The Forge Archives

The Mechanics Critique will be very simple, I'm just going to present the basic task resolution method: other details, like combat specifics and such, I'll fill in if people seem to think the basic task resolution is passable. Here it is:

Players are looking for multiples 'of a dice' on a pool of rolled dice for success: A typical task is looking for two-of-a-kind, harder or opposed tests may often need more.
The actual number on the dice is only used for comparisons of equal-sized sets in a resisted test- lower is better.  Thus, three 5's beats two of anything, loses to four of anything, beats three 6's, loses to three 4's. Got it?

  Players roll a number of dice equal to an applicable Stat.   A number of these dice equal to the applicable Skill are d6's, the rest are d10's. These dice are all considered one pool, so a 2 on a d10 can be combined with two 2's on d6's for a three of a kind.
  Example: Joe wants to pick a lock. His Dex is 5 and his Lockpicking is 3.  He rolls 3d6 and 2d10.  
  If a character's skill is higher than their stat, this represents having the know-how but not the physical/mental conditioning.  The GM can allow the player to roll a number of d6 equal to their skill, if the GM rules the player has unlimited time, room for error, etc.
   Example: Bob wants to pick a lock.  His Dex is 3 and his Lockpicking 5.  He rolls 3d6 and fails.  The GM rules that nobody is around, and he's not likely to be interrupted, so he allows Bob to roll two more d6's and compare them in with the rest of the pool. If he still doesn't succeed, then Bob has tried every trick he knows, and much get better tools or do more research before he can try again.

     The idea is that the more skilled you are, the less d10's you roll, and thus your odds of getting multiples of-a-kind increases. The question is: Does it increase substantially enough to be a good reward for someone having a high skill? Bare in mind that lower is better, so two 9's may not be good for much if you're competing with anyone.

    Now the Setting Question: I would like to combine Martial Arts and Horror without either becoming a parody. That is, I want honest thrills and chills, despite a good portion of the game centering on combat.  Now, at first it seemed impossible, since action, and especially martial arts action, seems to be the total opposite of scary in an RPG- it's invigorating and fun.   But it should be doable, because after all, in the real world someone trying to kill you with a sword is scary as hell. Violence is terrifying, so there must be a way to make it so in a game!
       I'm thinking about having my damage system actually incorporate the odds of temporary and permanent injury, such as scars or losing a finger or eye, into account. I'm not going to have any crude table to roll on, rather, Superficial, Temporary, and Permanent injuries will actually be classifications of wounds sustained during combat (like other games might use the classifications Light, Moderate, or Heavy) with self-explanatory results based the type of attack used.  So, if a character is hit by a sword, and the wound category is Permanent, the GM is going to have them lose a finger, hand, or head depending on other circumstances.
      In short, I'm doing with combat what Call of Cthulhu did with magic: Make it dangerous, terrible, dreaded- the last thing you'd ever want to fool around with; and yet, the game is about that very thing, so too damn bad.  Hence, horror ensues. Hopefully. Thoughts on that?

As far as your die pool question -- well, that looks interesting.  I would need more time with the math to even sit and think about it.

Now, in terms of your actual goals with the game, which seem to be making combat a terrifying, life-threatening experience:  I can say for certain that this is doable, and can be great fun.  Have you read Riddle of Steel?  It seems to be sizeably different from what you are going for here, but it has a combat system that makes people very afraid.  You probably want to look into it if you plan on continuing with this project.  www.driftwoodpublishing.net

yrs--
--Ben

QuoteNow, in terms of your actual goals with the game, which seem to be making combat a terrifying, life-threatening experience:

  Hey, that Riddle of Steel looks like good stuff, that's for pointing it out to me! I usually stay away from games that advertise as being 'narrativist', but the claims they make about the combat system not only intrigue me, but they counter the negative stereotypes I have in my head about narrativist games in the first place.
  The vision I have for the game would be like a fusion between the films Hellraiser and Hero. I want to do this without the end result being Mortal Kombat. :)

A mix of major and minor musings.

1. Mechanics:

Quote from: UccisorePlayers roll a number of dice equal to an applicable Stat.   A number of these dice equal to the applicable Skill are d6's, the rest are d10's.

So what if your skill is higher than your base stat? Or is that just not possible?

