BONES the RPG

[andy]

Back from vacation and in my office (with my cuddly T1);

5. Opposed rolls-- I've chewed on this one a lot, and have decided to keep opposed rolls for combat and stick to static rolls for non-combat situations. I think that the concept of avoiding two mechanics where one will do is certainly good game design--I'm just not convinced that it makes for a game that's more fun to play. I use Axis & Allies as my example--while you could have standard target numbers instead of opposed rolls, that would take the fun out of defending and make it a passive endeavor. Most of us who have played A&A have a memory or two about impossible last stands that changed the course of a game. These games would be less memorable if we were just sitting, watching the attacker roll. A triumph of gamism? Perhaps....

6. Hybrid tasks-- Paul (and others) are correct--they're out.

7. Another good point-- how does "damage pool" sound?

8.  Hmm...no movement or distance rules... I think that you're probably right--any other feedback?

9. I want to avoid stacking masterys and have a little more diverse skill base. I don't mind a combat monster if it can also Put on the Ritz.

10. Yes. Bad proofing.

11. I like the encumbrance system too--in testing it works really well.

12. Yep.

13. Thank you. So far, it seems to work. Still working out some of the bugs in the lackey rules (for version 2.0)

14. At this point, just the Mastery success. Would it make more sense the other way?

15. White Wolf and Feng Shui were two of my models, but I agree-- I never liked having to take stuff that I didn't want to get to what I did want.

16. Darkness (and cover) will cancel combat successes.

17. I also wanted to have separate scopes in the same game. I would normally flesh out details thru narrative or via email.

18. I have dumped asset management. Sounded at  little too much like my broker.

19. I don't like to kill characters by chance.

20. You're right--I have edited V2.0 to read a little better.

21. Yes--the player picks.

22. This is a good idea that I will also apply to darkness-- I will have separate dice in the toolkit for different degrees of cover (ie a "light" cover die would be: blank, blank, blank, blank, defend, defend)

23. I'm still tweaking the weapons equipment dice, but they've held up well to testing. The player has the option of how he uses his weapons.

24. Nope-- just character dice (although enchantments could be added to equipment dice)

25. Thank you--fixed.

26. Magnitude was a concept that didn't fit--gone now.

27. Hmmm (again) -- what I meant was a beast with 2 character dice per level of success. Does this make more sense?

28. The subdual dice is out. I'm looking for another alchemical preparation instead.

29. I'm still working on the spells, but you're right. I have contemplated other magic systems and am still noodling on previous posts.

30. Weather factor is out.

31. I hope to avoid some of these issues by making the symbols easy and quick to draw. For my group, we would do dice while scarfing our pizza.  I get varying levels of participation from various players.

Paul--thanks again for a great post. I'll email you Bones 2.0 when it's ready.

Andy

[taalyn]

Me too! Me too! I am so entirely excited about this game. If you don't finish it, I'll have to do one. And I might even if you do finish! =)

Aidan

[Nuno Viotti]

Andy, hi.

First I'm new to this forum in a way (it's my first wrinting here), yet I've been looking around for some months now. It's an excellent site and enought said for now.


As of your post, you have quite a few good ideas in this game of yours but perhaps I should point out Ron Edwards' article "System Does Matter":

"Let's consider Fortune methods as the example because that's what most of us are used to. So the question becomes, given that a system is (e.g.) mostly Fortune-based, how well does it actually work during play? I suggest two things to check carefully (these terms are stolen from ecology, of all things).

- Search time, meaning, how long does it take to know what you got? This includes knowing how many dice to roll, calculating modifiers, counting up the result, and so on.

- Handling time, meaning, so what happens? This includes comparing the outcome to another roll or to a chart, moving on to the next step if any, ticking off hit points, checking for stunning, and so on.

I certainly can't dictate how much is too little or too much - but I do claim that if they are not appropriate for the player outlook of the game (Gamist, Narrativist, Simulationist), players will complain, rightly, that the system "bogs down" (Narrativist), is "unfair" (Gamist), or isn't "realistic" or "accurate" (Simulationist). A good system's resolution should get the job done in appropriate amount of real time. Which job, and how long is appropriate, depend on the outlook. A new RPG system has no excuse simply to rely on the old paradigm of (1) roll initiative, (2) roll to hit, (3) roll defense, (4) roll damage, (5) check for stunning, etc, etc. This is a leftover from wargaming and is strictly Simulationist + Gamist. The RPG for you might be very, very different."

