i can get combat to feel right then i know for sure i'm on the right track and everything else should be easy peezy lemon squeezy.

outside of combat however, i was hoping to give a fair amount of creative control over to the players so that they could have more say in what happens during play (as far as their characters are concerened anyway). the final say of course will always rest with the G.o.D. (Guardian of Destiny a.k.a. the GM). anyway, the idea is that the player will know what it is they want their character to accomplish and so they will generally be required to say something to that effect. they then roll the appropriate dice pool and from that point they can assign one task to each matching set of dice that turns up until they can either accomplish what they set out to do or they run out of actions to take before having to roll again. at the risk of stating the obvious, the more skilled a character is the larger their dice pool will be and the more oportunity they will have for accomplishing greater, flashier or more darring things (think Jack Sparrow when he blasts the mast of a ship in half then rides a rope that was tied to the cannon up into mid air and swings across the vortex of water to land safely on another ship).

for example, a character may have to hit the bullseye of a distant target to impress some judges in an archery contest. this could be a fairly difficult task in itself so they would need a pretty good roll to complete it. the player chucks their dice and arranges any matching sets that turn up. if more than one set turns up, they get the opportunity to get creative and ellaborate on how the character actually goes about accomplishing the task, which in this case is hitting the bullseye. they could assign the first matched set for a really flashy backflip, then the next set to hitting the bullseye and if they still have a third set they might do a little piroutte just for added flair and good measure. because you can't hit a bullseye more in the centre for having multple sets of matching dice, why not look really cool while doing it?

the same could work just about anywhere. first state what you want to accomplish then roll the dice pool and depending on what comes up you get to decide how it is that you accomplish whatever it was that you wanted to do. of course you wouldn't always need to use every set of dice that you roll for everything you might attempt and if you do attempt more than one thing before attaining your ultimate goal you will have to be careful in how you assign your matching sets and this is where the G.o.D. comes in. for example, if you wanted to do that back flip before shooting at the bullseye you might want to assign a higher value set of dice to that task if the ground was covered in ice. if the G.o.D. decides that you didn't assign a high enough set to accomplish that particular feat, you would slip and fall on the ice and end up looking like a turkey (without ever getting the chance to use any remaining sets of dice to hit that bullseye because you are now laying on your butt).

[Adam Riemenschneider]

I like the d6 system idea you've got going on. Really, though, you can turn this into more than 5 levels of difficulty, since you could always require a greater # of successes. Not sure if my math is right on the following, but you could set your difficulties up *akin to* this:

five 6's:
four 6's:
three 6's:
four 5's:
pair of 6's:
three 5's: 
pair of 5's:
three 4's:
three 3's: 
pair of 4's:
four 2's: 
pair of 3's:
three 2's:
pair of 2's:

Or whatnot. Thing is with doing something like *this* is even once you've gone through and figured out what is statistically more or less likely, three 6's or seven 3's, it will make your system wonky if the characters have variable numbers of d6's that they can use on a given test. If you declare the difficulty to be seven 3's instead of three 6's, the character with 6 dice simply can't roll one of 'em, even if they'd be able to roll the other.

One way around *that* is to fix the number of dice rolled for every test (say, 6 dice), and the character's overall Skill simply lowers the difficulty chart.

I'm just mucking around. Curious to hear what you go with on it.

[Nybbles]

now that you mention it Capulet, that work has already been done for me. ever play Yahtzee (sp?) or use Poker Dice? i could implement a similar scoring method to determine how much each set of matched dice is worth (called equity in Poker i believe). since i have been looking at many different dice games and card games (not just RPGs) as part of my research for building the mechanics of my system, i can think of many ways to adjust the value/range of a role. actually the base mechanics are somewhat inspired by a dice game called Liar.

though i'm not sure that i desire or need allot of granularity in the game for it to meet my expectations. just another one of this things i'm undecided on at this point, but the idea is a good one ... *ponders* ... perhaps even a just slightly higher range of 7 levels would be more suitable than 5 levels?

whatever type of granularity i feel is appropriate in the end, it should probably be used as a common theme throughout: attributes 5 or 7 levels, skills 5 or 7 levels, dice pool adjustments 5 or 7 levels, range of difficulty 5 or 7 levels, range of success 5 or 7 levels and so on.

keeping simplicity and flexibility in mind, would this be a mistake? using a smaller range of ganularity throughout the game, that is.

[wild_card2007]

Nybbles,

My suggestion is to start with the goals of your game: what you want it to feel like and how you want it to play.  Then design the mechanic around that.  From what I've gathered, you want a game that has a dark and gritty feel, with cinematic player-directed action.

Generally speaking, the simpler and faster your resolution mechanic, the lower the level of detail your game can support.  You can create a mechanic that will handle bonuses/penalties for such things as weapon reach, character fatigue, which way a character/creature is facing, whether they are acting defensively or offensively, fire rate, etc.  But then for every combat action, you have to remember to take all these things into account.  That dramatically increases handling time, but gives the players a lot of tactical options to consider and take advantage of.  On the flip side, you can create a mechanic that wraps up all that detail into a simple "Combat Skill".  Thus combat action resolution is simple and quick, but your players don't have any tactical options to play with -- it's all assumed/implied in the Combat Skill.

With that and your goals in mind, getting combat "right" and getting action resolution "right" means a system and mechanic that encourages and rewards your players for cinematic play.  That suggests to me an action resolution mechanic that is fairly coarse-grained and has low handling time.

I'm also interested in how you intend to reward cinematic play.  If I am going to play your game, there should be an incentive for me to choose to take risky, highly cinematic actions over less risky but more ordinary actions.  What is your thinking on this?

One technique you may find useful (I certainly have) is to write out a brief ideal play session as you imagine it.  Then read through it and try to induce rules that support the kind of play you've written.  You can also use this technique to look for problems with a mechanic or rule (where "problem" here means "doesn't support your goals/intent").

So to summarize all this: the mechanic should support the style of play you want to reward.

Regards,
Thomas

[Nybbles]

very good points Wild Card ... definately something to look a little more thoroughly.

thanks for all your help fellow Forgeries. i will definately be posting more on this once i have had time to let all of this stew in my fiendish little brain.

thanks :-)
James