Need some advice on terminology

[Mike Holmes]

Dave...

Balls.

Out,
Mike

[Nev the Deranged]

Okay, I think I've settled on Stamina for this one. The longer I use it, the more it grows on me.

Now, I have another terminology dilemma.

In this game, whenever a player rolls, they are rolling 1dS (where S is their current Stamina), +/- any current bonuses or penalties.

If the player rolls >=S, or =<0, something extra good or extra bad happens, respectively.

In normal game parlance, we all recognize these as "Criticial Success" or "Critical Failure" (many games have their own local terms, but we all know what they mean).

Here's the catch. In this game, you can roll a crit or a botch, and still lose (or win) the roll.

EG, if Avigon is rolling 1d80 and Bertram is rolling 1d60, and Avigon gets a 74 and Bertram gets a 60.. Avigon wins the roll, but Bertram rolled a crit.

So.... since a crit here isn't necessarily a success or failure.... what do I call them?

I guess I can just go with "crit" and "botch", but as you've probably figured out by now, I'm picky about finding the appropriate dialect for each gaming project.

[Mike Holmes]

Why do you have to have terms for them at all? Why not simply describe the outcome? This is a computer game, right? If you don't need a meter for it or something you don't have to label it. Or do you have descriptions that come along with the damage like games like Final Fantasy have like "Crit! 43287 HP!"

From another POV what happens mechanically in the situation you've described? The mechanical result may suggest something.

On another note, don't know if you've thought of this, but you're making larger ability levels have less and less crits. Unless there's some adjustment that you're not making clear (might be the case since you indicate that somehow a roll can be out of it's normal range). That is, on a d60 a crit occurs 1 in 60, and for a d100 a crit occurs on a 1 in 100. So lower is better from this POV, counteracting possibly in some way the advantage of having a higher ability level. Why not have the crit range increase as abilities go up instead?

Mike

[Nev the Deranged]

 Some good questions, there, Mike. Let me take a crack at answering them.

Why do you have to have terms for them at all? Why not simply describe the outcome? This is a computer game, right? If you don't need a meter for it or something you don't have to label it. Or do you have descriptions that come along with the damage like games like Final Fantasy have like "Crit! 43287 HP!"
From another POV what happens mechanically in the situation you've described? The mechanical result may suggest something.

I have to have terms for them because I have to teach other people how to play, and it helps to have names for important things so people know what the hell you're talking about. And because I like having names for things, so I know what the hell I'm talking about.

As for describing the outcome; mechanically the outcome depends on the action. Furthermore it depends on who wins the roll. Using a basic melee attack as an example, it might look something like this:

• IF THE ATTACK SUCCEEDS (the attacker's roll is higher) the Defender loses 10 Stamina.


• If the Attacker's roll is S or Higher (where S is the Attacker's current Stamina), the Defender loses 10 additional Stamina.
• If the Attacker's roll is 0 or Lower, the Attacker becomes Off-Balance (a -10% penalty that lasts until they are Steadied by themselves or a comrade).


• If the Defender's roll is S or Higher (where S is the Defender's current Stamina), the Defender may either Counterattack or Evade (take a free one step movement action)
• If the Defender's roll is 0 or Lower, the Defender becomes Off-Balance

• IF THE ATTACK FAILS (the Defender's roll is higher) the Defender loses no Stamina.


• If the Attacker's roll is S or Higher (where S is the Attacker's current Stamina), the Defender becomes Off-Balance.
• If the Attacker's roll is 0 or Lower, the Attacker becomes Off-Balance (a -10% penalty that lasts until they are Steadied by themselves or a comrade).


• If the Defender's roll is S or Higher (where S is the Defender's current Stamina), the Defender may either Counterattack or Evade (take a free one step movement action)
• If the Defender's roll is 0 or Lower, the Defender becomes Off-Balance

It sounds more complicated than it actually is. Basically even if you lose a roll, a crit does something good for you, whereas a botch does something bad to you.

Now, all that is just the mechanics. WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS, narratively (and here I am consciously not capitalizing to avoid getting caught in errant Forgespeak) is ENTIRELY UP TO THE PLAYERS. Every mechanical action in the game can be interpreted and described in any way to suit that character's idiom and that player's vision of coolness for their character. The mechanics don't care what you call it, they always work the same way. So if one player is throwing lightning bolts and the other player is shooting a 9mm pistol and yet another is raining meteors from the sky and yet another is growing thorn-covered roots out of the ground, so be it.

