A System of Magic

[MacLeod]

I like the mechanics that make up this system.
It doesn't seem too complicated either... I'm sure once the rest of the system is explained, it would become pretty natural to utilize. =)

[Wordman]

Similarly to find what roll on 1d20 is analogous to rolling over 16 on 3d6, you shift the baseline (rolling over 10) by the difference in means (10.5-10.5=0, no shift), and you scale the modifiers (16 = 10+6 so the modifier is 6) by the ratio of the standard deviations (sqrt(33.25) / sqrt(8.75) ~= 1.95), which makes the new roll rolling over (10+0) + (6*1.95) ~= 22 on a 1d20.

I'd like not to derail this conversation any further...

I'm going to answer this here, because it actually speaks to exactly the point I'm trying (and, it appears, failing) to make about this magic system.

The shifting you are trying to do works great when translating one system with a linear distribution (e.g. a d20) to another system with a linear distribution (e.g. d100). It appears to fail utterly when translating to a system with a bell curve distribution (3d6). You can tell the math is flawed because the "target shifting" you do translates a target that is completely possible within the original system (3d6) to one that is completely impossible in the destination (d20). (Also, given that the range on a d20 is 1-20 and the range on 3d6 is 3-18, a scaling factor of 1.95 seems a bit suspect. You'd expect something closer to 1.1 or so. But, whatever. That doesn't really matter, because...)

More importantly, the exact mapping is not important to the for the point I'm trying to make about this magic system, which I will restate. When I said:

"Probability of success on 3d6 increases by about 9% when dropping a target from 13 to 12, and about 1.5% when dropping a target from 17 to 16."

...the general idea I was going for is that, for systems that generate bell curves...

"Probability of success on [some dice] increases by [some amount] when dropping a target [near the mean by one], and [some DIFFERENT amount] when dropping a target [near the maximum by one]"

Now, if you plug in a linear system like a d20 for [some dice], this statement is not true. For a d20:

"Probability of success on a d20 increases by 5% when dropping a target [near the mean by one], and the exact same 5% when dropping a target [near the maximum by one]"

In other words, when using a d20, the impact of a +1 is the same, regardless of the current target. Using a 3d6, the impact of a +1 is much higher if your current target is near the mean, and almost negligible if it is near the extremes.

The real question is: is this behavior desirable in this magic system?

I think the answer is that it isn't, because what it means is that doing things that give you bonuses, such as taking longer, and so on, are much more likely to help you when doing something at which you will already likely succeed. Conversely, doing these things on a task that is already hard do not actually help you that much.

Maybe that is desirable, but it seems more like it contradicts the spirit of the design.

[Brimshack]

Thank you guys for all the feedback, and I'm sorry about the delay on my part. I'll post some responses when I get home from work.

[Brimshack]

Wordman

The Quote

Yes, the sentence you quoted is poorly worded. What I meanto say is that you get to cast 1 spell per Game Session per point of one's Magic Stat. Whether it;'s the same spell several times or each a different spell is up to you. But your Magic Stat determines the basic number of spells in question.

Miniatures and Range

Yes, the game uses miniatures for combat, and ranges and so forth are based on actual inches.

Odds

I do see the effect of the bell curve, and it is deliberate. Of course that is the basic formula for the entire game, but it has two effects that I find useful:

1) It terms of Magic, it creates something with a practical effect a bit like spell levels. There is no rule that stops a player from casting spell x, y, or z, but a caster without sufficient power doesn't really have a shot. Give him a few bonus points and now he has a shot if he takes a little extra time. Give him a few more bonus points and he has it down. ...a few more and he can whip the spell off as a 1-Rounder. A more even spread would not have this effect unless the range of variation were significantly smaller.

2) In general terms it has the effect of promoting the use of Aid and affinity bonuses. A Character may find herself beyond her means. Say, her enemy has 6 points of bonus on her and even by burning extra actions (assuming a SPeed of 3), she is still left 3 down after all the calculations are done. She NEEDS help. It's only 3 points, but, that is enough to virtually guarantee she will lose the die roll (and that means she will likely hurt herself if she is foolish enough to attack).

