Ygg mechanics

[Christoffer Lernö]

Ok, I'm not really sure how to do this thing. As I mentioned in some thread, my game is in Swedish so I can't really cut and paste from there. What I'm going to do is a brief review of the game, writing from memory here.

I hope noone will rant about how incomplete detail x is, because providing the game isn't what it's about. I also try to refrain from explaining why I did certain design decisions (this is a far cry from my original draft), but I guess I have to mention the AD&D reminicient classes are not a borrow from AD&D but rather an evolution from a purely skill based system (like Shadowrun). When it didn't seem to focus the intent of the game enough I changed it in several steps until it became what it is now.
I put a lot of thought into some of the names of stats and professions but they don't translate well so I've mostly gone for the simplest translation possible. That's not the way it's supposed to remain.

Also it might be worth to mention that a lot of these rules are under review. The only thing fairly well nailed down is the combat system (except for the occasional detail here and there).

So...

Character creation

1. Roll up a set of values with 1D4+3 except for hitpoints which are 1D4+1. (Incidentally stats for non heroes are rolled with 1D4+1D3 instead)

2. Place values in order as the stats appear or choose.

3. Stats are Power, Movment, Toughness, Witchpower, Soulstrength, Awareness, Intelligence, Appearance, Charm and hitpoints.

4. Select player race (elf [witchpeople], dwarf, human, troll)

5. Modifiy stats in general by no more than +2/-2. Some samples:
Elves: -1 Toughness, +1 Movement & Appearance
Dwarves: +1 Toughness & Soulstrength, -1 Movement & Charm & Appearance

6. Choose one of 7 classes: Warrior, Hunter, Trader, Mystic, Sorcerer, Talekeeper, Martial artist

7. Each of these classes represent a whole bunch of different kind of archetypes, bundled together for convenience.

8. To each class there is a set of special skill picks. Some of these have a rating from 1-6 while others are 1-3 and yet others you either have or you don't.

9. A few sample classes follows:

9.1. Talekeeper (=bard, explorer & learned man all rolled into one)

Weapon skill +1
Ranged weapons +1

Skill picks:
Enchanting Poetry and Music (1-6)
Charming Presence (1-3)
Language sense
Myth Lore (1-3)
Nature Lore (1-3)
Map and World Lore (1-3)
Arts of Healing (1-3)
The Sciences (1-3)

Starting picks:
Enchanting Poetry and Music
Myth Lore
The Sciences
Map and World Lore
+1 free pick

9.2. Warrior (=fighter, soldier, mercenary, barbarian whatever)

Weapon skill +3
Ranged Weapons +2

Skill picks:
Heroic leap (1)
Rushing attack (1)
Battle cry (1)
Armour movement (1-3)
Disarm (1)
Battle tackle (1)
Martial Mastery (1-3)
Berserk (1)
Quickdraw (1)
Ignore wounds (1-3)
Mighty blow (1-3)
Wrestling (1-3)

Initial picks
2 free picks

10. Calculate weapon and ranged weapon skills by applying the bonus to the starting values of the races. WS and RW usually starts with value 2 (before bonuses)

11. Jot down the number of fate points (two to start with)

12. Optional fleshing out rules here which aren't essential.


Skill resolution

1. There are no detailed skills in Ygg. Characters are in general supposed to know what the average person in the world knows. For stuff like "can my character swim" what is decided by the Player and the GM, or by the GM alone depending on style of play.

2. Task resolution works like this: First the GM (and possibly player) decides on how good the character is supposed to be at the given task:
Totally worthless 0, poor 2, average 4, above average 6, expert 8, master 10. In general characters will be considered average.

3. Stats will provide a modifier:
Skills with no or very little stat dependence: no mod
Minor stat dependence: Stat 3-4=-1  Stat 7-8=+1
Major stat dependence: Stat 4=-1, 5=0, 6=+1, 7=+2

4. The GM decides on a difficulty, either by setting one or rolling one. Either use a 1T12 or 1TN+Mod. Some ideas are:
Easy 1T4
Difficult 1T4+4
Insanely difficult 1T4+8
Easy-Difficult 1T8
Difficult-Insanely difficult 1T8+4
Totally random 1T12

5. Comparing the skill of the player (assumed skill+statmod) with the actual difficulty the GM tells the player approximately the chance of success. Something like that:
Skill of player less by 5 or more - impossible
Skill of player less by 2 - 50-50
Skill of player same as skill - no problem

6. Roll 1D4+assumed skill+statmod, if that is equal or above difficulty it is a success. (1D4+assumed skill+statmod=level of performance)

7. For performance tests (for example, how far do I jump in the long jump), skip 4. and simply roll the D4 and read off the results.

8. Skill picks work a little differently, 6 level skill picks usually work like skill packages. As an example, let us pick "Nature Lore"

Nature Lore
4. Make fire
5. Locate water; Find shelter against weather and wind
6. Identify plants; identify animals
7. Find edible plants and fruits; interpret animal sounds
8. Evaluate unknown plants; evaluate unknown animals
9. Tame wild beasts

Each of these are seperate skills contained within the skill pick. Nature lore does not only contain the skills listed above but any skill in any way related to zoology, botany and similar with both theoretical and practical skills.

The number to the left gives the difficulty for success. To test, the player rolls 1T6 and adds his rating in the skill pick. If the value is same or above the test succeeds. The skill picks will provide sample subskills as well as descriptions of what successful rolls mean.

9. 3 or 1 level skill picks usually either grants a bonus to certain tests (Mighty blow gives +1 damage for every rating, Ignore Wound lets you ignore a serious wound for every point you put into it and so on), one usually gives access to a special ability which otherwise wouldn't be accessible (the quickdraw lets you attack in the same round as the one when you draw your weapon for example)

Combat

Hand-to-hand combat:

1. Combat is run according to initiative order. Initiative is 1D6+Movement

2. Attacking in close combat is resolved by rolling 1D12

3. If roll+WS is above opponent WS+defensive bonus+6 the attack is a hit. A roll of 1 is always a miss 11+ is always a hit.

