The Ghost Killers: Combat & Damage- Stuck, need a push

[Andy Kitkowski]

Hey all.  So I'm turning my 24 Hour Game "The Ghost Killers" into a full-fledged game. Playtested twice, but now the core mechanic changed a bit in a recent playtest and I need some help.

The basics, to fill you in: A team of dudes kill demons in the modern day with pistols, magic, screwdrivers, sledgehammers, etc.
Characters have stats like Combat, Magic, etc. These are set at a number, usually between 8 and 22, sometimes higher (say up to 40 max in combat for a total combat monster), but never lower than 8 or so.
The system uses all d8s. You roll under your stat number with them. You choose the amount of dice you want to roll. The more dice you roll, the more spectacular the result.
Currently, characters have "hit points", but I'm open to change on that front for a particularly good idea.

The task roll has changed recently on some feedback, and I need some advice with how it applies to "damage". But I have to show you how it used to work and how it works now for this to make sense:

************
The Old System

Andy's character has Combat of 16.
GM is running a Demon, with a Combat of 20.
They face off.

Andy: I'm going to roll 2 dice.
GM: 2 dice.  To make 16.  Don't be a pussy.
Andy: OK, I'll go for... four. Four dice.
GM: OK. You roll 4. I decide that I want into this conflict to, so I'm going to roll against this Demon's Combat of 20. You're choosing 4 dice, so...
Andy: Oh, you're in? OK, I'm upping to 5 dice.
GM: OK, 5 dice.  That means I have to roll 5 or more dice as well if I want in. And I want in, so I'm going to choose...

OUTCOME ONE
GM chooses to roll 5 dice too.
Andy rolls 21, blowing his roll (diff 16). He "misses" totally. The GM rolls 19, making his own roll (diff 20). He "hits".
GM: You take 19 damage.

OUTCOME TWO
GM chooses to roll 6 dice.
GM rolls and gets 20, just meeting that goal. It doesn't matter what Andy rolled, since the GM outdid him by one die that means that he "won" by an order of magnitude.
GM: You take 20 damage.

OUTCOME THREE
GM choses to roll 5 dice too.
Andy rolls a 15.
GM rolls a 14.
Andy was closer to his goal (one away to the diff of 16) than the GM was (6 away to his diff of 20), so the Player wins.
Andy: So, your success was 20, and you rolled a 14? That's 6 damage. Suck it down.

Does that make sense so far?  That's how it rolled; The player chooses the amount of dice to roll, the GM decides if he's in or not. If the GM is in, he has to roll that many dice or higher and meet a difficulty, usually just the same number that the player is aiming for, or another number if there's an antagonist. If the GM chooses to roll the same number of dice and gets closer to the number, he wins. If the GM adds an extra die to the roll and rolls and meets that number or lower, he wins (if he tries this, the player can try to outbid him again by raising the amount of dice that he's using).  If you blow over your number, you're out.  It's like The Price is Right with d8s.

Plus, as you see, there's a lot of risk involved: If both people roll the same number of dice and succeed, damage is "resisted" or "blocked".  If one of the people fail, though, then all that damage goes right through.

*******
The New System

In a recent playtest, Eric Provost threw me a cool suggestion which I'm adopting:

He's like:
"How about the GM and the player just play chicken with the dice? That way you have a bidding war, the Player has the last say when they're "done", and whomever shows the guts to roll more dice makes that die roll:
1) The GM rolls and fails: The player succeeds, but the GM narrates.
2) The GM rolls and succeeds: The player succeeds, AND the GM narrates.
3) The Player rolls and fails: The player fails and gets to narrate their failure.
4) The Player rolls and succeeds: The player succeeds AND narrates their success.

I like that a lot.  However, I'm having second thoughts about damage. There is no longer a "block/resist" step. All damage always goes through. This means that there has to be a lot of "hip points" for the PCs.

So here's where I need the push.  We're rolling pools of d8s. How should I handle damage?

* From the start, I chose HP over "Wounds". Truth be told, if an idea is out there that rocks my socks, I'd drop HP for Wounds in a second. HP is more in line with the feel of the game (take a lot of nondescript hits then Drop Dead), but I can see Wounds doing their thing, too.  But I can't think of how I can fold Wounds into the above roll easily.

* I can just say, "Fuck it: The winner is the winner because they took that risk. Whatever the dice come up as, that's how much damage the loser takes. I'll just make sure that starting HP is at, what, like 60 or something."

* The above assumed that if the GM wins with a 42, the PC takes 42 damage. If he loses, the GM's character takes 42 damage. I could say that "damage only takes affect on Successes: If the GM succeeds, the PC takes 42 damage. But if he fails, he takes no damage (or 1/10 of the damage or something).  But that would encourage people to take chances with fuckloads of dice without the possibility of taking damage for it. I'm wondering if I can shim some mechanic in here to make damage more managable.

