[MADCorp] damage rules must contribute to driving gameplay

[Marshall Burns]

Ok, I've finally put together a set of damage rules that I feel good about. I'd like to post them here for some vetting.

First off, lemme present the basic principles of the game:

Players control party of dudes going on an expedition into a  dangerous environment to find valuable stuff. GM designs said environment and controls its dangerous properties, and also may control a rival party of dudes going on an expedition into the same place (they don't want to share). Intended CA is Gamism in this manner: the players cooperate in trying to achieve an objective, and compete to be the best at it; the GM does not compete, but merely sets up and accurately portrays a situation such that the players must be clever and skilled in order to succeed.

Resolution is a d20 roll-high-but-under thing. It's Fortune-in-the-Middle, in that the dice arbitrate binary success/failure, but also provide additional information that is parsed by the GM and made into Effect via Drama. The stats range from 3 to 18. Modifiers change the number of dice you roll: +2 means you roll 3 dice (the base one, plus two) and take the best result; -2 means you roll 3 dice and take the worst. So, when I talk about penalties, that's what they are. They're a real problem if your stat is low, but not so much if your stat is high.

(The stats are HIT, SEE, THINK, MOVE, and ENDURE, in case it turns out that is relevant to this issue.)

Intended Color for the game is gritty, bloody, transgressive, and darkly humorous. Think D&D by way of kpfs.

Character death is intended to be relatively common. It's also not a problem, because chargen requires only stat rolls and a few choices (maybe, like, 5 at the most). It is, however, a rubric of success/failure in the short term.

The currency of the game centers around management of resources that all center around one resource: time. Failed stat checks lead to lost time; recovering from fatigue & injury means lost time; searching rooms thoroughly means lost time; and so on. Lost time means things get gradually more dangerous, decreasing your odds of getting out alive. So, get in, get loot as fast as you can, and get out double-quick -- or go for the gamble.

Also regarding currency, I want there to be no element of the currency that cannot be gamed. I.e. if it does not contribute to Challenge -- either as a source of adversity or something to be taken advantage of by the players -- it doesn't need to be there.

OKAY. So, on to the damage rules. Here is what the damage track looks like:


GENERAL WOUNDS: Minor [][][][][]{} -> Grievous [][][]{} -> Lethal [][][]{} -> Dead []

MAIMING: Right arm: Crippled [][][]{} -> Mangled [] -> Amputated []{}
   Left arm: Crippled [][][]{} -> Mangled [] -> Amputated []{}
   Right leg: Crippled [][][]{} -> Mangled [] -> Amputated []{}
   Left leg: Crippled [][][]{} -> Mangled [] -> Amputated []{}

INFECTION: [][][][][]{}


When damage is suffered, you check a box in the appropriate category. When it's treated, you put a check in the curly box of the appropriate category. The arrows indicate "spill-over": if you've already got 5 Minor wounds, and you take another, it spills over into Grievous.

(As far as receiving damage, each weapon type has a table of possible results, and you roll on it to see what happens. Everything but unarmed has a 1/20 chance of rolling "Dead"; then they all have varying distributions of other possible outcomes -- f'rinstance "Amputated" is possible with edged weapons, but not bludgeons.

Upon suffering a Minor wound or getting Crippled, you must ENDURE or else you "flinch" and your action is canceled. Upon suffering a Grievous wound or getting Mangled, you must ENDURE or else you go down, and can't get up until you successfully ENDURE. Upon suffering a Lethal wound or getting Amputated, you must ENDURE or else you die.

While suffering from Minor wounds, you get -1 to all rolls for strenuous actions. While suffering from Grievous wounds, you get -1 to all rolls for all physical actions. While suffering from Lethal wounds, you get -1 to all rolls, period. When a limb is Crippled, rolls involving that limb are -1; also, Crippled legs mess up your movement speed. Mangled limbs are entirely unusable.
The number of wounds doesn't mean anything penalty-wise; only whether or not you have wounds of that type counts. So, 3 Grievous wounds still is only a -1. Also, the Minor, Grievous, Lethal, & Crippling penalties are cumulative with each other.

Infection works like this: you are prone to infection upon suffering Grievous, Lethal, Mangling, or Amputating damage. After a set amount of time without disinfectant or antibiotics, infection sets in, and 1 box is checked after a set period of time. Once all infection boxes are checked, it spills over into Lethal damage. If the infection is in a limb, you can amputate to clear the infection -- although it will set in again unless you properly treat the stump.

After a lunch break (an extended rest), if treated for each: all Minor boxes are unchecked, one Grievous box is unchecked, one Lethal wound is changed to Grievous, one Crippled box is unchecked (only one, period, not one per limb; player's choice), and one Infection box is unchecked.

