A System of Magic

[MacLeod]

I like the mechanics that make up this system.
It doesn't seem too complicated either... I'm sure once the rest of the system is explained, it would become pretty natural to utilize. =)

[Wordman]

Similarly to find what roll on 1d20 is analogous to rolling over 16 on 3d6, you shift the baseline (rolling over 10) by the difference in means (10.5-10.5=0, no shift), and you scale the modifiers (16 = 10+6 so the modifier is 6) by the ratio of the standard deviations (sqrt(33.25) / sqrt(8.75) ~= 1.95), which makes the new roll rolling over (10+0) + (6*1.95) ~= 22 on a 1d20.

I'd like not to derail this conversation any further...

I'm going to answer this here, because it actually speaks to exactly the point I'm trying (and, it appears, failing) to make about this magic system.

The shifting you are trying to do works great when translating one system with a linear distribution (e.g. a d20) to another system with a linear distribution (e.g. d100). It appears to fail utterly when translating to a system with a bell curve distribution (3d6). You can tell the math is flawed because the "target shifting" you do translates a target that is completely possible within the original system (3d6) to one that is completely impossible in the destination (d20). (Also, given that the range on a d20 is 1-20 and the range on 3d6 is 3-18, a scaling factor of 1.95 seems a bit suspect. You'd expect something closer to 1.1 or so. But, whatever. That doesn't really matter, because...)

More importantly, the exact mapping is not important to the for the point I'm trying to make about this magic system, which I will restate. When I said:

"Probability of success on 3d6 increases by about 9% when dropping a target from 13 to 12, and about 1.5% when dropping a target from 17 to 16."

...the general idea I was going for is that, for systems that generate bell curves...

"Probability of success on [some dice] increases by [some amount] when dropping a target [near the mean by one], and [some DIFFERENT amount] when dropping a target [near the maximum by one]"

Now, if you plug in a linear system like a d20 for [some dice], this statement is not true. For a d20:

"Probability of success on a d20 increases by 5% when dropping a target [near the mean by one], and the exact same 5% when dropping a target [near the maximum by one]"

In other words, when using a d20, the impact of a +1 is the same, regardless of the current target. Using a 3d6, the impact of a +1 is much higher if your current target is near the mean, and almost negligible if it is near the extremes.

The real question is: is this behavior desirable in this magic system?

I think the answer is that it isn't, because what it means is that doing things that give you bonuses, such as taking longer, and so on, are much more likely to help you when doing something at which you will already likely succeed. Conversely, doing these things on a task that is already hard do not actually help you that much.

Maybe that is desirable, but it seems more like it contradicts the spirit of the design.

[Brimshack]

Thank you guys for all the feedback, and I'm sorry about the delay on my part. I'll post some responses when I get home from work.

[Brimshack]

Wordman

The Quote<Miniatures and Range

Yes, the game uses miniatures for combat, and ranges and so forth are based on actual inches.

Odds<Triangular Sum<Positives

[Brimshack]

Guy and Lance on Mages and extra Bonuses

[Brimshack]

Side Note: Where I do have problems with Magic is in the existence of a definite sweet spot for spell-casting. Given enough time spell-casters tend to become over-powered. That isn't unusual for traditional rpg games; I remember it from 1st edition too, but this system really tends to re-enforce that. I've tried to compensate for this by numerous small tweaks and by adding Special Abilities that players can take to counteract spell casters, but the biggest problem this system has given me has been trying to balance it with other characters and keep that balance in play for as many game sessions as possible.

[Brimshack]

Lance on Moving Enemies

[Brimshack]

Ashirgo

Overall Level of Complication<Flavor

I think I can describe in-game features of any of these, though some of the Aiding bonuses are probably best treated as psychological or magical. (Actually, one melee fighter aiding another in combat is pretty easy. Where it gets difficult is explaining how one character might effectively double the bonus of an archer on a given shot. For that one, I need to appeal to something ineffable). 

My plan is to insert side-boxes into the text, each of which will explain what a given mechanism means in-game. So, the rules will describe the system much as done above (and yes, that is what comes first), but there will be small sections that might for example describe what it means when a character is burning actions for bonuses, or conversely why a character takes a penalty on a flurry attack.