4. A roll of 12 means more than one hit is possible. Resolve the damage of the first attack then roll for the second attack.

5. A roll of 1 means a fumble is made. The opponent gets one free attack-roll.

6. Shields grant a defensive bonus of +1 for small shields and +2 for medium and large shields. Shields decrease the effective Movement stat.

7. Trying to panicing flee from combat gives the pursuer a free attack.

8. To attack an opponent holding a longer ranged weapon one is required to bridge the distance. Doing so will allow the person with a longer weapon to perform a free attack. If the free attack is yields serious damage the party trying to bridge the distance both takes full damage and still remains at the longer distance. Otherwis the range is now short and the person with the shorter weapon can attack with his/her weapon.

9. If the combat is at the wrong distance for one's weapon (usually because the opponent has bridged the distance) one can only perform improvised attacks with one's weapon (at GM's discretion). All attacks are by the person on wrong range are at -4. Defense is -2 if not attacking and -4 if trying to attack with an improvised attack.

10. If at too close distance, one might attempt to jump out to a longer range. Such a move gives the opponent with the shorter weapon a free attack. If the attack yields serious damage, the movement fails and the range remains at close distance. After jumping out a regular attack can be made.

11. Aim in hand-to-hand combat . Trying to go exclusively for certain targets gives the opponent bonus to his/her defense for the attack:

Large area (like torso) +2
Medium sized area (leg) +2
Smaller area (head/arm) +3
Very small (eye/ear) +5

12. Close hits: Aimed hit that barely hits (a 10 on 10+ or something like that)
are considered to have missed the location it aimed for and the general rules for calculating damage are used.

13. Aiming only allowed if skill is high enough: You can only successfully aim for an area if your chance of succeeding in hitting the are is 10+ or less after modification (if you usually hit an opponent on 9+ and try to go for the eye, then that would be 11+, but since that's too low chance, you can't really aim for it)

Ranged combat:

1. Roll 1T12+RW higher or equal to difficulty
Close = 12
Short = 13
Medium = 14
Far = 15
Extreme = 16

2. A roll of 1-2 always misses.

3. For a roll of 12, count the target's Toughness as half when rolling damage.

4. A roll of 1 is a fumble and hits a friendly target within the approximate target zone.

(moving on a little quicker now since I've already spent 2 hours typing this, I'm just gonna wrap up the combat rules and leave the magic system for some other time)

Damage

1. For close combat weapons, all possess a damage rating. The damage rating is modified up or down depending on Power (1-2=-2 3-4=-1 and +1 for every step above 5)

2. Ranged weapons have a fixed rating in general

3. The minimum damage rating is 1.

4. There are strength requirements for weapons.

5. Roll as many D12 as damage rating. Every roll which is higher than target Toughness+armour bonus yields 1 point of damage.

6. Armor bonus is +1 for leather, +2 chain, +3 plate and so on.

7. Rolling a 12 gives an extra damage die to roll

8. Check for damage effects, for example in the case of a 4 Hitpoint adventurer:
5+ damage = instant death
4 damage = mortally wounded (will die from these wounds eventually)
2-3 damage = seriously wounded (gives modifiers)
1 damage = flesh wound

9. K.O.: For every blunt impact damage, roll 1D4 and multiply by the damage given. If the result is more or equal to hitpoints before hit, roll a K.O. test

10. If down to 0 HP or less, roll for K.O. in the beginning of every round.

11. K.O. test

Ok, that's it for now.

Can you please stop saying I don't have any material now?

[Christoffer Lernö]

And before you stop wondering, yes there is actually reasons why you would aim for certain parts of the body and you can do it with ranged weapons too. It's just that I'm to tired to write everything down and I don't have anything to neatly copy & paste from.

If you're interested in some particulars, let me know and I'll elaborate.

[Nathan]

You know Pale Fire, there is this game system out called D20, which is played by millions of gamers. It features stats, skills, feats, combat rules, movement rules, and so on -- everything you just shared. What is cool is that D20 is released in OPEN SOURCE, which means game designers can use the rules to build their own games and sell them (as long as you abide by the contract). Which means -- you can add in your classes and silly races right in, along with your custom spells, and walah -- you have a game that millions of gamers ALREADY know how to play.

You might look into it -- because what you just shared has absolutely NOTHING interesting in it. You just shared the D20 system with D4s and a couple of extra dice.

And why the heck do you roll stats with D4+3 and hitpoints with D4+1? Why? Why not just roll stats with D12+7 and hitpoints with D30-15? Or you could roll stats with D4+6, drop the lowest and highest, take the middle, multiply it by 4 and divide by 3 -- rounding up?

So my  tone is testy and maybe rude. Please do not take this personally -- but really, a nice number of folks here on the Forge appreciate you chilling here, posting here, and sharing your thoughts. Unfortunately though, this has turned into a nightmarish exercise in homebrew. You said you wanted a system built to FIT THE GAME WORLD, but all you gave us was D&D with the serial number filed off.

Do you understand?

--nathan

[Eugene Zee]

Pale Fire,

While I don't share Nathan's zeal I would definitely say that your game has much in common with D&D.  If that is how you want it that's fine but you run the risk of people thinking it is just another run of the mill fantasy game.  A brief suggestion, if I may, insert a broad concept that is totally different into your world or system and expand it to touch every part of your game.  Its not easy but it will help if you focus on an aspect that is dramatically new and different.

[Le Joueur]

I have a few specific questions and one real biggie.  I'll pose the big one first so you can think about it while we parse out the little ones, then I'll elaborate.  (Note; this is not done as criticism of the over-all intention of creating this system, but more piddly little details of its application.  This is all the small stuff.)

Okay, the big question, Why?  (No, I'm not going to leave it like that; that'd be answered 'why not?')  I am actually really intrigued by the idea of a system that does 'standard fantasy' one better, one that provokes and delivers on those epic 'cover image' situations; I really like that idea.  I do.  But what seems to be happening is not so much that it belabors 'standard fantasy' settings, but that it belabors 'standard fantasy' games.