Here's how this all intersects with management of resources & PC abilities:
1. Only certain classes can treat certain wounds, and some of them are better at it than others.
2. Treatment requires certain materials, depending on the nature of the damage. For instance, Minor wounds only require bandages, while Grievous ones require stitches or staples, and Lethal ones require surgical equipment. Infection requires antibiotics.
3. Some classes have the ability to ignore certain wounds for certain amounts of time.
4. Crippling and mangling damage puts the hurt on certain class-centric abilities.
5. A few classes have abilities that make them more dangerous when damage of a certain type is suffered.
6. And, of course, the time issue, as it pertains to the healing rules.

So, what I'd like from this thread is for you folks to check this stuff over. Any pitfalls here that I'm missing? Any non-contributing bits? Any bits that actually contribute badly?
Feel free to ask for more information about any given thing; I can get as specific as necessary.

Thanks!
-Marshall

[whiteknife]

Looks pretty cool overall. Sounds like it'd be really gritty, which is I think what you're going for.

The only part I don't like is the "flinch" for minor wounds/cripple. Sure, there's a roll to resist, but I personally dislike any rules that take away someone's turn. Still, the idea of getting badly hurt and losing some time is cool...maybe you only lose the ability to take a meaningful action (the equivalent of a standard action, in D&D terms) instead of a full turn? So you can like move back a bit or grab something off a nearby shelf, but not shoot a gun or whatever.

Just a thought. Really interested in this game's progression ever since you first mentioned it on story games...

[Callan S.]

What are the win conditions and losing conditions?

[Marshall Burns]

Callan,

In the short term, getting out of a dungeon alive means you've won. In the long term, turning a profit means you're winning. You can lose in the short term, but still win in the long term, because you sacrificed a few employees for the greater good of the company. You can also win in the short term, but lose in the long term, because you didn't get enough loot. A final victory for the game would be to reach Company Level 20 (by consistently turning a profit), whereas a final loss would be having your crew's budget cut completely from leveling down below Company Level 1 (by consistently turning a loss).

-Marshall

[Marshall Burns]

The only part I don't like is the "flinch" for minor wounds/cripple. Sure, there's a roll to resist, but I personally dislike any rules that take away someone's turn.

Does it make you feel any better to know that it's not much of a problem for direct-combat-oriented classes? They either get bonuses on that resist roll (Bruisers, Crashers, Hardcases, Maddogs, Junk Knights, & Tanks), or they're unlikely to be pre-empted (Shootists & Carvers).

-Marshall

[Callan S.]

I'm taking it you aren't going to get to company level 20 in one session and that's a sort of campaign thing.

I think I'm looking at it in terms of 'who won the session'. Does each session have an overall win condition (even if this doesn't win you the larger campaign level thing) that indicates who won the activity? I think gamist payoff essentially breaks out onto the real world level. That this real life event occured, "and I won it!". I'm not sure the idea of getting out of a dungeon alive, or such, is enough - it's staying at the fiction level. Who won the session will be they key pay off for each session, as far as my understanding of the psychology involved goes.

Remember it's the character that's getting out of the dungeon alive, not the player. In terms of the player, nothings really happened to him at all, no matter what fictions being described. Until the esteem of winning is given to him in real life (or the consolation and light teasing of defeat), no gamist pay off has occured. In the end, gamism isn't about the fiction*. Again, as far as my understanding of the psychology involved goes. I'm fairly confident on that understanding - but everyone says they're confident in their undersanding, of course.

* The same can be said for naratavism as well, for that matter.

[Marshall Burns]

Callan,
As for "who won the session?"...

First off, I think that winning is a byproduct. The real issue in Gamist play is the potential to lose, and earnestly striving to avoid losing.

Second, a session will usually consist of a one or two expeditions.

Third, given an instruction like, "Guide your characters to try to get loot and get out alive," people can and will find their own metrics for who did the best, and who gets the esteem, on a session-to-session and even challenge-to-challenge basis. I don't have to provide them.

-Marshall

[Callan S.]

Will you be telling them they provide these metrics, on the blurb or in a similarly upfront way? If so, cool - I'm sure people who like that will then go with it.

If your not doing anything to remove the impression the product will not include these metrics, why preserve the impression it will? Toward what goal? There are alot of gamers who it could be said expect to make this themselves "Because that's what an RPG is/That's how an RPG is!". But there are people who will have the impression it's included. Is the impression preserved so as to make more people like the former?

[Marshall Burns]

Callan,
I'm not sure what you're getting at with the first sentence of your second paragraph.Are you saying that I am preserving the impression that session-to-session performance metrics are provided? If so, where'd you get that idea?