Mana Pool and Game Allotments<Persuasion Effects (Allotment = Presence) These are Intimidate rolls, Rally, or Aid to another character.

Affinity Bonuses (Allotment = Focus): This is a +3 Bonus to Aid that relies on having something in common with the character aided.

Opposition Bonuses (Allotment = Aggression): This is a Lethality Bonus of +5 to damage a character that has a Trait Opposite your own.

Desperation Bonuses (Allotment = Spirit): These are bonuses you can take if you are worried you are definitely going to lose a defence roll. Taking a Desperation Bonus means as a side effect that you will not harm the attacker if she botches her attack.

Spirit Reserve<Traits

Natural Characteristics<Moral Values: A Character with Compassion could help another such character very easily, as could one cruel character help another one with the same value, but if a Compassionate Character went to war with a Cruel Character, they could do great damage to each other very quickly.

So, if you think about it, each character has something like a set of spiritual resources she can use to bump rolls, but the options there are skewed. On her own she can boost her defences with desperation bonuses and/or cast spells. If attacking opponents to which she is naturally opposed, she can crank the damage. But if she wants to boost bonuses in any other way, she will have to do it by helping others (or by getting help from them).

[Brimshack]

Dindenver

Balance Versus Other Aspects of Combat

A player can always burn unused actions on a single die roll. The difference is that only casting can go for 1 round (though there is a Special Ability, called Patience that enables people to go 1 extra round on other rolls, ...but that is a specific character ability, not so much the general system).

Where the balance tends to break down is in high level casters. The reason is this; just about every other functioning stat is improved by 2 Crunch Stats. So, a Character can boost her Magic Defence by pouring points into Caution and Magic, but the modifier on an Offensive spell can be boosted by using 3 variables; Magic + Aggression + Speed (which boosts the number of Actions available). The latter pay-off is not always there, and at low-levels of power it isn't that significant. But give characters a dozen games or so, and it starts to matter a great deal. ...this is one of the main reasons, we added Desperation Bonuses to the Game Allotments. It gives characters a chance to better resist negative spell effects by spending a limited resource. The desperation bonuses helped to restore balance a great deal wen we added them, but the Magic System is in principle on a different course than the other aspects of the system.


Damage

Base Damage is the difference in the die rolls. This is subject to modifiers such as Lethality or Puny Strike versus Invulnerability versis Vulnerability. Some examples:

A Great Axe provides +5 Lethality on a successful Strike. Charge adds +2 Lethality. The Minor Special Ability 'Charge Specialist' adds +3 more (+6 if taken as a Major Ability).

A Pixie has a Puny Strike Penalty of -2. If he hits something,he automatically subtracts 2 from the damage, because he is wimpy. This will not reduce damage below 1, however, so a hit is a hit, even if it is not an impressive hot.

Armor grants Invulnerability Bonuses reducing damage from a successful strike (but not below 1).

Vulnerability: Elves add 2 to the physical damage taken on any successful attack. Orcs add 2 to the Mental Damage taken on any successful attack.

So, anyway, yes burning actions in melee, magic, or missile (or Intimidate and Spiritual assault for that matter, ...Spiritual Assault is a bit like psionics) will not only increase the odds of success but add to the damage enemy takes.

Writing Style

Writing Style may be my biggest problem at present. This actually started as a skirmish game, but we turned it into an RPG with the hope of having combat work the same in each, but with extra role playing elements added to the RPG.My thinking at present is that the dry style will help to keep the details in order. Given the level of detail, I think I need to keep it crisp and to the point in the actual rules. What I am trying to do now is develop more examples to illustrate the rules, but also include enough narrative detail in the examples to give them a little more flavor. I will also be added narratives describing the game-rules from a native point of view so to speak. My goal here is to add just enough flavor in side-bars to generate extra interest in the role-laying angles while keeping the basic rule-set pretty direct.

[Brimshack]

I like the mechanics that make up this system.
It doesn't seem too complicated either... I'm sure once the rest of the system is explained, it would become pretty natural to utilize. =)

Thank You!

[MacLeod]

Lots of information here... Lots of potential for a really great game, too! I've been frothing at the mouth for a new tactical/strategic/skirmish based RPG that doesn't bite the bag, so I'm extremely interested to see how this whole thing turns out. =D
How close is this one to completion?