As for this being a "computer game", well, only insofar as it will be played on a computer. You could play it at a table with minis, but most minis players don't bother describing what the figures are "doing", they just stick to the mechanics and tactics. The program this will be played on has a primitive dice engine that can't mix die sizes, which limits me somewhat in my designs. It shows characters on the screen in orthagonal view like the later Ultima games (it was written by a couple who worked on Ultima Online), but it doesn't have any built in stat tracking. All of the "game" activity will be parsed by the players themselves.

On another note, don't know if you've thought of this, but you're making larger ability levels have less and less crits. Unless there's some adjustment that you're not making clear (might be the case since you indicate that somehow a roll can be out of it's normal range). That is, on a d60 a crit occurs 1 in 60, and for a d100 a crit occurs on a 1 in 100. So lower is better from this POV, counteracting possibly in some way the advantage of having a higher ability level. Why not have the crit range increase as abilities go up instead?

Actually, it's that way on purpose. My earliest design for this game, which enjoyed a brief run of popularity, had a problem where once you were down toward the low end of the scale Stamina wise, the chances of making a comeback were slim to none. Many players expressed a mild despair that the most they could hope to do was drag fights out at this point, but since there was a tiny chance they might still win they didn't want to give up. So, I could have gone with straight +/-5 or +/-10 scaling, and did consider those options for a while. But the +/-10% ensures that weakened players aren't getting screwed by the mechanics. A -10 on a d20 is a hell of a lot more serious than on a d70, frex, while a -2 vs a -7 is a little less of a problem.

Further, it fits the "sim" of the game (this version is much less simmy than the original, but still somewhat. It's really a totally Gamist game (and now I am consciously capitalizing) that uses simulation and narrative to support that agenda). When you're closer to full ability, it's easier to shrug off minor penalties, but also minor bonuses aren't going to do that much for you- you're already near the top of your game. Whereas as you get weaker, fatigued, and more desperate, the little things have more of an effect on you, both negative (but not cripplingly so) and positive.

So, yeah, I did think of it, and I did it that way on purpose. Also, because you can crit or botch REGARDLESS of whether or not you win the conflict (rolls in this game are more emphatically conflict resolution, whereas the original version was arguably much closer to task res.), the range of potential outcomes to a conflict are broader and have more potential to be less repetitive and therefore more interesting. Or at least that's my hope.

Thanks for the comments, it's cool to be able to benefit from the insight of actual design vets like yourself, since most people I try to discuss this stuff with look at me like I'm talking out of a mouth that just opened on my forehead. In Swahili.

D.

[Mike Holmes]

If the Attacker's roll is 0 or Lower, the Attacker becomes Off-Balance (a -10% penalty that lasts until they are Steadied by themselves or a comrade).

If I get you here, the idea is that on the roll in question, the mechanical result is a -10%, but that can be narrated any way one likes. Correct?

I'd call that a penalty, then. As in "You rolled a penalty, dude, what form does it take?" Basically any sort of color you give to the term is asking to color a player's idea of what it means. So I'd stick to a technical term here. Botch works, too, but only because of it's play history (that is players know that a botch means you get some penalty, and work out what sort).

As for this being a "computer game", well, only insofar as it will be played on a computer. You could play it at a table with minis, but most minis players don't bother describing what the figures are "doing", they just stick to the mechanics and tactics.

Ah, Computer Aided Role-Playing (CARP)! I've made several of these in my day.

The program this will be played on has a primitive dice engine that can't mix die sizes, which limits me somewhat in my designs. It shows characters on the screen in orthagonal view like the later Ultima games (it was written by a couple who worked on Ultima Online), but it doesn't have any built in stat tracking. All of the "game" activity will be parsed by the players themselves.

I dunno, Dave, I'd get a better program. There are tons available that can do better than what you're describing. Worse case, I can program you up a spreadsheet that can do whatever you like as far as all this (including keeping track of stats if you like). You could use this alongside whatever you're planning on using now if there's some maps or something that you can't export, or some other useful part of the interface. Why have only one tool, especially if it doesn't do what you want?

My earliest design for this game, which enjoyed a brief run of popularity, had a problem where once you were down toward the low end of the scale Stamina wise, the chances of making a comeback were slim to none. Many players expressed a mild despair that the most they could hope to do was drag fights out at this point, but since there was a tiny chance they might still win they didn't want to give up. So, I could have gone with straight +/-5 or +/-10 scaling, and did consider those options for a while. But the +/-10% ensures that weakened players aren't getting screwed by the mechanics. A -10 on a d20 is a hell of a lot more serious than on a d70, frex, while a -2 vs a -7 is a little less of a problem.