For that matter, why have a distinction between skills and stats? The standard answer is "stats are something everybody in the game-world has, skills are something you may or may not have," but defining what things are universal and important enough to count as base stats is always a nightmare unless you have a very, very clear idea of what the game is about (e.g. Sorcerer's base stats are your day job, your sorcery, how tough you are, and how human you are -- and that's it; My Life With Master has Love, Weariness, and Self-Loathing). Without aclear idea, you end up kitchen-sinking as you think up more and more things that could be important:

Quote from: the Spanish Inquisition Guy from Monthy PythonIn my game, the two base stats are Strength, Intelligence, and Agility -- no, three base stats, Strength, Intelligence, Agility, and Charisma -- no, four, Strength, Intelligence, Agility, Charisma, Perception, and Fanatical Devotion to the Pope... oh, I'll just come in again.

And lots of games get by without the distinction at all; they usually talk about "traits" instead. E.g. my character may be defined by "Forge Theory +3," "Bad Driver -1," and "Loves His Family +4," while yours may be defined by "Kickass Martial Artist +6" and "Extensively Tattooed +2." There doesn't necessarily need to be any standard list of things that everyone has a number in.

Quote from: UccisoreExample: Bob wants to pick a lock.  His Dex is 3 and his Lockpicking 5.  He rolls 3d6 and fails.  The GM rules that nobody is around, and he's not likely to be interrupted, so he allows Bob to roll two more d6's ...

Now, presumably you just off-the-cuff'd this example, but consider: If you really give the GM such unlimited flexibility to add bonuses and penalties as s/he sees fit, then the character's actual stats do not matter -- the only thing that matters is the GM's subjective decision to apply modifiers (and the player's ability to sweet-talk the GM into applying them). Lots of systems work like this in practice.


2. Setting (or maybe "genre" is the better word....)

Quote from: UccisoreI would like to combine Martial Arts and Horror....it should be doable, because after all, in the real world someone trying to kill you with a sword is scary as hell.

I started a whole thread on this a while back, with an emphasis on the psychological aspects of combat -- Fear and Confusion -- that got a lot of interesting responses and which is well taking a look at.

QuoteSo what if your skill is higher than your base stat? Or is that just not possible?

I actually addressed this with my 'off the cuff' example, but I see it wasn't as clear as it could have been. Let me try again.  Let's use Lockpicking, and assume 5 minutes is a 'typical' amount of time to pick the lock in question.

Stat 5, Skill 3:  Steady hands, but know-how is limited.  The character can try everything he knows in 5 minutes. He rolls 3d6 and 2d10 all at once, and takes the result. This represents 5 minutes of work, pass or fail.

Stat 3, Skill 5:  Shaky hands, but very knowledgeable.  The character knows all about locks and how to open them, but it takes him a little longer to run through everything he knows.  He rolls 3d6 up front representing 5 minutes of work.  If he fails, and the GM rules he has time to keep trying, he can roll 2d6 more (for a total of 5, because his skill is 5) which represents repeated attempts over a longer period of time- perhaps 15 minutes or more.

So, the skilled guy with shaky hands will ultimately succeed more often (because he rolls 5d6 instead of 3d6 and 2d10), provided he has the time to try everything he knows.  But if you need it done RIGHT NOW, the guy with steady hands is your best bet, because he rolls 5 dice up front.

As far as the stat/skill distinction, I don't like doing what every other game in the world does, but, it really seems to me to be the easier way to handle unskilled tests; "I know this guy has never wrestled before, but he has a 100 lbs of muscle more than his opponent, that should count for something."

   For your input on the psychological effects of combat: I've been focusing more on the psychological effects on the players and not the characters right now- I'm more interested right now in how to make the players fear combat and the risks involved, than I am in how to handle character reactions realistically.  I feel I need to strip away the combat standard of injury that states that "Any wound short of death will be forgotten by next game session".  
  Imagine a game session in which a player breaks into a martial arts school at night to steal something. The one guard draws a sword and gets in a ready stance- it's obvious he intends to kill the character if the character sticks around. My entire goal is to make the player stop thinking "My number is higher than his number, this should be a piece of cake" and start thinking about severed arteries, how long it would take an ambulance to get out there, and how much he cherishes having all 10 fingers.

    Do you think that imputting psychological effects on the characters will help put the players in the mood I'm shooting for?

Quote from: UccisoreMy entire goal is to make the player stop thinking "My number is higher than his number, this should be a piece of cake" and start thinking about severed arteries, how long it would take an ambulance to get out there, and how much he cherishes having all 10 fingers. Do you think that imputting psychological effects on the characters will help put the players in the mood I'm shooting for?