If you want a system to arbitrate those 'cover image' situations with wonderment and, well, fantasy, why are you laying out such a nuts and bolts combat system?  Is the game about combat?  Or is it about fantasy?  Why not do something that matches the creative spark and create a fantasy system?  And now back to the piddly questions....

Character creation

3. Stats are Power, Movement, Toughness, Witchpower, Soulstrength, Awareness, Intelligence, Appearance, Charm and hitpoints.

Okay, let's talk system.  I can see frequent applications for Movement, Toughness, Awareness, and Hitpoints, all very traditional, familiar, and what not.  The question with these is, do you want a game where tactical details hog 40% of the stats?  No matter how much Color or flavor or whatever you want to call the neat bits, 40% tactical stats will drown this out shouting "It's really a game about tactics!"

Can you go into to detail about what makes Power, Witchpower, and Soulstrength different from each other?  Better yet, can you explain (I'm making a big assumption here) why witchpeople, for whom Witchpower is likely important, need a stat like Power at all?  Would it be possible to collapse these into one stat, like Power, and say that the different practitioners have specific interpretations of each (thus a character who's using a Power (Soulstrength) effect on a witchperson who uses their Power (Witchpower) to respond or defend)?

In the world of hardly-used-stats-that-we-included-because-we-didn't-want-to-forget-anything, can you explain what use is made of Intelligence, Appearance, and Charm?  Frankly, there are more 'tactical stats' than these, and that says to me these won't really get used.  (I mean, exactly what do you use an Intelligence stat for during play?  If it is only a matter of how many skills or how quickly skills are acquired or the same for 'magic,' what good does it do dragging it around during play?  "I know, I'll Intelligence the monster.")

Worse, stats like Intelligence and Charm are well known for their tendency to short circuit playing your character.  Why role-play out a situation when you can just resolve it with an Intelligence roll (or diplomacy or carousing or streetwise or et cetera).  This harkens back to the more subtle version of tactical play outside of combat.  This means that, in essence, more than half of the stats you have relate to tactical efficiency (providing that Power, Witchpower, and Soulstrength aren't just 'oomph' to a zap); I gotta ask is that a good description of your game?  Is it about tactical resolution of situations?

9. A few sample classes follows:

9.1. Talekeeper (=bard, explorer & learned man all rolled into one)

Weapon skill +1
Ranged weapons +1

Skill picks:
Enchanting Poetry and Music (1-6)
Charming Presence (1-3)
Language sense
Myth Lore (1-3)
Nature Lore (1-3)
Map and World Lore (1-3)
Arts of Healing (1-3)
The Sciences (1-3)

Starting picks:
Enchanting Poetry and Music
Myth Lore
The Sciences
Map and World Lore
+1 free pick

9.2. Warrior (=fighter, soldier, mercenary, barbarian whatever)

Weapon skill +3
Ranged Weapons +2

Skill picks:
Heroic leap (1)
Rushing attack (1)
Battle cry (1)
Armour movement (1-3)
Disarm (1)
Battle tackle (1)
Martial Mastery (1-3)
Berserk (1)
Quickdraw (1)
Ignore wounds (1-3)
Mighty blow (1-3)
Wrestling (1-3)

Initial picks
2 free picks

Skill resolution

1. There are no detailed skills in Ygg.

Whoa!  Isn't that a contradiction of terms?  Your list of Enchanting Poetry and Music, Charming Presence, Myth Lore, Nature Lore, Map and World Lore, Arts of Healing, Heroic leap, Rushing attack, Battle cry, Armour movement, Disarm, Battle tackle, Berserk, Quickdraw, Ignore wounds, and Mighty blow, sound pretty detailed to me.  Do you mean something different when you say detailed?  (Heaven forbid, I can't imagine a more detailed skill than 'Heroic Leap,' except something like 'Heroic Leap Over a 10' Chasm When Chased by Slavering Hordes of Humanoid Monsters.')

You seem to be more onto something with the more vague skills like Language sense, The Sciences, Martial Mastery, and Wrestling.  These are nice and broad open to a lot of interpretation-on-the-fly.

Again, this focuses precisely on tactical situations and combat.  (Before you go in claiming Myth Lore, Nature Lore, Map and World Lore, Language sense, and The Sciences aren't tactical, remember, gathering intelligence is one of the most crucial components of good strategy.)  The character creation system you propose seems 100% geared towards measuring a character's efficacy.  That is not bad or good unless it contradicts with what you want.  Do you want a game where the players sally forth and do battle with the forces of darkness without any time for wonderment?  Is it all about having the right kit of abilities in your party?

is decided by the Player and the GM, or by the GM alone depending on style of play.

This has to be the number one, sit up and take notice, line out of all your mechanics.  This is what I want to hear more about!  What are the mechanics for things being decided by the player and the gamemaster?  (Heck, dump all the efficacy junk; just give me this stuff.)  These will be crucial towards having the game do what you say you want it to.

3. Stats will provide a modifier:
Skills with no or very little stat dependence: no mod
Minor stat dependence: Stat 3-4=-1  Stat 7-8=+1
Major stat dependence: Stat 4=-1, 5=0, 6=+1, 7=+2

You know, you could toss the lists of stats and skills entirely and have the player simply make up their own by depending on this little mechanic here.  Powerful stuff!  Link it with the 'how players and gamemasters decide things together' mechanic and you'd have all the game you need.

Nature Lore
4. Make fire
5. Locate water; Find shelter against weather and wind
6. Identify plants; identify animals
7. Find edible plants and fruits; interpret animal sounds
8. Evaluate unknown plants; evaluate unknown animals
9. Tame wild beasts

I think you need to revisit what you mean by "There are no detailed skills in Ygg."  This sounds pretty darn detailed.

Combat

Hand-to-hand combat:
1. Combat is...
2. Attacking...
3. If roll+WS is...
4. A roll of 12 means...
5. A roll of 1 means...
6. Shields grant...
7. Trying to panicking...
8. To attack...
9. If the combat is...
10. If at too close distance...
11. Aim in hand-to-hand combat...
12. Close hits...
13. Aiming is...