OK, highly confused. First, what I was suggesting is not going to a set figure, but to a percentage. So that seems to agree with what you're saying above. Further, what you have currently is, in fact, a set figure from what I can tell (hence why I suggested changing it to a percentage). But oddest of all, if you want, in fact, to counter the Death Spiral phenomenon you note, actually the plan to have set figures is the best way to do it. So what you seem to have does match your apparent goal.

But the fact is I think that there's something very wrong with the thought process here. Further, the set figure seems to be 1. Which seems to be pretty undramatic. So I think I must be missing something here. In any case, I can give you loads better ways to deal with the Death Spiral phenomenon, especially if we let the computer do some of the calculations.

So, yeah, I did think of it, and I did it that way on purpose. Also, because you can crit or botch REGARDLESS of whether or not you win the conflict (rolls in this game are more emphatically conflict resolution, whereas the original version was arguably much closer to task res.), the range of potential outcomes to a conflict are broader and have more potential to be less repetitive and therefore more interesting. Or at least that's my hope.

Well that's really not pertinent to what I was talking about, but I agree with your assessment about it being more interesting. That said, I'm not seeing how it's not task resolution. It's just FITM task resolution. As I've said many times, just the potential to get to the end of a some non-negotiated conflict in one roll is not conflict resolution. You have to be able to negotiate the scope of the resolution to make it conflict resolution. That is, you have to be able to agree on what the conflict is. Not all conflicts, even in fights, will be "beat your opponent."

Oh, and I'm not seeing any gamism at all here. That is, at least at this point, I haven't seen any tactics that the player can wield, simply a resolution system. If the player's input doesn't have any effect on his chances to win, it's not a system that supports gamism. Much like Hero Quest doesn't support gamism (but is all about the contests). I wouldn't worry about this, however, I'd just stick to what you have and see how it goes until you get to some more playtesting.

Anyhow, if I were you, I'd have a spreadsheet that took the character abilities into account, did the die rolling and automatically calculated who got what bonuses, penalties, damage or other adjustments from the outcome of a conflict. BTW, you realize that the same resolution system could easily be applied to any sort of contest, right? You just use a different stat for each contest.

Mike

[Nev the Deranged]

*blink*

I'm certain it's my fault, Mike, but somewhere between your first post and this one, you and I started having two completely different conversations. We are replying to each other's words, but deriving entirely unrelated meanings to them. Wee ^_^
Like I said, I'm certain it's a result of my poor communication, which I will try really hard to remedy here. Incidentally, I tend to become extremely pedantic when trying to explain things, which many people take personally- please don't, it's the only way I can keep track of things in my own head.

If the Attacker's roll is 0 or Lower, the Attacker becomes Off-Balance (a -10% penalty that lasts until they are Steadied by themselves or a comrade).

If I get you here, the idea is that on the roll in question, the mechanical result is a -10%, but that can be narrated any way one likes. Correct?

Well, the penalty (which is indeed what that is being called) is not for one roll, it lasts until cleared by a particular action called "Steady". Further, the penalties are cumulative if you get more than one before Steadying. But that's neither here nore there, since that is only one possible result of someone getting a Crit. It's the "Crit" that I am trying to rename, not the penalty or bonus that may result (which I call penalties and bonuses).

I'd call that a penalty, then. As in "You rolled a penalty, dude, what form does it take?" Basically any sort of color you give to the term is asking to color a player's idea of what it means. So I'd stick to a technical term here. Botch works, too, but only because of it's play history (that is players know that a botch means you get some penalty, and work out what sort).

Yes. This particular possible result is being called an "Off Balance Penalty" specifically, and works exactly how you describe, with the player being able to provide whatever color they see fit.
I should note that due to the nature of this community (the one I am writing this for, which I shall go into more about later), and the nature of the game as I intend it to run, there will be SOME OOC communication between players (via "whisper" IE player to player paging), and in fact I explicity encourage such communication- but most players are going to be reluctant to do so, as "myguyism" is the rule there and my game is not going to change that prevailing attitude. I'm actually okay with this in the context of this community and accept it, while encouraging those so inclined to communicate OOCly as they see fit.

As for this being a "computer game", well, only insofar as it will be played on a computer. You could play it at a table with minis, but most minis players don't bother describing what the figures are "doing", they just stick to the mechanics and tactics.