Actually, one of the chief insights of that thread (and I won't claim credit for it: TonyLB was arguably the first guy to really drive the point home) was that you want the players to be feeling the same kind of fear and confusion as their characters -- obviously scaled down, of course. So to take your "fight the guard" example, the player can't be thinking "oh, my number is higher, I've got a 98% chance of winning" if the player doesn't know the guard's exact stats because the character doesn't have a "perception" or "read body language" or "identify sword school" ability that's high enough to determine them. Confusion creates fear.

QuoteSo to take your "fight the guard" example, the player can't be thinking "oh, my number is higher, I've got a 98% chance of winning" if the player doesn't know the guard's exact stats because the character doesn't have a "perception" or "read body language" or "identify sword school" ability that's high enough to determine them. Confusion creates fear

Ooh, I like the idea of having some ability to 'size a person up' be an important part of combat. It is in real life, after all. If combat is truly ugly, then determining your ability to beat someone before the first attacks are made could be as important as the fight it self, if it keeps you from doing something stupid. The same skill could even be used to gain some numerical advantage reflecting an ability to see what the opponent is likely to do from their stance or attitude. If there was an attack/defense set up to this analysis, it could lead to fights that consist of long period of staredowns and circling, followed by a single brief period of fatal interaction.

Quote
I actually addressed this with my 'off the cuff' example, but I see it wasn't as clear as it could have been. Let me try again. Let's use Lockpicking, and assume 5 minutes is a 'typical' amount of time to pick the lock in question.

I had managed to understand your example. I like your mechanic a lot. It's a nice simple way of using both attiributes and skills. A further refinement might that each skill has a untrained difficulty. The average is d10, but harder skills might be d12, easier ones d8, almost impossible ones could be d20.

Consider also that this system could work with a non-fixed set of attributes, or if the "bigger" entity is something other than an attribute. For example, perhaps I have "Programmer 8" with "C Programming 8" and "FORTRAN Programming 2". Or you could throw in a third tier. Skill specializations let you roll a number of d4s (the thief is really skilled with a particular brand of lock, some of his dice are d4s - so you could have DEX 5, Lockpicking 3, Masterlock 1).

Hmm, I just noticed a quirk. A skill of 1 is meaningless. If you roll 1d6 and 1d10, you still only have a 1 in 10 chance of doubles - you can look at the probabilities in two ways:

First, given a d6 roll, the d10 only has a 1 in 10 chance of matching it.

Second, given a d10 roll, there is only a 6 in 10 chance the d6 roll could possibly match it, multiplied by a 1 in 6 chance the d6 roll matches - 6/10 * 1/6 = 1/10.

Frank

QuoteA further refinement might that each skill has a untrained difficulty. The average is d10, but harder skills might be d12, easier ones d8, almost impossible ones could be d20.

 So you mean like brain surgery would be d20 and driving a car would be d8, but skilled dice are always a d6 regardless? That makes pretty good sense actually. Is the need to have half a dozen of every kind of dice on hand worth the refinement, you think?
   Thanks for saying you like it. I'm pretty happy with it myself. ;)

QuoteConsider also that this system could work with a non-fixed set of attributes, or if the "bigger" entity is something other than an attribute.

   I'm having a hard time wrapping my brain around this idea. Do you mean that each character would specify their own list of Attributes, like "Sexy" or "Computer Programmer"? If I did that, wouldn't I still be stuck with needing another set of attributes to cover stuff they want to attempt that isn't covered by the attributes they picked? Or, would I just assign a flat number of dice (like, 2) to such rolls?
   Another element here is that I don't want the skills to be completely contained within a stat.  For example, shooting a gun might be based on Precision and Firearms. Identifying a gun in someone's hand might be Intelligence and Firearms.
   I like the idea of having specializations that allow for a d4 to be rolled.  The problem is that their needs to be a trade off, which is usually understood as "greater ability, rarer utility".  This trade off falls apart quite often, especially in combat where characters get to decide what weapons they carry on them.  

QuoteHmm, I just noticed a quirk. A skill of 1 is meaningless.

Well, there's one slight benefit: A skill of one increases the odds of the set (my term for the multiple of-a-kind rolled)  being 1-6, which gives an advantage in comparison of ties against someone with no skill (lower digits are better, remember). But that's so slight that your basically right.  Does that require a fix, you think, or is it just a footnote that a novice is hard to distinguish from a completely unskilled person?

