[Codex] Moving from Fortune to Karma within a system

[Byron]

I first thought of this while considering weapon damage and so will use that as the example.  I think it could be adapted to be used for the rest of the system as well and would like thoughts on whether it has been used before and or would it become to labor intensive to keep track.

Using a dice pool system, consider a weapon that has a karmic default damage of 7.  Upon striking it does 7 damage.  But as this weapon gets used, dulls or breaks, that last bit of damage gets a little questionable.  Therefore it gets reduced down to 6 with an additional 1 dice representing wether or not it can perform as well as it did in the beginning.  Fast forward on down the line and we find the same sword, cracked, dull and in disrepair.  It still has the potential to dish out 7 damage but instead it is represented as a Karmic value of 3 with an additional potential of 4 dice of fortune. 

Now, I thought this might be a good way to represent the relationship between attributes and skills.  An individual who may have a potential Agility of 5 would roll all 5 dice.  However, an individual with a potential Agility of 5 and a relevant skill of 3 would only roll the extra 2 dice to add to their automatic 3 success.

What does this accomplish?  Well, I hope that this will reduce the number of dice overall needed in order to stray away from the buckets of dice syndrome some systems have.  It seems to balance the difference between a character with good potential and a character with specific skill sets.  And it might be a good representation of weapon usage without creating a separate system just for that.

I doubt I have come up with anything new but I would like some opinions on wether this idea has been to labor intensive in the past, with the record keeping and all.

[oreso]

i like it, it seems to simulate things well. Raw power is good, but training makes you reliable. 

will task difficulty affect the target number required for these dice rolls? Training thus becomes more important the harder the task is.

eg. a young genius and a professional clerk are filing some documents (easy peasy). The genius files like a daemon using some cunning new method while the professional plods along how he's been told to. They encounter a new and difficult document (oh no!), and the genius just doesnt know what to make of it and can't file it no matter how clever he is, but the experienced professional knows what to do (hurray!).

[Byron]

will task difficulty affect the target number required for these dice rolls? Training thus becomes more important the harder the task is.

I may have misunderstood the exact question but here goes.

I tend to think that target numbers for dice pool systems should always remain the same, IE 6 or above on a D10 (coin flip philosophy 50-50).  I do however believe in increased number of successes to reach harder goals instead of if you get at least one success you win.  I think easy tasks require 1 success while difficult tasks require 4 or 5.

thanks for the positive feedback oreso.

[Arturo G.]

Hi, Byron!

The idea sounds reasonable, and I think it may reduce the number of dice as you would like.

But the important thing is not if it sounds reasonable or if it resembles reality. The important question is if it works well for the purpose it was included in the game. This same system may work well in one game and very badly in another.
Thus, it is important to know what are your game about? What kind of play do you want to deliver?
Why do you think you need specific weapon mechanics in the game?

Cheers,
Arturo

[Byron]

Codex is my fantasy heartbreaker.  I want a game where metagame mechanics allow players to add dice to do heroic things so I chose a dice pool system.  I looked at exalted which does most of I want but dice pools got way to big, it slowed things down.

I wanted to go with Static weapon damage to help speed things up but when you have a range of 1-10 damage then you basically just have 10 weapons and everyone tries to get the biggest one (Special magic and storyline weapons aside).

So, I wanted to add a small variable to weapons so that instead of picking the level 4 weapon or the level 5 weapon, players could choose the old rusty sword (karma 4/potential 8) or the sharpened battle axe (karma 5 / potential 6)  Sure the sword can out perform the axe on the high end but the axe is more reliable for steady damage.

Now the players can try to find someone to "Forge" their weapons to their higher potential. 

Same thing with characters.  One may have a high agility potential but it takes much training to be able to hit that high point every time, thus skills.

That's kind of the direction I was going.

[Selene Tan]

I think this looks nifty. One thing, which you may have thought of already: it should be fairly common to require more than one success to succeed on a task, or there won't be much difference between a karma 1 and karma 1-jillion weapon. Or there should be clear advantages to having "extra" successes.

[jbrandl]

the idea is pretty good i guess.. speeds things up.

I tend to think that target numbers for dice pool systems should always remain the same, IE 6 or above on a D10 (coin flip philosophy 50-50).  I do however believe in increased number of successes to reach harder goals instead of if you get at least one success you win.  I think easy tasks require 1 success while difficult tasks require 4 or 5.

varying target numbers are appropriate for 'simulating' situations/tasks where skill matters less than 'raw power'. that leads to the question of how you want to resolve 'opposing checks'.. who's got the more success's? i mean, here varying target numbers were of interesting effect.
but then, above would complicate the system.. unnecessary maybe, as the number of required successes is already varied to a rather similar effect.

[Arturo G.]

Thus, you want players to try to think about how to optimize their chances in fighting as well as in other tasks.
You are trying to increase the range of decisions by including the possibility of choosing a lower range of success, or a higher one but with more uncertainty. The same as when comparing 1d6+2 vs. 1d10, but in a more regular scheme.

Am I right?

Arturo

[Byron]

The same as when comparing 1d6+2 vs. 1d10, but in a more regular scheme.

Am I right?

Arturo

You are correct

[Byron]

To answer a few questions,

I think this looks nifty. One thing, which you may have thought of already: it should be fairly common to require more than one success to succeed on a task, or there won't be much difference between a karma 1 and karma 1-jillion weapon. Or there should be clear advantages to having "extra" successes.