So, combat is kind of two-tiered. There are a range of opponents most characters are basically competent to handle on their own, and then there are the big guns. You have to team up to get them, and if they team up with some of their own, then you may end up with a single die roll that is a team effort of sorts, with various bystandars working to improve the odds in various way.

I could be wrong, but I suspect the bell-curve helps to increase the significance of cooperation.

One extra twist – Two 6s = a Critical Success, which means the value of the third dice is doubled. Two 1s equal a Critical Blunder, which means the 1s are ignored and the third dice is the total die roll for the game. So, we have a definite trend towards middling rolls with the occasional outlier. That outlier occurs just enough to throw a serious curve ball in once or twice a game.

Triangular Sum

Thank your for "Triangular Sum." I figured there was a word for the progression, but I did not know it. Now, the question is whether or not enough other people will know it to make it worth using, or if introducing the term will be worth it. I suspect the answer will be yes.

Positives

You are right, it plays pretty simply in practice. Your character's modifier on a given roll, you know, because it's your character, it's on the sheet, and you probably remember it after a few rolls. Adding up the General Spell Modifier and the Bonus for extra Actions go pretty quickly. Aid Bonuses can be an extra complication, but the key is simply to complete each step before moving onto the next. In game, it moves very quickly.

As a side note: There are few if any bonuses for spell-buffing. The spells are there, but the ones that provide simple bonuses are not the preferred options. So, we don't run into a lot of extra complication with remembering all the buffs. That was a kill-joy factor for me in D&D 3.5. I suspect that if I were to encourage more such spell-created bonuses, the extra layer of math would cross the line. At present, I think it works, but there is not much room for additional variables.

[Brimshack]

Guy and Lance on Mages and extra Bonuses

Actually, Burning Actions for Bonuses is not unique to Spell casters (though the ability to do so for more than 1 round is; others must complete an action in the same round in which it is begun). Any extra actions one has left at the time of a die roll can be spent on bonuses to the roll. Also, any die rolls are made at a penalty of -2 per previous die roll in the turn. A special ability can be used to reduce this to -1 per previous die roll on a specific type of roll (Melee, Missile, Magic, Tasks, or Spiritual Assault). Also, it's worth remembering botched Melee Attacks can harm the attacker, at least in melee (he takes the difference minus his Athleticism score in damage), so it's the same risk as with Magic.

In practice, players tend to use their extra actions for movement and positioning. They will take extra attacks if they are reasonably confident of hitting an enemy. But any time the odds of hitting are close, the player usually opts to spend extra actions to increase his odds on a single attack. Some characters specialize for grunt clearing. They use light weapons and take the Special Ability (Relentless ______) to decrease the penalties for Flurry Attacks. Another common tactic is to attack once at full bonus, then attack a second time using extra Actions to compensate for the standard penalty.

One thing I do find with this system is the tactical situation changes rather constantly. In 3.5 I reached a point where I could pretty well estimate the number of a given enemy a character would take out each round and the amount of damage he would take each round in turn. I remember sort of scheduling when the heal spell would be needed. Here, we generally find that even moving a character or two can change the tactical situation significantly. This has the effect of keeping the spell-casters in mid-spell focused and plotting throughout everyone else's turn, re-evaluating the prospects for completion and even how they want to fix the details of the spell. And the shear pay-off for getting the extra time in adds to the dramatic value of the option.

If a caster manages to get two or three rounds into a spell, they are usually too busy cackling with glee to complain. ...At least that has been my experience so far.

Honestly, any spell that gets that takes a few rounds has the potentially to turn the tide of battle in itself. I have seen near TPKs turned into probable victories with a single healing spell and conversely offensive spells with sufficient prep time can take the fight out of an entire encounter. The benefit of being the guy who does that seems to outweigh the con of casting for a long time.