That only to poin out that the more dice come into play, the more time (the one Ron describes) is spent. If that affects positively or not your gaming time is something you should consider, because they are the engine at the core of the "Fortune" part of your game, a backbone so to speak. That leads to your goal as a designer:


Are you aiming at a Gamist style of play? Or at a Narrativist, or Simulationist? In other words, what style do you fancy the most?
I'm deeply involved in this issues myself 'cause I've been assembling a game of my own in throughout this past year or so and these issues have been keeeping my late interest - as opposed to just dish out some groovy mechanics.

And, I'm also fighting through a lot of opposition from my regular D&D mates. Again, to clear you a bit more on that, I suggest readind another of Ron's articles "Fantasy Heartbreakers" and "More FH", whose excerpt sums my friends' thoughts on the matter:

"you can't do D&D fantasy, regardless of how streamlined or "more logical" your rules are, without being directly measured by the defining feature, which is to say, D&D itself. In other words, the game design is trapped - the less like D&D it becomes in function and content, the further it moves from its goals, to "fix D&D." And the more it stays with its goals, the more D&D compares favorably with it. "

So, how close is your fantasy to D&D's? And that's another real big issue to consider, 'cause my friends (and they are my friends) feel a lot of reluctance to put out with a few sessions of our 20+ year D&D campaign, that's come to life since the Basic Boxed Set, for the sake of an experiment. We've done fine experiments with other games in the past, including my very own "Time Conspiracy", yet now our lives don't leave that much free time as in earlier days, and people have to make choices...


That said, let me add:
I also like dice, they're fun to look at, to roll and collect, and they come in all shapes, sizes and fancy colours. But HOW MUCH of them do I need?

[Nuno Viotti]

Mike Holmes wrote:
"Have you considered the idea of the system being one where players only roll for PCs? For instance, in Whispering Vault, the opposition is only ever described by difficulty ratings. So if you want to hit a fast NPC, the GM makes the difficulty higher."

Altough in our D&D campaign the GM always rolls all the dice, for historical reasons, I'm in favor of trying something quite the opposite:
Having players roll all dice (unless in particular situations where it could be argued that perhaps it's not in the players best interest, for the sake of realism, to have them know if they succeded or not) is FUN - who isn't thrilled as the dice roll on the table, wishing results? I'm not meaning just RPGs; for some games it's kind of almost the sole purpose of gaming!

Mike, the problem with difficulty ratings is that it works fine when the playing character is the active side. However, it tends to confuse the player when, for instance, he has to roll to see if his character was NOT hit by an npc (he is only taking a responsive action to an initiative from the npc part). People tend to be bewildered by numbers (and the more complex the worse) and that adds to the overall weight of handling the whole process, in game session terms.
I'd rather not see a GM (who we'll assume is the one 'inside' the system) taking too much attention on the mechanics on the other side of the screen - to have him properly focused on the trend and the management of opponents and events.

In the system I am developing, one D6 should do the job:
0 or less - grand success for the opponent/challenge,
1 or 2 - opponent/challenge succeds
3 or 4 - no evident outcome/advancement on both sides
5 or 6 - playing char. succeds
7 or more - grand success for the pc

All "difficulty ratings" should now be clear for the player:
His opponent skill / challenge level is matched against his skill. Any who gets advantage modifies the roll: D6+X, D6-X or a clear D6 (if they match).

What do grand successes allow? It's a bit of a choice if the one who gets it is "intelligent" enough to choose: it could be a critical hit, doing more damage, or a normal action, executed as a free action.. In any case, it should always emphasize a certain dramatic aspect of the action, either in favor or against the player.

But now I realize perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself here. I wonder if I should post this in a new topic of my own, since this is essencialy Andy's post to his game and I'm drifting towards mine. Sorry Andy, if I took it lightly.
:-)

And, finally, my compliments to Clinton R. Nixon and Ron Edwards, for a site that works very nicelly - towards independent RPG and mechanically wise. (yep, System Does Matter)
:-))

[Nuno Viotti]

Hmm...no movement or distance rules... I think that you're probably right--any other feedback?