Ranged combat:
1. Roll 1T12+RW higher...
2. A roll of 1-2...
3. For a roll of 12...
4. A roll of 1 is...

Damage
1. For close combat weapons...
2. Ranged weapons...
3. The minimum damage...
4. There are strength requirements...
5. Roll as many D12 as...
6. Armor bonus is...
7. Rolling a 12...
8. Check for damage...
9. K.O....
10. If down to 0 HP...
11. K.O. test...

Do you recognize what having more combat rules than anything else says about what you want people to do with your game?  Unless you wish to have it play out mostly like a tactical wargame, you're going to need to strip out all this combat detail and replace it with something else.  I really don't have a good handle on what your intention is with this game.

Can you please stop saying I don't have any material now?

But is this the material that tells what you want the game to be about?  That's the big question.  If you want a game about playing out the situations implied by the covers of all those fantasy novels and games, combat rules say almost nothing about it.  Those pictures are meant to be the defining moment of the climax.  A game emulating them should be more about the buildup and presentation of climax, not the second-to-second action happening in the lowliest of battles.

One of the most overlooked or misunderstood rules in the earliest of Dungeons & Dragons was the rule that allowed fighters to literally wade through hordes of lower level minions; it really was the first 'mook rule.'  Battles with the army of kobolds (so kill me, I'm fairly German) means almost nothing compared to the final confrontation; this rule was supposed to 'get you there,' to 'cut to the chase' as it were.

And now, back to our 'big question....'

I hope no one will rant about how incomplete detail x is, because providing the game isn't what it's about.

If that's true then this whole 'mechanics' posting is a waste of time.  Leave it out.  Write us mechanics for dealing with "what it's about."  Skip the tired abstracted-by-separate-action combat system.  Give us fantasy game mechanics, not 'medieval combat' mechanics.  You wonder why people keep saying that you don't "have any material," it's because this has nothing to do with 'standard fantasy,' it's all about medieval tactics and warfare (with magic).

I also try to refrain from explaining why I did certain design decisions (this is a far cry from my original draft), but I guess I have to mention the AD&D reminiscent classes are not borrowed from AD&D but rather an evolution from a purely skill-based system (like Shadowrun). When it didn't seem to focus the intent of the game enough I changed it in several steps until it became what it is now.

It isn't the reminiscent material that's really causing the problem here.  It's the lack of material that brings home your stated goals.  And I hate to point this out but saying that your game isn't evolved from Dungeons & Dragons because it evolved from Shadowrun, means nothing.  It still fails to do what you said because it is derivative, regardless the source.  Unless derived from something that captures any genre the way you want to capture yours, the process of derivation is doomed.

Also it might be worth to mention that a lot of these rules are under review. The only thing fairly well nailed down is the combat system (except for the occasional detail here and there).

That's exactly why people say you have no material.  'Standard fantasy' is not about combat, 'standard fantasy' games have been (it wasn't necessary, but you can't change history).

Elsewhere you have stated:

the reason I'm providing so much description is because my experience is that few players really take the time to customize their spells even if they are allowed to within the game system.

Don't you realize that the descriptions, as you give them, are exactly what inhibits the players from taking the time to customize their spells?

Look at the example:

Death lanterns are actually made out of these ghostly looking fire demons that circle around the mage. If they happen to touch anything they immediately disappear in a burst of light. However, they will usually not move anything on their own. If someone would run through the circle towards the mage, there be a real burst of fire, but not enough to burn the person unless they are naked humans. When one of these fire demons is destroyed (they actually die) they don't make more of a burn than say a cigarette would. Creative players might be able to figure out that you can actually use this spell to light candles and the like, or if you spray someone with oil and have them run though that circle it's gonna be pretty messy...

Already you're presupposing the detail necessary from a tactical standpoint.  It starts off with good colorful 'standard fantasy' detail and then wanders into nit-picky tactical particulars.  You imply you want player to "really take the time to customize their spells?"  Force it!  Give blunt descriptions: Level 1 light, 2 fire, 3 burning touch, 4 jet of fire, 5 fireball.  Then require that any player making a character with one of these 'spell cores' must create a detailed customization or they can't use it.  (Have detailed examples, as examples, to lead the way; don't take them by the hand, players won't go.)  Let the gamemaster sort out the nit-picky details of the application only when someone tries to get clever with them.  It's the attention to the nit-picky detail that destroys the 'fantasy' element of Dungeons & Dragons spells.  'Standard Fantasy' isn't about nit-picky details; it's about broad brushstrokes, passionate colors, and, well, fantasy.

Heck, you could even require that in order to use a spell, a player must present a detailed description of how it comes off or it fizzles.  (Gamemaster: "What do you do?"  Player: "I cast a light spell."  Gamemaster: "This application doesn't capture the moment, it fails." versus Gamemaster: "What do you do?"  Player: "I summon up the last of my spiritual energy and surround myself with tiny luminescent fire-ghosts as a death lantern, each cackling with their newly broadened freedom."  Gamemaster: "Will they burn anything they touch?"  Player: "Fear not friends, these fiery sprites will do you little harm."  Gamemaster: "Good show, bonus time.")

You seem totally paranoid over abusive players.  Then make a game system that'll scare them off.  In my experience a player will abuse a system because 1) they don't want to do the 'work' needed to customize all the details themselves and 2) the nit-picky details make all the loopholes they need.  Make a system that has no loopholes because it doesn't get nit-picky.  Make a system where flexibility allows abusive players to 'get what they want' (I have yet to hear how they continue to abuse under this circumstance and still remain people you can stand to live with in the real world) and makes them work for it.  Make the game subscribe to 'getting to those cover shots' so much that the flexibility keeps the abusive players from short-circuiting the climax.