[Brimshack]

Side Note: Where I do have problems with Magic is in the existence of a definite sweet spot for spell-casting. Given enough time spell-casters tend to become over-powered. That isn't unusual for traditional rpg games; I remember it from 1st edition too, but this system really tends to re-enforce that. I've tried to compensate for this by numerous small tweaks and by adding Special Abilities that players can take to counteract spell casters, but the biggest problem this system has given me has been trying to balance it with other characters and keep that balance in play for as many game sessions as possible.

[Brimshack]

Lance on Moving Enemies

When a caster begins a spell, her player simply declares the spell and says she is still casting at the end of the round; "Still powering up" is a common phrase. All further details are determined on the Action that the spell is completed. This also has the effect (noted above) of giving spell casters something to do as others play. You can see healers gritting their teeth as allies move apart of breathing a sigh of relief as allies come close. Conversely, you might see an offensive caster watching with great interest as the enemy horde shifts around the field and the caster tries to assess where he will land the spell and how much he wants to pump the key multiplied effect.

[Brimshack]

Ashirgo

Overall Level of Complication

Thinking about it, I may just have a 1 beer game. It does have a lot of computations, but I can't think of anything that doesn't add to the overall system. When I suggest getting rid of this or that, my players shriek and howl. At present, I really think this is sort of where my original concepts lead. I won't be looking to complicate things more, but I don't see much to get rid of. So, honestly, I think I've just created a 1-beer game, so to speak.

Flavor

I think I can describe in-game features of any of these, though some of the Aiding bonuses are probably best treated as psychological or magical. (Actually, one melee fighter aiding another in combat is pretty easy. Where it gets difficult is explaining how one character might effectively double the bonus of an archer on a given shot. For that one, I need to appeal to something ineffable). 

My plan is to insert side-boxes into the text, each of which will explain what a given mechanism means in-game. So, the rules will describe the system much as done above (and yes, that is what comes first), but there will be small sections that might for example describe what it means when a character is burning actions for bonuses, or conversely why a character takes a penalty on a flurry attack.

Mana Pool and Game Allotments

If that is a replacement for the General Spell Modifier as a penalty, that's interesting. It may be a bit much to overhaul at this point. I.e. translating the penalties for x, y, and z into bonuses for the opposites.

I do have something independent of that, which can be converted into bonuses. To understand this, I have to explain the Allotments. Every Character has a series of options that can be performed a limited number of times per game. The number of times is always based on a Crunch-Stat. There are:

Persuasion Effects (Allotment = Presence) These are Intimidate rolls, Rally, or Aid to another character.

Affinity Bonuses (Allotment = Focus): This is a +3 Bonus to Aid that relies on having something in common with the character aided.

Opposition Bonuses (Allotment = Aggression): This is a Lethality Bonus of +5 to damage a character that has a Trait Opposite your own.

Desperation Bonuses (Allotment = Spirit): These are bonuses you can take if you are worried you are definitely going to lose a defence roll. Taking a Desperation Bonus means as a side effect that you will not harm the attacker if she botches her attack.

Spirit Reserve (Allotment = Spirit): This is a Reserve Pool that can be applied to all other Allotments. If you run out of magic, you can dip into your Spirit Reserve, but that means you won't be using these points for Desperation, Persuasion Effects, etc.

So, there is a pool of points that can be used to invoke powers and skew rolls. Where it is most relevant is in the relationships between different Traits. Characters get traits for a variety of things. I'll just mention two:

Traits

Natural Characteristics, for example elves are 'fair', 'enigmatic' and 'wise' whereas dwarves are 'stalwart' and 'plain'. Note that 'Plain' and 'Enigmatic' are opposed. So, a Dwarf could take an Affinity Bonus to Aid another Dwarf, or an elf could do the same with one of her own. If either a Dwarf or an Elf attacked the other, they could take a hell of a Lethality Bonus on the attack.