* Sure, there's the number that the d8s total (in the above, "42"), but the real heart of the mechanic is "How many DICE did you roll?" <-- That's where the brass balls of the mechanics come out to play.  So I'm thinking of damage based on the number of dice rolled.  However, that also means that:
** HP are going to start pretty low, and
**Damage will be relatively the same for every hit that that character makes ("6 dice" is the PC's risk zone, they keep rolling with 6 dice, and thus 6 dice is the average damage that that player gives out, continuously).

Looking for ways to mitigate that. Perhaps damage = number of dice rolled + the highest single number showing on the dice?

Also, there's the whole fact that you're trying to roll that number or lower.  Perhaps I can make the damage based on how far Under your threshold you go (which will involve more math each damage roll, yuck), or perhaps somehow tie it to the "lowness" of the roll? Perhaps even give a bonus ("Critical!") for meeting the actual threshold number?

These are all the elements, above, that I'm working on. Keep damage high and raise PC HP totals, have damage based off of number of dice rolled somehow (and lower PC HP pools), have damage be based off threshold/lowness somehow, possibly use wounds.

*************************

OK, the above is kinda messy, like a Rorsharch (sp) inkblot.  Anyone seeing any butterflys? In the process of writing this, I came up with an idea or two, but I'm hoping that posting this will get someone's wheels spinning.

Thanks, everyone!

-Andy

[dindenver]

Hey Andy,
  I think you are forgetting the skill level (16 or 20 or whatever). So if you rolled 42, you miss. If you roll low you hit, but not very hard, etc. And then narrate based on your mini-table.
  I think only rolling one set of die could make it more exciting. You might want to allow the characters to sacrifice. If they have a skill of 16 and they roll a 20, let them hit for part and take the rest of the DMG (10/10 or 16/4 or something)...
  Good luck man, let us know how it turns out!

[Jason Morningstar]

Andy! 

Reading this makes me question some assumptions that are holding you up - first of all, what's the role of hit points?  Are they necessary?  I understand the old-skool fun of having some crazy arbitrary measure you just tally, but maybe there is another approach that would break your impasse here.  Maybe "damage" makes you less effective, or it sets hard die limits for wagering, or changes your die size.  Maybe step back and look at what you are trying to accomplish objectively, and see if there is another way in. 

tGK is crack-brained awesome, but your original fighty system (as outlined above) seemed overly byzantine in playtest.  Eric's bidding idea seems more fun on the table (playing chicken is fun - it's "name that tune" with shotguns and fireballs).

Another thing I'd like to see is some integration of the game systems - outside the scope of your question here, but still.  Your whole Flip-Mode thing is really promising, why not extract the kernel of that and use it in every conflict?  I like the idea of being forced to make tough choices between success, safety, and gain.

--Jason

[Andy Kitkowski]

Hmmm, interesting stuff all around.  Let's take a look:

Reading this makes me question some assumptions that are holding you up - first of all, what's the role of hit points?  Are they necessary?...Maybe step back and look at what you are trying to accomplish objectively, and see if there is another way in.

Hmmmm. very good point.  I was throwing in HP pretty unreflectively there.  There might be a better way. 

Here's what I want:

Characters can and will die in task resolution if they're "worn down". Old school, yes, but it sticks.

Characters can take damage from social attacks, spiritual attacks etc ala TSOY.  However, these will only wear the character down to "1" or whatever, they won't actually "kill them". But being worn down socially will be very dangerous because it can wear you down just like punches.

The amount of damage taken varies per roll somehow.  Ex: The Dark Goat God can hit a PC and do "one damage", or do "a lot of damage". I don't particularly care if there's no way to do an "instant healthy to killed" on a PC. Actually, I'd prefer if that was impossible.

"Weak guys" can be "taken out" in "one hit" by a PC.

So... what does that make? "Wound circles"? (take more than "10" damage on any roll, get a "wound circle", take more than 20 damage, get two Wound circles", etc?)

Something to think about. I don't mind swapping them for some kind of currency, though, but I'm drawing a blank as to how.

Another thing I'd like to see is some integration of the game systems - outside the scope of your question here, but still.  Your whole Flip-Mode thing is really promising, why not extract the kernel of that and use it in every conflict?  I like the idea of being forced to make tough choices between success, safety, and gain.

Hmmm. Problem is, I really do like this "church/state" seperation I have going on here, it's almost one of my design goals (one of the main ones was the Team Sheet, though. That's even slightly more important to me than the 2 conflict resolutions).  But the way I have it, seriously, if I pull the conflict resolution into the task resolution part it really falls apart.  It either starts to look Exactly Like Pretender/Otherikind, or Exactly Like Every Other Game Out There. I think I've got a nice balance here, especially since I'm playing around with dice strategies to use with moving the dice around in flip-mode, so that you don't just sink them into three small boxes and that's it.