Ah, Computer Aided Role-Playing (CARP)! I've made several of these in my day.

The program this will be played on has a primitive dice engine that can't mix die sizes, which limits me somewhat in my designs. It shows characters on the screen in orthagonal view like the later Ultima games (it was written by a couple who worked on Ultima Online), but it doesn't have any built in stat tracking. All of the "game" activity will be parsed by the players themselves.

I dunno, Dave, I'd get a better program. There are tons available that can do better than what you're describing. Worse case, I can program you up a spreadsheet that can do whatever you like as far as all this (including keeping track of stats if you like). You could use this alongside whatever you're planning on using now if there's some maps or something that you can't export, or some other useful part of the interface. Why have only one tool, especially if it doesn't do what you want?

Because I'm designing this game specifically to be played on this program by players in this community of which I have been an active member, on and off, for around six years or so. I am aware of many "virtual gaming table" programs and services, some of which I have written games for (some of them variants of earlier versions of this game, in fact). Much of my design priorities are specific to the goal of creating a game for this particular community, and therefore are limited by the program on which it runs.

I could run a tracking program or virtual table in parallel with the program, but then every other player would need the same software, and that is unacceptable. Also, this is something I will be able to leave up in the shared virtual world, where others can come and go as they please, be able to play without my supervision, and in fact be able to use (my system) anywhere in the virtual world that makes up this community/program.

As for it doing what I want, it does do what I want, insofar as what I want is to do something with it.... if that makes sense. I consider it part of the design challenge. If I were writing this game for any other milieu, as a tabletop minis or board game, a chat room game, a pen and paper game, my priorities and goals would be almost completely different.

My earliest design for this game, which enjoyed a brief run of popularity, had a problem where once you were down toward the low end of the scale Stamina wise, the chances of making a comeback were slim to none. Many players expressed a mild despair that the most they could hope to do was drag fights out at this point, but since there was a tiny chance they might still win they didn't want to give up. So, I could have gone with straight +/-5 or +/-10 scaling, and did consider those options for a while. But the +/-10% ensures that weakened players aren't getting screwed by the mechanics. A -10 on a d20 is a hell of a lot more serious than on a d70, frex, while a -2 vs a -7 is a little less of a problem.

OK, highly confused. First, what I was suggesting is not going to a set figure, but to a percentage. So that seems to agree with what you're saying above. Further, what you have currently is, in fact, a set figure from what I can tell (hence why I suggested changing it to a percentage). But oddest of all, if you want, in fact, to counter the Death Spiral phenomenon you note, actually the plan to have set figures is the best way to do it. So what you seem to have does match your apparent goal.

But the fact is I think that there's something very wrong with the thought process here. Further, the set figure seems to be 1. Which seems to be pretty undramatic. So I think I must be missing something here. In any case, I can give you loads better ways to deal with the Death Spiral phenomenon, especially if we let the computer do some of the calculations.

Okay, here's where I think we completely lost track of each other, so I'm going to state it plainly:

• In the system as I am currently designing it, all bonuses and penalties are in increments of 10%.
• All "damage" and "healing" (which can actually be colored to suit) are in increments of 10.
• Even though the system's lowest common denominator is 1, I am using 10 point increments to spread the potential dice result range and lessen the chance of ties, and also because the players here tend to prefer larger numbers, finding them more dramatically satisfying. I tend to agree.
• Originally I was using Stamina Levels of 1-10 and rolls were "Current Stamina x10", but the players range from very young to very inexperienced to very stupid here, and it was confusing them.
/


I hope that makes sense. If it does, then please advise me again on the Death Spiral thing, with regards to the above clarifications.

So, yeah, I did think of it, and I did it that way on purpose. Also, because you can crit or botch REGARDLESS of whether or not you win the conflict (rolls in this game are more emphatically conflict resolution, whereas the original version was arguably much closer to task res.), the range of potential outcomes to a conflict are broader and have more potential to be less repetitive and therefore more interesting. Or at least that's my hope.

Well that's really not pertinent to what I was talking about, but I agree with your assessment about it being more interesting. That said, I'm not seeing how it's not task resolution. It's just FITM task resolution. As I've said many times, just the potential to get to the end of a some non-negotiated conflict in one roll is not conflict resolution. You have to be able to negotiate the scope of the resolution to make it conflict resolution. That is, you have to be able to agree on what the conflict is. Not all conflicts, even in fights, will be "beat your opponent."