Moral Values: A Character with Compassion could help another such character very easily, as could one cruel character help another one with the same value, but if a Compassionate Character went to war with a Cruel Character, they could do great damage to each other very quickly.

So, if you think about it, each character has something like a set of spiritual resources she can use to bump rolls, but the options there are skewed. On her own she can boost her defences with desperation bonuses and/or cast spells. If attacking opponents to which she is naturally opposed, she can crank the damage. But if she wants to boost bonuses in any other way, she will have to do it by helping others (or by getting help from them).

[Brimshack]

Dindenver

Balance Versus Other Aspects of Combat

A player can always burn unused actions on a single die roll. The difference is that only casting can go for 1 round (though there is a Special Ability, called Patience that enables people to go 1 extra round on other rolls, ...but that is a specific character ability, not so much the general system).

Where the balance tends to break down is in high level casters. The reason is this; just about every other functioning stat is improved by 2 Crunch Stats. So, a Character can boost her Magic Defence by pouring points into Caution and Magic, but the modifier on an Offensive spell can be boosted by using 3 variables; Magic + Aggression + Speed (which boosts the number of Actions available). The latter pay-off is not always there, and at low-levels of power it isn't that significant. But give characters a dozen games or so, and it starts to matter a great deal. ...this is one of the main reasons, we added Desperation Bonuses to the Game Allotments. It gives characters a chance to better resist negative spell effects by spending a limited resource. The desperation bonuses helped to restore balance a great deal wen we added them, but the Magic System is in principle on a different course than the other aspects of the system.


Damage

Base Damage is the difference in the die rolls. This is subject to modifiers such as Lethality or Puny Strike versus Invulnerability versis Vulnerability. Some examples:

A Great Axe provides +5 Lethality on a successful Strike. Charge adds +2 Lethality. The Minor Special Ability 'Charge Specialist' adds +3 more (+6 if taken as a Major Ability).

A Pixie has a Puny Strike Penalty of -2. If he hits something,he automatically subtracts 2 from the damage, because he is wimpy. This will not reduce damage below 1, however, so a hit is a hit, even if it is not an impressive hot.

Armor grants Invulnerability Bonuses reducing damage from a successful strike (but not below 1).

Vulnerability: Elves add 2 to the physical damage taken on any successful attack. Orcs add 2 to the Mental Damage taken on any successful attack.

So, anyway, yes burning actions in melee, magic, or missile (or Intimidate and Spiritual assault for that matter, ...Spiritual Assault is a bit like psionics) will not only increase the odds of success but add to the damage enemy takes.

Writing Style

Writing Style may be my biggest problem at present. This actually started as a skirmish game, but we turned it into an RPG with the hope of having combat work the same in each, but with extra role playing elements added to the RPG.My thinking at present is that the dry style will help to keep the details in order. Given the level of detail, I think I need to keep it crisp and to the point in the actual rules. What I am trying to do now is develop more examples to illustrate the rules, but also include enough narrative detail in the examples to give them a little more flavor. I will also be added narratives describing the game-rules from a native point of view so to speak. My goal here is to add just enough flavor in side-bars to generate extra interest in the role-laying angles while keeping the basic rule-set pretty direct.

[Brimshack]

I like the mechanics that make up this system.
It doesn't seem too complicated either... I'm sure once the rest of the system is explained, it would become pretty natural to utilize. =)

Thank You!

[MacLeod]

Lots of information here... Lots of potential for a really great game, too! I've been frothing at the mouth for a new tactical/strategic/skirmish based RPG that doesn't bite the bag, so I'm extremely interested to see how this whole thing turns out. =D
How close is this one to completion?

[Ashirgo]

"How close is this one to completion?"

The more options, the longer to complete it

I am glad you provide so much information about your system, it is pretty inspiring. The system of Game Allotments sounds like a good gamist approach to many "deep" things in game; it may translate into a more immersive system which supports crunchy resolutions at the same time, if done with lots of love

Unfortunately, I cannot comment much on it right now, I do not really feel like suggesting any new things, since I would certainly give some solutions from my own project.... And it would be strange to have many systems with the same specific solutions, do not you think?