Hmmmm. I'm still thinking about damage, though.  What might be a good workaround... hmmm...

-Andy

[Andy Kitkowski]

Another thing I'd like to see is some integration of the game systems - outside the scope of your question here, but still.  Your whole Flip-Mode thing is really promising, why not extract the kernel of that and use it in every conflict?  I like the idea of being forced to make tough choices between success, safety, and gain.

Hmmm. Problem is, I really do like this "church/state" seperation I have going on here, it's almost one of my design goals (one of the main ones was the Team Sheet, though. That's even slightly more important to me than the 2 conflict resolutions).  But the way I have it, seriously, if I pull the conflict resolution into the task resolution part it really falls apart.  It either starts to look Exactly Like Pretender/Otherikind, or Exactly Like Every Other Game Out There. I think I've got a nice balance here, especially since I'm playing around with dice strategies to use with moving the dice around in flip-mode, so that you don't just sink them into three small boxes and that's it.

BTW, all this stuff is going to look like alien space junk (Flip Mode, Pack Sheet, etc) to folks who haven't seen the game yet, so I'd rather leave that off the table for now, until I get around to tackling that head on. It is rattling around in my head, though.

-Andy

[Valamir]

I'm not sure I completely follow but why don't you have the number of dice rolled equate to the "degree of success".

1 die is like marginal
2 dice is partial
3 is regular
4 is exceptional
5 is super killer cool, or whatever

Then you simply choose what degree of success you want and roll that many dice trying to roll less than your score.  If you succeed, the degree of success is the damage (wound levels, circles, whatever) you did plus weapon damage.  If I want to block I roll however many dice I want to do so.  If I succeed the number of dice I roll is the number of your dice worth of damage I block.  If I block them all (roll the same number of dice as you and win) I block all damage (including the weapon) if I block only part the weapon still gets through.  If I roll more dice than you attacked with then I can counter and get free bonus damage or other special tricks.

So you have a score of 24 and elect to roll 5 dice to attack me with the BFG which does +10 damage.  You succeed.  I only have a score of 12 but if I don't roll at least 5 dice the BFG is going to splatter me, so I grit my teeth, and try to roll 12 or less on 5d8.

[Callan S.]

* I can just say, "Fuck it: The winner is the winner because they took that risk. Whatever the dice come up as, that's how much damage the loser takes. I'll just make sure that starting HP is at, what, like 60 or something."

Do you want to increase the HP (in this circumstance), because the loser had no choice in whether he entered the conflict? I'm projecting a little here, so feel free to shoot me down. But a regular issue in games I've played is that the GM draws characters into conflicts, but because the GM decided the players PC entered the conflict, the GM can't blow that PC away. It only really works if the player himself decides to enter the conflict.

I think if players are empowered to decide exactly what conflicts they do or don't get into, you don't have to worry about increasing HP so as to protect the PC.

Though if they are so empowered, the design problem now is how you give the players some level of play, even though they aren't in the conflict (since 'well if your not getting into the conflict you can sit there and do nothing' is a classic force technique, even without the intention to apply force).

[Jason Leigh]

I'll jump in and suggest that before the combat begins, or during the bidding, each player makes it clear what/how much they are risking as part of the bidding process.  Say it amounts to their last bid before the dice are rolled, regardless of whether they end up rolling the dice.

If they end up rolling the dice, bidding 5 dice on a Trait value of 16, and roll a 20, well, they just took 5 successes of damage - which subtracts (temporarily) 5 from any trait they use.  When they become unable to use a trait, because their penalties are too high, the pass out and are subject to murder/death on the next go 'round.  If, on the other hand, our hero rolls a 12 out of 16, and his opponents bid was 4, his opponents character takes 4 successes of damage.


If our hero bid the 5 dice, and their opponent bids 6 on a Trait value of 20, and rolls a 15, then our player still takes those five successes of damage.  If the opponent misses this roll with 6 dice, their character takes the 6 tokens of damage.

Use poker chips to keep track of dmage tokens, and have one (or two or more) tokens of damage 'dissapate' per round.  Only if a character takes so much damage that they can't effectively use a trait do they take lasting wound damage.

Hope that helps.

Cheers,

Jason

[Andy Kitkowski]

* I can just say, "Fuck it: The winner is the winner because they took that risk. Whatever the dice come up as, that's how much damage the loser takes. I'll just make sure that starting HP is at, what, like 60 or something."

Do you want to increase the HP (in this circumstance), because the loser had no choice in whether he entered the conflict? I'm projecting a little here, so feel free to shoot me down. But a regular issue in games I've played is that the GM draws characters into conflicts, but because the GM decided the players PC entered the conflict, the GM can't blow that PC away. It only really works if the player himself decides to enter the conflict.