Perhaps you should consider D&D type movement and distance, especially if your playtesters have the experience.
I believe that 3E (and its succesor 3.5) did a nice job at sinthesyzing that and they did it with common sense (which is what you should apply here).
What they did not was eradicate the same old "sacred cows" but the designers were sold to compatibility bonds - quite like the long MS-DOS/Windows family.
But that is quite another story...
:-P

[andy]

Nuno raises several good points, with the central theme being "will the dice mechanic bog down play?" This is certainly an issue, and is my second biggest problem with DnD3E (the first problem is that the advancement scheme makes the higher levels unplayable IMHO).

With the kind help of people on this board and friendly lurkers, I have been adjusting and tweaking mechanics and I have decided to scrap the task resolution system (which uses a table) for non-combat tasks in favor of an opposed roll similar to the combat system. This will keep all task resolution on the same mechanic (a good thing) and actually speed play.

No, really, it will. The single dice vs dice mechanic (which I refer to as the "throw down") is both easy to read and quick to resolve.

And, as an avid RPGer and craps player, I like dice.

I will post the text of this mechanic in the not-too-distant future.

Thanks to all on this Board.

Andy

[andy]

As promised, here are two new mechanics for BONES:

First, the addition of two more universal icons:

BONES is a fantasy RPG based almost entirely around customized dice. Essentially, each PC is represented by a number of d6 which have been customized with symbols either dictated by character background or chosen by the player. When faced with a task, the PC rolls his dice ('rolls his bones") and counts the number of symbols he rolled that apply to the task he is attempting. For example:
   
Gary is attempting to climb a tree. The game master has decided that the climb is easy, which means that only one success is required. Gary rolls his 4 bones (character dice), which come up with one universal success (a "+" symbol) and one maneuver success (a "balance" symbol). With two successes, Gary easily climbs the tree.

   Each character die has one face which is marked with a "+", the symbol for universal success and one face marked with either a triangle (mental success) or a square (physical success). The remaining four faces can be customized by the player, as he sees fit. PCs start with four dice, gain dice as they gain experience and temporarily lose dice when they are injured. Characters roll their bones (dice) once per task they are attempting and count the number of successes they have rolled to determine the results of their efforts.


In addition, I have scrapped the task table and replaced it with an opposed roll for unopposed tasks:

Success at an unopposed task is determined by comparing the character's roll with the results of the challenge dice – the player rolls his bones and the GM rolls the challenge dice, and if the player generates a success after subtracting any hindrances rolled on the challenge dice, the character succeeds in performing the task. Each challenge die has the same icons (null, null, null, blank, blank, blank) and every null rolled on a challenge die negates one of the player's successes. The difficulty of the task sets the number of challenge dice that are rolled:

Task Difficulty   Number of challenge dice

Easy                             2
Average                             3
Difficult                             4
Almost impossible             6
Impossible                             8
Inconceivable           10


Please let me know what you think.

Andy

[taalyn]

Heya Andy!

 Love the new additions. I would think doing the same with the penalty dice would be appropriate too (mental or physical failure - perhaps the successes are hollow, but the failures are solid). As always, I'm looking forward to where you go with this.
 The comments you requested are below. If anyone else would like to take the "survey" too, I'm sure Andy would be quite pleased.

1.      Do you think that the basic mechanic is sound?
 
I think so. I think some playtesting is in order, to hammer out probabilities and fine tune, but it looks workable to me.

2.      Is there anything missing that I need to add?

A bunch of things that need work, I think. Advancement rules could use some fleshing out.

Some thoughts:

Chargen: needs some system to guide how many icons of any type can be placed. I guess I'm thinking of someone who uses ONLY melee or magic icons, which is fine as the rules stand. On the other hand, that comes with it's own problems... I guess some sort of system for deciding which icons and how many might be a good idea anyway. How powerful is one icon on one die vs 3 icons on one die vs. one on each vs. 4 spread out. Some idea of how many means what would be useful, both at chargen and when creating a new item die - that's the most important thing I would add right now. One thought was to have defined dice types (Warrior, Thief, Mage, etc) and let the player build their pool from them. Or at least provide that option.