Basically, either make a game with a wealth of concise detailed tactical rules that cannot be abused or make one that is broad and epic, so flexible that the whole point is to abuse it.  You can't have it both ways.  Just pick one.  I for one, want to see what you create; you on the 'jazz,' man.

Fang Langford

p. s. I know I'm using the word tactical vaguely, but focus on the point not the wording.

[Christoffer Lernö]

You know Pale Fire, there is this game system out called D20, which is played by millions of gamers. It features stats, skills, feats, combat rules, movement rules, and so on

Yes, but it doesn't share my design goals. Now what I've written is in much need of correction because admittedly some stuff (in particular the skill system) doesn't work the way it's supposed to yet.

One of my big beef with pretty much any game out there is that you can't really rely on skills if you have to roll for them. As long as you don't have to make a test you're usually just as competent as anyone else. The GM is using his/her good judgement on what's possible and what's not.

Now enter a skill system. Suddenly you suck. Or at least your performance varies wildly. With great skill you might have the ability to do really masterful things, but chances are pretty susbstantial that you manage to make big mistakes too.

All this annoys the shit out of me because it clashes with what I see as reasonable results, meaning results which you could as easily narrate as roll for. The die roll (esp for skills) tend to be that breaking point where you notice if the GM is using a narrative style or a gamist style. I really really hate that. And the D20 as far as I know have that just as much as most games out there.

I admittedly haven't had more than a quick look at AD&D 3rd ed. It seems like a vast improvment, but unless they have stopped using AC and stuff I'm still gonna think their combat system sucks. I've already mentioned I think the magic system is constraining. So aside from the skill system, combat system and magic system what is there left for me to use? Not much. 3D6 maybe, but I don't need that. I seem to be using a similar method of character improvment, but I don't know for sure as I haven't really checked out 3rd ed.

And why the heck do you roll stats with D4+3 and hitpoints with D4+1? Why? Why not just roll stats with D12+7 and hitpoints with D30-15?

Because I roll x dice for damage. If I would have allowed for more hit points the number of damage dice would need to be scaled up. I don't know about you, but I feel that rolling in average 5 D12 is better than having to roll 10. And besides there's the differences in probability to take into account.

The stats go in the D4+3 range because they are plugged straight into the system as target numbers for the D12 rolls.

Of course I could have used ANY kind of rolls to get the stats, but then I'd have to have a conversion table. This way the conversion table isn't really needed.

[Christoffer Lernö]

A brief suggestion, if I may, insert a broad concept that is totally different into your world or system and expand it to touch every part of your game.  Its not easy but it will help if you focus on an aspect that is dramatically new and different.

You're probably right but I frankly don't know what that would be. All my rules are basically tweaks on existing systems. Except for that I'm letting a lot of things be up to the GM to decide I'm not really doing anything different (a little better hopefully, but not anything new).

I guess I'm a little reluctant to add something too radical too. I'm worried I'll get so caught up in that "cool thing" that actual playability goes out the window. Whatever I put in should be something which can work for both newbie and experienced players. I've seen many a cool mechanic, but unless you've used to handling game mechanics you won't appreciate it, even though it is "simpler" or more clever.

Maybe I should pick up on the idea to grant more of an Author stance. But I still want the game very concrete (I looked at the review of the Pool and it seemed a little to abstract for newbies) in terms of rules.

[hardcoremoose]

PF,

I'm reluctant at this point to say anything.  You've got a game here that I believe works only insofar as it is of interest to you, and maybe some of your friends.  Yet you persistently talk about it as though you actually intend on publishing it in some form.  Maybe you will - the internet makes that easy.

Please, read Fang's post carefully.  It says a lot.  And don't dismiss Nathan's points.

And do look into Author Stance and Fortune in the Middle.  There are threads aplenty around this place dealing with those topics, and why they can help achieve certain goals in game play (and design).   Your mechanics don't have to be as abstract as The Pool, but maybe something like Sorcerer would be more enlightening.

- Scott

[Andrew Martin]

You know Pale Fire, there is this game system out called D20, which is played by millions of gamers. It features stats, skills, feats, combat rules, movement rules, and so on

Yes, but it doesn't share my design goals. Now what I've written is in much need of correction because admittedly some stuff (in particular the skill system) doesn't work the way it's supposed to yet.

Why not try D20 modern with High level characters?

Why not try Fuzion?

Why not try Fudge?

Pale Fire, basically, any pre-existing simulationist RPG rule set is going to give you what you've written here. I think you've wasted a lot of effort. I'm sorry.

[Christoffer Lernö]

I have a few specific questions and one real biggie.

Oh god oh god oh god.

I just spent 2+ hours reply to this mail. I previewed it, had to log in again. Was gonna go back and send it again, stopped the reload too soon and voila. All my text gone. I'm gonna go and die now.

Essence was:

yeah, I agree with you.

I need to make a game which works for narrative and gamists.

I know it can be done.

Of course there was 2 1/2 hour more of discussion and detail. But I just lost that. When I finally managed to make sensible text people wouldn't hate me for.

Oh god oh god oh god.

[Le Joueur]

One of my big beef with pretty much any game out there is that you can't really rely on skills if you have to roll for them. As long as you don't have to make a test you're usually just as competent as anyone else. The GM is using his/her good judgement on what's possible and what's not.

Now enter a skill system. Suddenly you suck. Or at least your performance varies wildly. With great skill you might have the ability to do really masterful things, but chances are pretty susbstantial that you manage to make big mistakes too.

All this annoys the shit out of me because it clashes with what I see as reasonable results, meaning results which you could as easily narrate as roll for.

We noticed that too.  In Scattershot, we segregated "you don't have to make a test" out and removed the reliance upon the gamemaster for "good judgment."  In General play, "you don't have to make a test" at all, what you say goes.  Under proper technique, any participant (not just the gamemaster) can 'call foul' on an over-play; the game turns to Specific play where the narrative is informed by die rolls versus adjusted ratings.  Nothing special about that.  Until...