I'd like to explain my combat system in this thread too, you want to hear about it? :)

Quote
So you mean like brain surgery would be d20 and driving a car would be d8, but skilled dice are always a d6 regardless? That makes pretty good sense actually. Is the need to have half a dozen of every kind of dice on hand worth the refinement, you think?

Yes. As a dice collector, it would be worth it to me. But there is an advantage to a game that doesn't rely on a huge dice collection, on the other hand, you are still requiring handfulls of d10s (though there are plenty of games that require handfulls of d10s so maybe that isn't too significant a factor).

Quote
I'm having a hard time wrapping my brain around this idea. Do you mean that each character would specify their own list of Attributes, like "Sexy" or "Computer Programmer"? If I did that, wouldn't I still be stuck with needing another set of attributes to cover stuff they want to attempt that isn't covered by the attributes they picked? Or, would I just assign a flat number of dice (like, 2) to such rolls?

Yes. A default of 2 would be a good solution. Go with the idea that if a trait isn't worth stating, it's pretty average. I might go with 3 as the default so you can have two levels of below averageness.

But you may decide traditional attributes meet your needs best, but it's worth examining the need for that.

Of course if players are making up traits, you need to be able to control how valuable they are to some extent. On the other hand, several games have made a conscious design to allow players to manipulate things to use their best traits.

Quote
Another element here is that I don't want the skills to be completely contained within a stat. For example, shooting a gun might be based on Precision and Firearms. Identifying a gun in someone's hand might be Intelligence and Firearms.

No problem, non-stat traits even re-inforce this,  and in some cases they will negate the need. If you have a trait "soldier 3" and a skill "firearms 2" then both shooting and identifying are governed by the "soldier" trait, unless the character also has the trait "military historian 6" in which case identifying the gun would use the military historian trait.

Quote
I like the idea of having specializations that allow for a d4 to be rolled. The problem is that their needs to be a trade off, which is usually understood as "greater ability, rarer utility". This trade off falls apart quite often, especially in combat where characters get to decide what weapons they carry on them.

True, but that may not be a problem. Specializations could be harder to acquire, or you might decide it isn't really a problem that the PCs do well when they can pick their battles. But a good game will have a balance between battles the PCs pick, and battles they don't.

Quote
Well, there's one slight benefit: A skill of one increases the odds of the set (my term for the multiple of-a-kind rolled) being 1-6, which gives an advantage in comparison of ties against someone with no skill (lower digits are better, remember). But that's so slight that your basically right. Does that require a fix, you think, or is it just a footnote that a novice is hard to distinguish from a completely unskilled person?

Ok, you're right on the probability of the pair being 1-6 being improved. I think you do need to document it. You also need to make sure the system makes it reasonable to get two dice in a skill. The good thing is it does increase the cost of learning a skill (you need to get 2 dice, not just 1), yet it provides some advantage while you are learning the skill. Turn the probabilities into a feature.

Quote
I'd like to explain my combat system in this thread too, you want to hear about it? :)

It's probably better to start a new thread. I think your setting question has kind of been lost for being in this thread.

Frank

Interesting system. I like the contrast between being really good at a skill, or just having a really good stat.

The idea of having player-defined traits doesn't really work, however, because without the set skills and stats, there's no point for the two different dice. If you've got Lock-Picking 4, you roll 4d6 and don't worry about the rest of it. I suppose you could feature a lot of shoehorning by the GM (which would happen in any case, with the way your system works), but having to do so with solely player-defined traits would be a rather large nightmare.

Perhaps you could have fixed stats and two types of user-defined skills, with one type being fairly broad (perhaps referring to occupations) and another fairly narrow (stuff like Lock-Picking or Moving Silently).

To use the lockpicking example: Will has a Dexterity of 4 and a Thief of 3, but he hasn't picked many locks so he doesn't have anything specifically in Lock-Picking. However, he wants to try to fiddle with the lock on a door to get in to a locked room. He rolls 3d8 (for the applicable broad skill of Thief) and 1d10 for his Dexterity.

Edward the Thief also has a Dexterity of 4 and a Thief of 3, but he's picked a 2 points in Lock-Picking. He rolls 2d6 (for the narrow skill), 1d8 (for the broad skill rating that wasn't replaced), and 1d10 for his Dexterity.

This way, players have a strong reason to refine specific skills, but it also gives them broad groups of skills without having to worry about a lot of bookkeeping and at the same time balances the fact they have access to a lot of skills with the fact that they simply aren't as good as someone who's trained specifically.

In fact, I'm going to be plucking this Broad/Narrow skills thing, but feel free to snag it as well.