Combat: love it. love the simultaneity of it too. it's probably the best way to handle simultaneous action I've ever seen. Very awesome.

Magic: you're working on it - so I aint saying nothin.

Money: well...okay, I will say something about Magic here. If you've got it, or can afford $10, look at Donjon (by our very own Clinton R. Nixon) - it's fantastic. I think Bones could really benefit from some streamlined and symbolic methods for handling both money and magic, and I think Donjon has an excellent system.

3.      Are the contents understandable?

 Clearly written, for the most part. More examples would be good - too many is just right when it comes to garlic in chili and examples in rpgs, IMO. Could use some color, but that will come with setting. Unless you're going to go generic with Cold Iron as a sample setting, in which case, you need to account for a number of other genres (what does a laser rifle die look like? force fields?)

4.      Would there be a better way to organize things?

 Perhaps, but at the moment, a lot is waiting for setting info. I think that may help a lot in deciding how to present.

5.      Do any problems stand out?

 Need that table/explanation of the relative power of icon number and placement. That will be a central tool players (and GMs) will use.

6.      Any suggestions for additions/changes?

 Mentioned above. And you're working on magic.

7.      Would you be interested in a play test down the road?

 Abso-friggin-lutely. Tell me when. Next week? =)

Aidan

[andy]

There is only basic character generation information included in the core BONES rules because I intend to customize each setting's char gen process. I am a proponent of character differentiation, or the idea that characters (as opposed to merely their players) should be recognizable and distinct. This concept undoubtedly harkens back to the ancient DnD concept of class and party (anyone remember when adventuring parties had a group "caller?"), but I find that players enjoy themselves more when they don't often steal each other's thunder.

Without further ado, the unfinished char gen system from my first (and only) setting, COLD IRON, follows:


Character Generation

   In the Cold Iron campaign setting, starting Bones characters are created one die at a time. First, the character selects a culture (which represents the character's birthplace and roots) and finalizes his first die, called his culture die. Next, the character chooses a background (which represents the character's upbringing and initial place in society) and finalizes his second die, called his background die. A character's culture will limit his choice of backgrounds—for example, there are no Roman nomads.
   After a character has selected his culture and background, he may build his character by adding additional background and/or culture dice (from the same background and culture that he started with) or he may choose an initial and second occupation die (which may be the same). Again, culture and background will limit the character's choice of initial occupation (there are no Norse villager students) and a character's initial occupation may limit his choice of a second occupation – a Mongol man-at-arms might become a cavalry rider, but he cannot switch to sage.

Character generation summary
1.   Pick a starting culture
2.   Finalize the culture die (1st die)
3.   Pick a starting background
4.   Finalize the background die (2nd die)
5.   Pick an initial occupation (or continue with either starting background or culture)
6.   Finalize the third die
7.   Pick another occupation (or starting culture/background) die
8.   Finalize the fourth die
9.   List starting equipment and finalize sheet
10.   Write character back story.

   
      Starting Cultures

Roman—Rome is the center of a civilized empire that includes Egypt, Greece and Gaul as recent conquests. Available backgrounds include citizen, villager, noble, slave and criminal.
1.   universal success
2.    mental success
3.   (choice) craft or artisan or scholar
4.   (choice) merchant or social or craft or artisan
5.   (choice)—unrestricted
6.   (choice)—unrestricted

I have finished the starting cultures and am just starting on backgrounds.

Does this semi-modular character development work?

Is it too flexible--not flexible enough--just right?

Any other comments/suggestions?

As always, thank you everyone for your help.

Andy

[taalyn]

I think it can be flexible enough, as long as you provide plenty of options (and it sounds like you will). One of the problems I've faced with Crux is the problem of too many options - the player's eyes glaze over as they consider which of 783209347 options they could choose. I've done a similar semi-modular thing, and it's helped immensely.

It seems to me that the basic process of chargen could go in the bare bones Bones :D rules. That is, that players pick a culture die, then a background, and so on. You could even provide some sample culture/background/profession dice in the basic rules. Then simply note that any particular setting may have additional variants, or its own versions of the ones provided.

For example:

The rules could provide background dice for warriors, berserkers, thieves, footpads, etc.
The Setting might state that warriors, thieves, and footpads are allowed, but that berserkers are not. Instead, it defines a Viking die.