"Now enter a skill system. Suddenly you suck. Or at least your performance varies wildly."  This might be true, except you seem to be missing something from "what [you] see as reasonable results."  Most people use their 'skills' under no time constraints.  Surgery?  No problem, we'll take our time and get it right.  In Scattershot, you never, I mean never, have to roll against a skill rating if you have the time (unless the player whose skill it is, is using the roll to determine detail such as how long it takes to succeed).  A roll is only called for when the persona is 'taking their chances.'  Try surgery on the battlefield, shells bursting overhead; now that should be dicey.

Scattershot has a mechanic to mediate when the die are rolled and when not (avoiding a dependance on gamemaster "good judgment") that is motivated precisely on the idea of avoiding the appearance where "performance varies wildly."  So far, nothing you've suggested (nor any of the others as far as I know) accounts for this.  If it's your "big beef," where's the system to make a difference?

Fang Langford

p. s. If I seem overly critical, it's because your proposal does nothing to deliver those fantasy cover situations which are the primary attraction I have for your game.  I really have only the best intention for your game.  I want to see you focus on what you say is the most important thing in your game.  If you now declare it is combat, then all this work is worthwhile.  If not, wouldn't it be better to chuck most of this combat engine and create mechanics that focus on story, climax, and fantastic situations.

[Christoffer Lernö]

Now enter a skill system. Suddenly you suck. Or at least your performance varies wildly. With great skill you might have the ability to do really masterful things, but chances are pretty susbstantial that you manage to make big mistakes too.

We noticed that too.  In Scattershot, we segregated "you don't have to make a test" out and removed the reliance upon the gamemaster for "good judgment."  In General play, "you don't have to make a test" at all, what you say goes.

To recap some stuff from my lost mail.
Let's assum the GM can either be in a narrative stance or a gamist stance (differs a little from GNS model, but I didn't really find what I looked for in the article straight away. Anyway in the former the GM narrates what's happening and the second he uses the rules (and the dice) to figure it out).
Now what I want (and I know this is possible) is the possibility for a seamless transition between narrative and gamist stance for the GM.

Since battle is important in my game, let's take a combat situation. Seamlessly transitioning between narrative and gamist stance would let the GM declare things "you shoot that guard right in between the eyes" and then go on saying "roll for shooting the next one" without feeling the results will be different.

In some games this is possible, in others they are. In the lost mail I speculated how this seems to relate to how close the narrativist and gamist results are in the gamist focus points of the game.

A game of outdoor survival needs the mechanics for resolving survival skills to give reasonable (that is, easily converted to narrative) results.

In a game where combat is important, it is important that results from narrative can be cast into the gamist stance and vice-versa.

IF you want to make a game which is enjoyable for a bunch of gamer's that are a mixed gamist/narrativist crowd.

And now I completely forgot what to reply to that.

"Now enter a skill system. Suddenly you suck. Or at least your performance varies wildly."  This might be true, except you seem to be missing something from "what [you] see as reasonable results."  Most people use their 'skills' under no time constraints.  Surgery?  No problem, we'll take our time and get it right.  In Scattershot, you never, I mean never, have to roll against a skill rating if you have the time (unless the player whose skill it is, is using the roll to determine detail such as how long it takes to succeed).  A roll is only called for when the persona is 'taking their chances.'  Try surgery on the battlefield, shells bursting overhead; now that should be dicey.

Seems good, but that's how BRP is supposed to work too, isn't it? Of course GMs abuse this by letting players roll when they want them to fail for no other reason than it is convenient. Do I need to mention that destroys the feeling of having a reasonable world?

Scattershot has a mechanic to mediate when the die are rolled and when not (avoiding a dependance on gamemaster "good judgment") that is motivated precisely on the idea of avoiding the appearance where "performance varies wildly." So far, nothing you've suggested (nor any of the others as far as I know) accounts for this.  If it's your "big beef," where's the system to make a difference?

No, the stuff I presented in my text doesn't make a difference. I was gonna have less important rolls (from a gamist point of view) be dealt my using the stats and basic chances. I had everything about this written down (now I get reminded again). Including whys and wherefores of the skills looking like they did (and god knows it needs an explanation). But

I'm not up to writing everything down again I hope you understand why.

Since the unimportant skills (non gamist) was to be narrated more or less, the rest was tightly regulated gamist stuff not intended to be considered conventional skills anyway (so general rules wouldn't apply).

The roll for the GM is to make up difficulties on the fly to avoid the players from feeling their characters sucked "because they rolled so low". The approach is more "GM rolls for difficulty", oh no my character doesn't make it because he isn't good enough to deal with such a difficult situation (that the GM rolled up).

Maybe I can (for no special reason whatsoever) chuck in a piece of mechanics here (yeah, this reply is totally disorganized, blame it on my feeling of despair)

The procedure goes as follows:
1. Grab three D6.
2. Roll 'em
3. Count the 1's and 6's
4. More 1's than 6's? Roll as many more D6 as you have more 1's than 6's.
5. More 6's than 1's? As above but change the place of 1 and 6.
6. 6's and 1's equal? Then stop here.
7. Rolling bonus dice? If you're rolling because you had 1's, then every die that is showing a 1 gives an extra roll (ignore the 6's during the bonus rolls). If you're rolling because of the 6's, the same but for the 6's instead of the 1's
8. Count the 1's you got (or 6's)

More 1's: Every die with a 1 is one piece of bad luck. 1 is a little unlucky, 2 is really unlucky, 3 is bad news and let's not talk about 4.
More 6's: Every die with a 6 is one piece of good luck. 1 is a little lucky and so on.

Neither 1's or 6's: pretty much average situation.

Usage:

Whenever you want to do something: climb a tree, listen for ninjas sneaking up the town walls or whatever. Roll the 3 dice. GM mediates what's happening depending on your stats and general skill.

The dice rolling seems a little complex but it's actually much simpler than it seems (more complex rolling would be easier to explain!)

It's a rough guide, but if the skills are not the focus of the game, why need more?

[Andrew Martin]

Now enter a skill system. Suddenly you suck. Or at least your performance varies wildly. With great skill you might have the ability to do really masterful things, but chances are pretty susbstantial that you manage to make big mistakes too.