Also, as a character development thing, you could make Broad Skills and Narrow Skills each cost 2 to buy, but Narrow Skills only cost 1 if you've got a Broad Skill which is applicable. For an example: If you've got no ranks in Thief or Lock-Picking, you might just choose to pick up a 2 points in Lock-Picking to supplement your other skills. This would cost you a total of 4, because it's not a skill you'd have any basing for.

However, let's say you've already previously spent 4 points to pick up Thief 2. Because your Thief 2 applies, you can spend 2 points instead of 4 to pick up Lock-Picking. It's something most Thieves would learn the basics of sooner or later, so learning more about it would come more naturally to someone who had the basic training preparing them for it.


Just a couple ideas to throw out there for you.

Hey, I could go places with that I think.  Now, is the idea here that the broad skills (like Thief) are on a list that I came up with, and the narrow skills (lockpicking) are player-defined, or is it the other way around?  Or are you dropping the idea of player-defined traits altogether?
    In the current skills list, there are fewer items than you might expect, because I've taken broad categories like "Academics" and left it to the player to be more specific when they buy the skill.  The idea of having Academics itself, for a lesser benefit, completely escaped me!

QuoteYes. As a dice collector, it would be worth it to me.

I think you've sold me there; all my RPing friends are dice collectors, and if this game becomes a big enough deal that people I don't know are actually playing it...well, I think most people who would bother to play an RPG downloadable on some guy's website own tubfuls of dice anyway, don't they?

QuoteBut you may decide traditional attributes meet your needs best, but it's worth examining the need for that.

I think I'm going to do with traditional stats, just because I have so little experience (read: none) with games that do it another way, that I wouldn't trust myself to design it properly.

QuoteI think you do need to document it. You also need to make sure the system makes it reasonable to get two dice in a skill. The good thing is it does increase the cost of learning a skill (you need to get 2 dice, not just 1), yet it provides some advantage while you are learning the skill. Turn the probabilities into a feature.

I'd make it so that a level 1 skill would be very unusual for a character to start with, and would instead be a part of the process of learning a new skill in game, I think.

Quote
I think I'm going to do with traditional stats, just because I have so little experience (read: none) with games that do it another way, that I wouldn't trust myself to design it properly.

J Campbell also raised a good point about player defined traits.

Quote
I'd make it so that a level 1 skill would be very unusual for a character to start with, and would instead be a part of the process of learning a new skill in game, I think.

Sounds good. Most systems don't model learning a new skill well, and although this may still not be a good model, it at least gives a sense of a slow process of learning a brand new skill where you go through a stage where you have some knowledge but really can't apply it to any real degree of success yet. It probably won't come up much in play, but these kinds of things often come across as a "cool thing."

Where you will want to concentrate your energy is finding the right values for attributes and skills and the right set of attributes and skills.

Frank

QuoteWhere you will want to concentrate your energy is finding the right values for attributes and skills and the right set of attributes and skills.

The attribute maximum value is easy: with 7 dice, a character is guarenteeed a two of a kind, so the maximum value is 6.  With skills, I think I can get around having a maximum value, since the stats limit their application for the most part, and the returns deminish so much.

Do you need to set a maximum? If three of a kind is better than two of a kind, then you can go out to 13 dice before it's automatic. Also, more dice have a better chance of getting a lower two of a kind.

You also should consider if contests against the environment are static (you just need 2 of a kind to succeed, the environment doesn't roll) or dynamic (the environment gets a roll).

Dynamic contests against the environment will be more interesting, assuming you only roll for "important" ones.

In dynamic contests against the environment, you can assign the environment numbers and types of dice depending on the overall difficulty and how focused the environmental challenge is (so a simple cliff might only get d10s against climbing, while a cliff with specific challenges might get some d6s or even d4s). A trivial obstacle might get 2d20 (almost guaranteed to be beat).

You may want to think about what happens if no one rolls a double. I'd reccomend using the highest die roll with the lowest winning (though you might choose to use the highest skill die roll - the question is do attributes whose potential isn't attained in a skill (Dexterity 5, Dodge 3 representing that Dodge has only reached part of the potential) dominate over the skill. This is a tricky dynamic that you need to think about. I'd reccomend such a success not really be a success, more a slight advantage to one side or the other.

If you want to enable narativist play, you could play some tricks with the player who scores the lowest high die value gets to narrate the outcome of the challenge (which the other player may have won).

Your dice mechanic has a lot of stuff to play with :-)

Frank