This way, chargen is visible even if setting material isn't available, and it gives GMs creating their own setting something to work from. At least, it sounds like you're going universal system-wise, so that would be a good idea.

If you are going universal (and not just fantasy universal, which is also doable - I just don't know which you're going for), you might consider expanding the skill icons to include starship handling, firearms, xenobiology, etc. Some of these may fall in fine with what you've got already.

And don't forget that relative power chart! :D I really do think that will be invaluable.

Aidan

[andy]

Well, I've finally gotten around to reevaluating the first draft magic system (posted earlier on this thread) and, with a lot of good input from this Board, I have decided to scrap it entirely.

Magic is one of the most challenging elements to regulate in a Fantasy RPG-- although a few do it well (Ars Magica, Talislanta 4ed, Conan, to name a few), it is tough to balance magic with other system components.

Perhaps this imbalance is realistic--if magic really existed, it would kick a** and magic wielding people would certainly have an advantage over us muggles.

Perhaps this imbalance shouldn't matter to truly devoted players, who shouldn't care if the other players can kick the snot out of their character.

But I frankly don't care. I think that the game should be relatively fair and balanced for all players (the gamist in me again) to encourage both a diversity in characters and creativity in problem solving.

Hence my struggle with a good magic system for BONES.

This is where I am now-- "Magic" will be a single skill like any other. There will be no spells. The magic using character will describe the effect he is trying to create and roll his bones (dice) against either the GM's challenge dice or against the opposing character's dice. If he succeeds, his magic works. If not, it fails.

Help. I need a little more structure than this. I am thinking if a few universal "rules" for magic to keep it in line a little more. Any assistance would be appreciated.

As always, thanks.

Andy

[taalyn]

Heya Andy,

 Questions for you -

 How does magic work? Is it a divine aid thing? Manipulating the energy of the universe? Imposing will? And how can that be represented in Bones?

 Does magic cost anything? Drain the caster? Age them? IS there any risk at all in using magic? "No" is a valid answer.

 It seems to me that the easiest way would be to describe some levels of complexity. That is, anything that could be done by a person without any tools would be complexity 1 (telekinesis, for example), with simple tools=2, and so on. The complexity determines how many successes are required, how many hindrance dice, or how many the GM rolls. Something like this works for Crux.

A.

[Valamir]

What about drawing on concepts from Donjon's magic words and 3E meta magic feats.

What if you had a variety of magic symbols.  They all serve as successes, but carry different unique color.

For instance a Damage Magic symbol would count as a success and give bonus damage.  A Range Magic symbol would count as a success and give longer range effects.  A Fire Magic symbol would count as a success and require that Fire be incorporated into the description of the spell...

That may require too many unique symbols...but its the first thing that came to mind.

[andy]

First, in response to Taalyn's questions--

I want to leave the theme of an individual character's use of magic open to that character-- I would like the same system to encompass the Jesuit's miracles of faith and the shaman's spirit dance.

I am still chewing on the potential cost of magic. My options are either "none" or looking at a fatigue system (similar to the elegant system used in LOTR RPG) that would use hindering dice and may or may not only come into effect in cases of spell failures.

I am looking at levels of complexity, using my handy-dandy Challenge table. However, I think that I need additional guidelines for that complexity.

I might also be persuaded that all magic should be ritual magic, effectively ruling out combat usage (heresy!).

Valamir--

I do want to limit the number of symbols (preferably to one for magic). My ideal game would not require the players or GM to look at the book to read the dice.

I love Donjon's key word system (esp. the potential for humorous applications). I wish I could think of a good way to borrow from it.

Thanks for your help.

BONES 2.0 coming soon.

Andy

[taalyn]

Using Donjon's magic words - simple. Just convert to the different mechanic.

Roll for magic power, use those successes to define the spell ala Donjon, and a final roll (with magic bonus dice) for the casting. I imagine bonus dice as something like {blank, blank, blank, magic, magic, magic}. The opposite of hindrance dice, in other words. For that matter, why not simply have bonus and penalty dice. Certainly easier to say if nothing else.  :)

Of course, I think you'd want your examples a little more serious that what I just wrote.