We noticed that too.  In Scattershot, we segregated "you don't have to make a test" out and removed the reliance upon the gamemaster for "good judgment."  In General play, "you don't have to make a test" at all, what you say goes.

Now what I want (and I know this is possible) is the possibility for a seamless transition between narrative and gamist stance for the GM.

PF, have you check out Vincent's Chalk Outlines, and my Swift rules which are based on it?

For Swift, there's no difference between narrating actions and rolling actions, provided one takes one's time with the action, as the dice roll result is the same as narrating. For fast actions in stressful situations, like combat, the player know exactly what chances they have, and has the option of succeed with concessions or failing, if the dice roll indicates not successful. Effectively, the character always has 100% chance of success, provided the player decides to take the appropriate concessions.

It's been very effective in play test, though detailed combat rules need to be added to satisfy my munchkin players. Basically the dice system gives no rude surprises, either good or bad, unless the player wants these kind of results (by taking them as concessions).

It also possible to model extremes of probability, for example, if there's a 0.3% probabilty of illness or the probability of one's shoelaces becoming untied during the day -- used as an example by a friend of mine! :).

Based on the goals you wrote in another thread:

System
* Fast, non-obstructive combat system with reasonable results.
* Task resolution should let the players rely on the character's abilities to be consistent.

Swift would seem like a reasonable solution to your goals.

[Christoffer Lernö]

PF, have you check out Vincent's Chalk Outlines, and my Swift rules which are based on it?

I haven't seen Chalk, but I did check out Swift once (but only to look at the combat system, which didn't work for me because of the requirement that the combat should be Gamist).

Now, in principle I like your idea, but I don't know if I can use it. Since swift is based on several basic principles, like those of concession, fait accompli and so on it, I have to either add them to my system (extremely unpractical) or graft only a lite version of Swift into my system if I wanted to use them.

I can't really see how to do it though. My "3 D6 of luck" approach is a little similar with a need by the GM (and possibly the player) to determine the exact effects of good or bad luck.

I also have to take into account that the gamists will have a hard time handling this type of more narrative style, so it has to be light on Author stance and not insisting on one specific stance to be used (as Swift does).

The whole difficulty (as I think I stated before) is to make it playable for both G och N. I work on the combat system to keep G and N fairly compatible. The rest isn't so important and will be kept mostly N style, but it has to be possible for the Gs to ignore that. Forcing author stance would probably not work because not all Gs can actually handle that style.

Keeping in mind I won't alter the basic combat mechanism (roll D12 against static target number) and hence need to keep the same type of stats. Can you see any way of incorporating the Swift ideas into especially skill resolution with these restrictions?

[Le Joueur]

Now enter a skill system. Suddenly you suck. Or at least your performance varies wildly. With great skill you might have the ability to do really masterful things, but chances are pretty susbstantial that you manage to make big mistakes too.

We noticed that too.  In Scattershot, we segregated "you don't have to make a test" out and removed the reliance upon the gamemaster for "good judgment."  In General play, "you don't have to make a test" at all, what you say goes.

Let's assume the GM can be either in a Narrativist stance or a Gamist stance (differs a little from GNS model, but I didn't really find what I looked for in the article straight away. Anyway in the former the GM narrates what's happening and the second he uses the rules (and the dice) to figure it out).  Now what I want (and I know this is possible) is the possibility for a seamless transition between Narrativist and Gamist stance for the GM.

Oh, what you want is completely possible, but only if you ditch the GNS terminology.  I won't be the last to tell you that Gamism has nothing to do with "[the GM using] the rules (and the dice) to figure [out what's happening]."  A lot of Narrativist games use dice and rules, heck The Pool is a totally Narrativist game based on 'Pools' of dice.  Likewise, Narrativism does not equate with "the GM [narrating] what's happening."  Short of the few times one uses dice, in any game it's all narration.  (Don't worry, the GNS terminology is that confusing.)

So before you draw a huge flamefest (well as inflammable as it might get at the Forge, please drop the 'Narrativist/Gamist' terminology; trust me, you're not using them right.  Just come up with your own.  For the sake of argument, let me replace them with 'soliloquy' and 'game theory' hereafter.

Since battle is important in my game, let's take a combat situation. Seamlessly transitioning between soliloquy and game theory stance would let the GM declare things [like] "you shoot that guard right in between the eyes" and then go on saying "roll for shooting the next one" without feeling the results will be different.

Yep, that's entirely possible (just not relevant to Gamism and Narrativism).  In my opinion though, the most vital part of such a game system would be the 'seamless transition' rules.  What you are proposing smacks of inconsistent gaming if handled badly, and all 'unwritten rules' are guaranteed to be so handled.

By the by, why is combat so important in your game?

A game of outdoor survival needs the mechanics for resolving survival skills to give reasonable (that is, easily converted to soliloquy) results.

In a game where combat is important, it is important that results from soliloquy can be cast into the game theory stance and vice-versa.

If you want to make a game that is enjoyable for a bunch of gamers that are a mixed soliloquy/game theory crowd...

Regardless of what you first thought when you read Ron's essay, what you are talking about is a card-carrying member of the Gamist mode.  Your misunderstanding stems from the misapprehension that Gamists don't enjoy soliloquy and are concerned only with the game theory aspects of play.  This isn't true.  Neither is it true that any kind of soliloquy is only the realm of the Narrativist.  Soliloquy exists in all gaming regardless of mode (I'd avoid use of the word 'stance' around here too, because of its specialized meaning on the Forge).

What I gotta ask is, so you have this game that lets people seamlessly shift from telling the game to rolling for it, how does this 'get them to' those inspiring fantasy novel cover situations.

In my opinion, that's where you ran into trouble earlier.  You talked about a game with those situations, but all your game theory applications have absolutely nothing to do with that.

It's like this:

Stated Goal: make a game that fulfills those inspiring cover-shots that all

those other games fail to provide.

Demonstration: detailed combat system.