I was thinking about that, and actually, you may be right. I think it's just "task resolution" with lest discrete tasks. The "Freeform" variant of the system is, with one roll to resolve the entire conflict, but that's neither here nor there so please forget I mentioned it. The "Advanced" rules, which we are discussing, are "task res" with the task being "do you cause your target to lose Stamina" or whatever.

I was caught up wanting to call it "conflict resolution", because I wanted to explain it to the players in such a way that they wouldn't think of it as D&D style task res. (IE "I swing my sword at the goblin, do I hit it?). So I'll have to come up with a better way to explain it.

Oh, and I'm not seeing any gamism at all here. That is, at least at this point, I haven't seen any tactics that the player can wield, simply a resolution system. If the player's input doesn't have any effect on his chances to win, it's not a system that supports gamism. Much like Hero Quest doesn't support gamism (but is all about the contests). I wouldn't worry about this, however, I'd just stick to what you have and see how it goes until you get to some more playtesting.

Yeah, I knew I shouldn't have tried to step up on the Forgespeak.
I was thinking of it in terms of "Step on Up" and "player glory" and whatever... this game is definitely all about winning the praise and admiration of your fellow players more than anything, or at least that's my intent. Some players will only care about winning, but there are always those.

Anyway, I don't really give a rip what CA it supports. None of the players are going to care either, and frankly none of them are sophisticated enough to bother explaining it to.

Anyhow, if I were you, I'd have a spreadsheet that took the character abilities into account, did the die rolling and automatically calculated who got what bonuses, penalties, damage or other adjustments from the outcome of a conflict. BTW, you realize that the same resolution system could easily be applied to any sort of contest, right? You just use a different stat for each contest.

Ack. And double Ack. The spreadsheet of doom is exactly what I designed this version to get away from. The original game required literally hours of bookkeeping by me.

Fuck. That.

It's really not complicated enought to need a spreadsheet during play, for one. Second, there is zero tracking of stats or values between sessions. In other words, ZERO bookkeeping. Thank gawd.

And yes, the res. system could support any contest. But this is an arena, and the contests it will be supporting will be combat. Some day I may expand it, and this version, unlike the original, has the potential to support roleplaying aside from arena combat. But for now, I just want my players to be able to maim each other with style and fairness.

Again, I can't thank you enough for your time, even if I may have wasted some of it.

D.

[Mike Holmes]

Holy cats lots you wrote there. But I'm going to try to be brief.

First, I think I'm going to need a write up of the system in order to address the "crit" issue. Right now I'm just not getting it. I think there are just parts of the procedure that I haven't seen that are making it impossible to judge how it's going to work. Further, as I said, I think what you have might work for your goals. Also any mode analysis isn't going to make any sense without a write-up where I can see the whole system so let's skip that (as you say, who cares).

Given the nature of the community, go with Crit/Botch. Why not.

I don't think that a spreadsheet has to be complicated, and I only suggested it because it's a tool that's pretty portable and easy to program. I could make you a small VB application if that would suit better. But given your requirements for it to be available to all, I guess that's out of the question anyhow. So don't worry about that, either, I guess.

That about covers it for now, it seems.

Mike

[Nev the Deranged]

Whew. Been a busy week.

First, I think I'm going to need a write up of the system in order to address the "crit" issue. Right now I'm just not getting it. I think there are just parts of the procedure that I haven't seen that are making it impossible to judge how it's going to work. Further, as I said, I think what you have might work for your goals. Also any mode analysis isn't going to make any sense without a write-up where I can see the whole system so let's skip that (as you say, who cares).

Well, I don't have a writeup yet. Or rather I do, but it's just a vast swath of outline/notes/brainstorming that isn't going to make sense to anyone but me (and that's if I'm lucky). I've just finished posting the "basic" and "hybrid" freeform rules, so the next step is to start on the Advanced rules, which means a writeup is next on my itinerary.

Another... I don't want to say complication, but delay or at least factor, is that I also have to build and program the actual virtual space in which the game will be played. In addition, I have to write at least minimal background and continuity stuff, or nobody's going to look twice at it; and also because continuity here is like religion compared to politics in the real world- people will accept things for "continuity" reasons they'd never stand for for "game" reasons.

Really the concepts I'm introducing to this community are old hat as far as RPGs and minis games are concerned, but unprecedented here (except by my own earlier work).

Anyway, when I have more to offer I'll post again. Thanks!