[Ashirgo]

"How close is this one to completion?"

The more options, the longer to complete it

I am glad you provide so much information about your system, it is pretty inspiring. The system of Game Allotments sounds like a good gamist approach to many "deep" things in game; it may translate into a more immersive system which supports crunchy resolutions at the same time, if done with lots of love

Unfortunately, I cannot comment much on it right now, I do not really feel like suggesting any new things, since I would certainly give some solutions from my own project.... And it would be strange to have many systems with the same specific solutions, do not you think?

[Brimshack]

MacLeod:

Actually, the game itself is done, and I'm happy to share it. By 'done' I mean that I have a complete set of rules that works for me and my group. I even have a couple hundred pages of monster write-ups and the first 12 gods of a pantheon. The setting is less than one page in. So, that's essentially an idea at this point. The current design is two books, one Game Handbook and one with monsters and other challenges (The Menagerie of Miseries). I am moving some of the stuff out of the monster book this weekend so as to make the Handbook stand alone. I can't publish two at a time, so I need one book to work on its own for awhile.

What drew me to this forum recently was cold feet and lack of outside input. There are no huge gaps in the game that I am aware of, but we are still tweaking to get things in order. I knew we had something that played well in our own group, but I also knew the text was falling flat when others read it. So, I have been looking to modify the presentation and get outside input to help me get it into publishable mode.

All the texts are in basic writing format right now, and all the illustrative examples are in a separate file of their own (with notes for how and where to plug them in). This thread showed me the importance of getting them together in the same text. Art exists, but it won't be put in until layout. Since coming to this forum I've added a demo module, 'The Wyrdling Wood', and an Introduction in the main game describing a quick exchange in a fight. (Since demos have consistently gone better than cold readings for this game, I decided to try an replicate a demo in the introduction. Got that idea here; haven't seen it play out yet.)

The plan at present is to spend the next month or so editing, then put the Game Handbook into layout. Might change the name; might leave it. I'm toying with "Worlds of Grief" as a minor change with similar flavor. ...and the prospect of chapters like "Giving the Players Grief" is fun. If I can get a hard copy of the Game Handbook done and released, then I'll put monsters, animals, and PCs online (we could do 1 a day for a year from the current batch if we do them as text alone with no bells and whistles) until I can release a full book of monsters.

The setting will be called 'The Stone Philosophic' and its intent will be to encourage epic journey into different parts of the world. Just imagine Mideaval (sp?) Europe with magic exploring and colonizing the rest of the world a couple centuries early (because magic makes it possible and they have an in-game incentive - the search for ingredients for the Stone Philosophic). Now they meet people from other parts of the world (along with their monsters). So anyway, the plan there is to develop small modules for different parts of the world until we have another for a 3rd book serving as a setting. Each demo will be premised on the notion that characters arrive (probably by ship) and play out a few sessions in the region before moving on. If players would rather work as natives that will be possible too, then the trigger for the plot will be the arrival of strangers. I think one of the reasons odd settings like Africa and North America tend to fall flat in traditional fantasy is that people run out of ideas. It's fun for a game or three, but then people harken back to fantasy standards. So, the idea here is to invite players to dabble their feet in such settings for as long as they like and move on if and when they want. I also want to heavily explore questions of contact and potential exploitation/resistance, and to mythologize it as well. Anyway, it's the prospect of getting to all these places that makes it "Worlds of Hurt" in the plural.

Hm... you really didn't ask for the total plan did you? All this is subject to revision of course, but it reflects the direction I'm heading.

Anyway, a complete version of the game does exist with no bells or whistles, and I am moving to the editing stage right now. I have few resources, so the pace of movement is uncertain, but foreword momentum is assured.

[MacLeod]

While I didn't ask for the whole plan, I'm glad you divulged as much. =) It sounds like you have a pretty solid grasp of the situation at hand... I've been given an undeserved fear of indie RPG makers not coming through for me (I can be selfish) but I feel some healthy confidence radiating from this project. =D

During your editing stages, do you intend to throw any more previews up for feedback here on the Forge? I'm no perpetual spring of super creativity and amazing but I sure wouldn't mind helping out in some way. That, and I wouldn't mind having a way of tracking the game's progress.

[Brimshack]

Hi McCleod,

Check your PM Box.