A range of successes needs to be there.  As in 1 success needed for easy tasks whereas 2, 3 or 4 or more successes based on level of difficulty as tasks get more difficult.  Also, as character actions get more complex, I think it is important to add to the number of required successes.

varying target numbers are appropriate for 'simulating' situations/tasks where skill matters less than 'raw power'. that leads to the question of how you want to resolve 'opposing checks'.. who's got the more success's? i mean, here varying target numbers were of interesting effect.
but then, above would complicate the system.. unnecessary maybe, as the number of required successes is already varied to a rather similar effect.

I am taking a bit from Amber as to how to go about this.  Karma wins basically.  If one character has more Karma than the total potential of the other then they win automatically.  However, that scenario would be rare especially at the beginning of any game.

This also is very important to how I wanted "Mook" effects to be in this game.  I wanted to get that first level feel when fighting low powered opponents but as the characters build up karma, focusing their potential, they get the effect of mowing through opponents.  Because, if a character's karmic skill is greater than the total potential of the opponent, the character wins.

I am trying to put enough together now to run a one-shot game and post the results in actual play.

[Arturo G.]

I am taking a bit from Amber as to how to go about this.  Karma wins basically.  If one character has more Karma than the total potential of the other then they win automatically.  However, that scenario would be rare especially at the beginning of any game.

This also is very important to how I wanted "Mook" effects to be in this game.  I wanted to get that first level feel when fighting low powered opponents but as the characters build up karma, focusing their potential, they get the effect of mowing through opponents.  Because, if a character's karmic skill is greater than the total potential of the opponent, the character wins.

Some things you may also consider:

You have a clear idea about an escalation of conflicts related to character improvement in your game. How fast is going to be this escalation? During one session? Along several sessions in a campaign style? In any case, what is going to happen when you are arriving at the highest levels? Are you going to fire an end-game condition, or are you expecting the players to decide to retire their characters?

Is a character death a possible outcome of a conflict in your game? In most fantasy heartbreakers it is, and it always makes troubles with the long-term escalation mechanisms.

Arturo

[Byron]

I enjoy risk in a game when it comes to character death.  Characters can die and will.  But the whole focus of the game is reaching the character's potential.  Once a character's potential has been reached, the challenge becomes moving beyond that potential.  Of course I don't forsee a time when a character will have reached that point at any time in a game from beginning to end.  Small goals like reaching their potential in a few choice skills sure.

I think an argument can be made for both slow progression and fast progression based on the goals of the player group but not necessarily dictated by mechanics.

[Arturo G.]

I enjoy risk in a game when it comes to character death.  Characters can die and will.  But the whole focus of the game is reaching the character's potential.

That's interesting, Byron!

The focus of the game is reaching character's potential. But you want to include the possibility of the character death, which means that the character development so far may be destroyed. Are you planning to allow characters to die because:
1) They have made poor tactical choices?
2) They are not pursuing the character's potential?
3) As an alternative way to obtain other kind of benefits not related to the character development, like development for other characters, or just a story-power to narrate an epic end for the character?

BTW, have you read so far these articles?  Roleplaying Theory, Hardcore: A Small Thing About Suspense - A Small Thing About Character Death . Probably they are talking about things not related to your purpose, but it is always interesting to think about it for a while.

I think an argument can be made for both slow progression and fast progression based on the goals of the player group but not necessarily dictated by mechanics.

It is mainly a game-design decision. You may include explicit techniques related to it in the mechanics or leave it to the the group decision. But don't forget that, even in the last case, many subtle decisions in the design may lead to a specific pace in the characters progression.

For the moment I see you want to make it adjustable by the group. Isn't it? Thus, your hardest decisions are related to the mechanics involved in the progression. How do the players earn the right to progress? If it is not going to be mechanically bounded, is it related to play experiences? To which kind of them? Are they related to player choices, character choices, or both? How many of them are expected in a normal play session?

I hope these questions are helpful for you,
Arturo

[Byron]

Arturo G.
I must admit that as I would like to think myself an expert on my own game and goals for it, I have not yet got to the point of answering some of your questions yet.

I can answer this though.

The focus of the game is reaching character's potential. But you want to include the possibility of the character death, which means that the character development so far may be destroyed. Are you planning to allow characters to die because:
1) They have made poor tactical choices?
2) They are not pursuing the character's potential?
3) As an alternative way to obtain other kind of benefits not related to the character development, like development for other characters, or just a story-power to narrate an epic end for the character?

There should be a risk to the characters but I want death to mean more than an end.  I have a fuzzy vision of what I would like to see happen with characters if they die in a situation be it for poor tactical choices or as an epic end.  Partially they will be able to affect the continuing story of their companions.  But more over I would like to have a continuing story development for their existence in the afterlife. 

I have this adventure in the back of my mind which I would like to see turned into a continuing theme for characters after death.  They have the option to return to "natural" world if they can prove themselves worthy to do so.  Something to do with the Seven Trials of Death or something.  This is basically a campaign within itself.  Now if they succeed they will return, as an improved version of themselves, kind of the next level.  A higher potential but I don't want to use the term of demigod.

So to answer that question I would say (3) The option and reward of new benefits as well as an option for an epic end or beginning for the character.

But if there is not a risk to fail then everyone will be out to kill their characters so they can get to that next level. 

I am going to read over those articles you suggested Arturo and look for some guidance in that area.

Thanks for the help

[Arturo G.]

I think the idea about using death as a possible (but risky) way of advancement sounds weird and really interesting.

You are at a point where it will be very helpful for you to have a very consistent idea of what you want from your game. Then, you will be able to better choose the mechanics that fits to your needs.

Have you already tried to answer the "Big Three" or the "Power 19"? They are questions specifically designed to help in deciding what you really want from your game. You may check:

Socratic Design: What are the Big Three
and
Troy's Standard Rant #3: The Power 19

Arturo