[Brimshack]

MacLeod:

Actually, the game itself is done, and I'm happy to share it. By 'done' I mean that I have a complete set of rules that works for me and my group. I even have a couple hundred pages of monster write-ups and the first 12 gods of a pantheon. The setting is less than one page in. So, that's essentially an idea at this point. The current design is two books, one Game Handbook and one with monsters and other challenges (The Menagerie of Miseries). I am moving some of the stuff out of the monster book this weekend so as to make the Handbook stand alone. I can't publish two at a time, so I need one book to work on its own for awhile.

What drew me to this forum recently was cold feet and lack of outside input. There are no huge gaps in the game that I am aware of, but we are still tweaking to get things in order. I knew we had something that played well in our own group, but I also knew the text was falling flat when others read it. So, I have been looking to modify the presentation and get outside input to help me get it into publishable mode.

All the texts are in basic writing format right now, and all the illustrative examples are in a separate file of their own (with notes for how and where to plug them in). This thread showed me the importance of getting them together in the same text. Art exists, but it won't be put in until layout. Since coming to this forum I've added a demo module, 'The Wyrdling Wood', and an Introduction in the main game describing a quick exchange in a fight. (Since demos have consistently gone better than cold readings for this game, I decided to try an replicate a demo in the introduction. Got that idea here; haven't seen it play out yet.)

The plan at present is to spend the next month or so editing, then put the Game Handbook into layout. Might change the name; might leave it. I'm toying with "Worlds of Grief" as a minor change with similar flavor. ...and the prospect of chapters like "Giving the Players Grief" is fun. If I can get a hard copy of the Game Handbook done and released, then I'll put monsters, animals, and PCs online (we could do 1 a day for a year from the current batch if we do them as text alone with no bells and whistles) until I can release a full book of monsters.

The setting will be called 'The Stone Philosophic' and its intent will be to encourage epic journey into different parts of the world. Just imagine Mideaval (sp?) Europe with magic exploring and colonizing the rest of the world a couple centuries early (because magic makes it possible and they have an in-game incentive - the search for ingredients for the Stone Philosophic). Now they meet people from other parts of the world (along with their monsters). So anyway, the plan there is to develop small modules for different parts of the world until we have another for a 3rd book serving as a setting. Each demo will be premised on the notion that characters arrive (probably by ship) and play out a few sessions in the region before moving on. If players would rather work as natives that will be possible too, then the trigger for the plot will be the arrival of strangers. I think one of the reasons odd settings like Africa and North America tend to fall flat in traditional fantasy is that people run out of ideas. It's fun for a game or three, but then people harken back to fantasy standards. So, the idea here is to invite players to dabble their feet in such settings for as long as they like and move on if and when they want. I also want to heavily explore questions of contact and potential exploitation/resistance, and to mythologize it as well. Anyway, it's the prospect of getting to all these places that makes it "Worlds of Hurt" in the plural.

Hm... you really didn't ask for the total plan did you? All this is subject to revision of course, but it reflects the direction I'm heading.

Anyway, a complete version of the game does exist with no bells or whistles, and I am moving to the editing stage right now. I have few resources, so the pace of movement is uncertain, but foreword momentum is assured.

[MacLeod]

While I didn't ask for the whole plan, I'm glad you divulged as much. =) It sounds like you have a pretty solid grasp of the situation at hand... I've been given an undeserved fear of indie RPG makers not coming through for me (I can be selfish) but I feel some healthy confidence radiating from this project. =D

During your editing stages, do you intend to throw any more previews up for feedback here on the Forge? I'm no perpetual spring of super creativity and amazing but I sure wouldn't mind helping out in some way. That, and I wouldn't mind having a way of tracking the game's progress.

[Brimshack]

Hi McCleod,

Check your PM Box.