Response: how does what is demonstrated fulfill the goal?

Answer: the combat system allows seamless transition between soliloquy and game theory play.

Question: how does that answer the response?[/list:u]I mean you have time and again said things like:

I want to go after what captures the essence of Fantasy.

And exactly how does your combat system 'capture the essence of fantasy?'  I've read a lot of fantasy (especially the stuff that came before Tolkien, even though many regard some of that as mythology), even when there is combat, it is never focused on with such detail.  It's more of an afterthought or a qualifier, certainly not "the essence of Fantasy."  I will have to go on record as stating that the more you zero in on combat and the various game theory aspects of it, the farther you will get from "the essence of Fantasy."

"Now enter a skill system. Suddenly you suck. Or at least your performance varies wildly."  This might be true, except you seem to be missing something from "what [you] see as reasonable results."  Most people use their 'skills' under no time constraints.  Surgery?  No problem, we'll take our time and get it right.  In Scattershot, you never, I mean never, have to roll against a skill rating if you have the time (unless the player whose skill it is, is using the roll to determine detail such as how long it takes to succeed).  A roll is only called for when the persona is 'taking their chances.'  Try surgery on the battlefield, shells bursting overhead; now that should be dicey.

Seems good, but that's how BRP is supposed to work too, isn't it? Of course GMs abuse this by letting players roll when they want them to fail for no other reason than it is convenient. Do I need to mention that destroys the feeling of having a reasonable world?

If I'm not mistaken, that's how every game is supposed to work.  How many of them actually come out and explain it?  The lack of explanation leads to the naïve applications of the rules that give that feeling of 'unreasonable results' you complain of.  I see nothing, absolutely nothing, that prevents exactly the same occurring in your rules.  In fact, I see much worse on the horizon.

For example:

Whenever you want to do something: climb a tree, listen for ninjas sneaking up the town walls or whatever. Roll the 3 dice. GM mediates what's happening depending on your stats and general skill.

The dice rolling seems a little complex but it's actually much simpler than it seems (more complex rolling would be easier to explain!)

Complex!?!  I want to walk down the street, "Roll the 3 dice."  I open a door, "Roll the 3 dice."  I talk to a shopkeeper, "Roll the 3 dice."  I buy some bread, "Roll the 3 dice."  See what I mean; you have no suggestion of when dice should or should not be rolled.  To the contrary, you state "Whenever...."  That reads as all the time!

If you want people to roll dice 'only when it matters' you're going to have to spell out when that is.  There is absolutely nothing wrong or right with you dice mechanic, or a hundred others you might consider, except there is no information about when it applies.

That particular decision is at the heart of why a game cannot seamlessly shift back and forth between Gamism and Narrativism.  Choices of when to invoke dice are critical in both, and extremely cross purposes.  As far as has been explained previously, a Gamist is ripe for a challenge, for them dice are an impartial judge of whether they succeed or not (some Gamists carefully weight the modifiers in their favor, but still depend on the impartiality of dice over gamemaster fiat).  Broadly, Narrativist use die rolls to stimulate their narratives, not to test failure or success (yes they have failure created by dice in their narratives, but it calls for complication, not loss).  You can't write one mechanic to satisfy both of these, unless....

Unless you are extremely sensitive to whether play is in a Gamist mode or a Narrativist mode and give a rule that decides based on that when dice are applicable.  Just saying "whenever..." can only fall flat on its face at that crossroad.

From another posting, let me extract something you seem to already know:

I also have to take into account that the Gamists will have a hard time handling this type of more Narrativist style, so it has to be light on Author stance and not insisting on one specific stance to be used.

You obviously understand that "Gamist will have a hard time handling this type of more Narrativist style."  Surely you realize then that putting in mechanics to satisfy Narrativists will give a Gamist "a hard time."  I hope the reverse is obvious too.  So why do you keep harping on wanting "the possibility for a seamless transition between Narrativist and Gamist stance?"  Somebody is going to get "a hard time" whenever you transition, aren't they?

Okay, I'm being a bit unfair here.  The whole point with Scattershot is to create a game based on Transition between as different styles as Gamism and Narrativism.  One thing that has hit home again and again is that this can't be done with a combat mechanic.  What you really need to focus on if you're going to have "seamless transition between Narrativist and Gamist stance" is how, when, and why they people playing the game make that transition.  If you don't make this the most explicit part of your game, "whenever" it happens I can guarantee you somebody is going to have "a hard time" in a really big way.  It won't matter how well you combat appeals to the Gamists, or your Color appeals to the Narrativists (which by the way is bad mischaracterization), when the 'switch' comes, if someone isn't 'on board' for it, it'll ruin their game.

Ultimately, what I am saying is you're spending waaayy too much time dwelling on the 'Gamist detail' (another mischaracterization) at the expense of both Narrativism and Transition.  Unless you 'get them all on your plate' and soon, this will simply lead to a 'bad game.'

Scattershot has a mechanic to mediate when the die are rolled and when not (avoiding a dependence on gamemaster "good judgment") that is motivated precisely on the idea of avoiding the appearance where "performance varies wildly." So far, nothing you've suggested (nor any of the others as far as I know) accounts for this.  If it's your "big beef," where's the system to make a difference?

I was gonna have less important rolls (from a game theory point of view) be dealt my using the stats and basic chances.

Yes, but what are the rules that determine when that is the case?  Those are the ones crucial to your 'seamless transitions' not all of these relatively familiar combat mechanics.

I'm not up to writing everything down again I hope you understand why.

No, I don’t.  If it was worth saying the first time, wait until the pain wears off and write it again.  The idea (which has not been communicated¹) remains the same, all that was lost is one execution.

It's a rough guide, but if the skills are not the focus of the game, why need more?

Oh, I don't know, maybe to capture the essence of Fantasy!!!

Fang Langford

¹ I asked you to pick whether you would satisfy detailed combat junkies or epic cover illustration junkies and you say 'I agree.'  You response talks about seamlessly switching between the two.  That is not agreement.