I think if players are empowered to decide exactly what conflicts they do or don't get into, you don't have to worry about increasing HP so as to protect the PC.

Though if they are so empowered, the design problem now is how you give the players some level of play, even though they aren't in the conflict (since 'well if your not getting into the conflict you can sit there and do nothing' is a classic force technique, even without the intention to apply force).

Well, the thing is that this game is going to basically run like a Swat Team TV Show.  They're given "orders" of sorts, and they follow and do them, and in between and during missions personal complications arise.  The conflict is going to be there, and the players are going to come to the table expecting to:
* FIght demons, and
* Eventually die from it.

So the damage mechanic is a "just a matter of time" thing. There's really not going to be an option in the game for all the players in the group to suddenly decide not to get into risks anymore.  I just have to find a way to mitigate those risks that is both empowering and has a little strategy in it.

Then you simply choose what degree of success you want and roll that many dice trying to roll less than your score.  If you succeed, the degree of success is the damage (wound levels, circles, whatever) you did plus weapon damage.  If I want to block I roll however many dice I want to do so.  If I succeed the number of dice I roll is the number of your dice worth of damage I block.  If I block them all (roll the same number of dice as you and win) I block all damage (including the weapon) if I block only part the weapon still gets through.  If I roll more dice than you attacked with then I can counter and get free bonus damage or other special tricks.

Hmmm. Interesting, but I think I want to try to stick to the one "playing chicken" roll to resolve these tasks.  I just have to think of a damange system that incorporates the hit and damage into the one roll (I think I have this), in a way that isn't "You'll either be scratched or dead, each and every time".

I'll jump in and suggest that before the combat begins, or during the bidding, each player makes it clear what/how much they are risking as part of the bidding process.  Say it amounts to their last bid before the dice are rolled, regardless of whether they end up rolling the dice.

If they end up rolling the dice, bidding 5 dice on a Trait value of 16, and roll a 20, well, they just took 5 successes of damage - which subtracts (temporarily) 5 from any trait they use.  When they become unable to use a trait, because their penalties are too high, the pass out and are subject to murder/death on the next go 'round.  If, on the other hand, our hero rolls a 12 out of 16, and his opponents bid was 4, his opponents character takes 4 successes of damage.

If our hero bid the 5 dice, and their opponent bids 6 on a Trait value of 20, and rolls a 15, then our player still takes those five successes of damage.  If the opponent misses this roll with 6 dice, their character takes the 6 tokens of damage.

Use poker chips to keep track of dmage tokens, and have one (or two or more) tokens of damage 'dissapate' per round.  Only if a character takes so much damage that they can't effectively use a trait do they take lasting wound damage.

I really, really like this.  Maybe not "as is", but it's really inspiring me to go down some new paths.  I'm wary of poker chips, as I already require at least two different kinds of poker chips to play the game as it is (^.^), but I like the ideqa of a play off of risk and reward, and bidding how much you're going to "risk" or "exert" yourself.  I think that Marvel Supers game recently with the "Stones" resource management thing had a similar resolution (but with no dice), and I'm thinking that the concept of risk is already high with this game (with the "chicken" task resolution), that I might as well take another step and create some sort of damage resource, perhaps called "Drive", "Damage" or "Risk" that can indeed be risked each roll, to the tune of the possibility of getting a reward of some kind. Perhaps even a chance to "replenish" what I'm calling Damage above: It doesn't JUST go down, it can go up or down.

Again, a slight tangent to what you discussed, but it definitely sent my mind down the paths that I needed.

-Andy

[Callan S.]

Well, the thing is that this game is going to basically run like a Swat Team TV Show.  They're given "orders" of sorts, and they follow and do them, and in between and during missions personal complications arise.  The conflict is going to be there, and the players are going to come to the table expecting to:
* FIght demons, and
* Eventually die from it.

So the damage mechanic is a "just a matter of time" thing. There's really not going to be an option in the game for all the players in the group to suddenly decide not to get into risks anymore.  I just have to find a way to mitigate those risks that is both empowering and has a little strategy in it.

I'm not sure what agenda your going for? Is it like a gamist agenda?

I think the way your planning it, the level at which players declare they are taking on a challenge happens well above any SIS consideration. It's at the 'Do I even play the game at all?' level. This level of decision on the players part doesn't involve any evaluation of an imaginary space. But if they do have a concrete choice about what risks they take on in the game, they can be made based on the imaginary space "Well, from what I've heard about this demon, our brief encounters with it and my research efforts I WILL take it on/I WILL avoid it at all costs!"

If your gunning for gamism, then "I WILL avoid it" is just as dramatic, because all the other players suddenly see and learn more about the addresssing players personal skill and guts. If that seems flat and an anti climax, your probably going for something else. What do you think it is?