As for those sorts of metrics in general, I'm unconvinced that providing such metrics is necessary at all, anywhere, for anyone, for any game. You tell them what causes them to lose, and they'll figure out strategies and strive to avoid losing. Some will do better than others, and everyone (at least, everyone who has figured out the strategy) will notice and give esteem in their idiom.

-Marshall

[JoyWriter]

Was the take 20 rule of d20 any inspiration? Because considering how to make that a meaningful choice in that situation can lead to a lot of the same ideas. Do the players have corp running costs ticking down outside of the dungeon too? If so, that could provide an antidote to the "time heals all wounds" thing you seem to have going. For some reason that idea is giving my images of x-com apocalypse!

Ok if you really want to dig into speed equals good, one way to do this is to make your characters abilities for ignoring wounds be activated only once per adventure. In fact, perhaps you can give those classes with an incentive to playing more cagey upgrades that only work when things are running fast.

In the same vein, I'd probably watch out on the "find the right components" stuff, unless you make that also transferable into "foraging time".

What if you have random encounters vs the value on a tickdown clock? Ie encounters get more frequent as you spend time, or a static danger value that goes up in the same way, signifying threats of greater potency?

What's the GM satisfaction in this game? Is there a way to get him to compete with himself as a "good GM"? What if his objective is to get the players to keep playing for long enough (in game time) despite their own incentive to cut and run? Just a few more goodies glinting between those bars, but you'll have to be clever to get them. etc.

[Callan S.]

Callan,
I'm not sure what you're getting at with the first sentence of your second paragraph.Are you saying that I am preserving the impression that session-to-session performance metrics are provided? If so, where'd you get that idea?

Because in chess, poker, football, and many, many more, those metrics are provided. For hundreds, even thousands of years, games have provided this.
"But everyone knows RPGs are different!"
No they don't. Where'd you get that idea?

So yes, your preserving the impression that session-to-session performance metrics are provided, even if you didn't intend to. Unless this is only going to be marketed to and for 'gamers who know RPG's are different'? If so, fair enough then.

As for those sorts of metrics in general, I'm unconvinced that providing such metrics is necessary at all, anywhere, for anyone, for any game. You tell them what causes them to lose, and they'll figure out strategies and strive to avoid losing. Some will do better than others, and everyone (at least, everyone who has figured out the strategy) will notice and give esteem in their idiom.

Whether it's 'who won the session' or 'who didn't lose the session' my questions from before are the same; does each real life session have an overall 'who did not lose' condition? Because, as I understand it, I think it doesn't quite match human psychology unless it's brought to the real life level of 'I won this real life activity!' or 'I didn't lose at this real life activity!'. If each session does have an overall 'who did not lose' condition, okey dokies then, that seems to be hitting the pay off moment. Which only matters/is useful to you to consider if I'm right on the psychology bit, of course. (boring side note: nothing stops multiple sessions being played after each other, either)

[Marshall Burns]

Was the take 20 rule of d20 any inspiration?

I don't know that rule. Or anything else about d20, really, aside from what I've picked up regarding 2E and 3E from playing computer games based on them. How's that rule work?

Do the players have corp running costs ticking down outside of the dungeon too? If so, that could provide an antidote to the "time heals all wounds" thing you seem to have going.

Expenses come from employee wages and equipment costs. Wages works like this: each employee that you send on a job, you have to pay his wages, which are based on his class and stats. Each player can play multiple employees, and there's no limit to how many you use, but the more you use, the more you'll have to bring back from the expedition to turn a profit. Equipment cost is payed when you buy it, after which it's available for use on any job, at least until you lose it, use it up, or it gets broken.

I've considered PTO for recovering from wounds and insanity, but I decided that the book keeping necessary to figure out what employees were available for a job at this moment in time was more than I would be willing to do in play.

Ok if you really want to dig into speed equals good, one way to do this is to make your characters abilities for ignoring wounds be activated only once per adventure.

It's not so much that speed = good, as it is speed = safer. I don't want to make the ignore damage abilities once per job, though; they're only available to certain of the fighter classes, and are a large part of what makes them viable fighters.

In the same vein, I'd probably watch out on the "find the right components" stuff, unless you make that also transferable into "foraging time".

Foraging time, and equipment cost, and choosing to use employees (and thus risking their lives) who start with some of it.

What if you have random encounters vs the value on a tickdown clock? Ie encounters get more frequent as you spend time, or a static danger value that goes up in the same way, signifying threats of greater potency?

That's pretty much how it works. The GM has a countdown, and when it runs out, some sort of danger is introduced, probably rolled from charts. I don't have it all worked out yet; only in principle.

I took inspiration from the original D&D: you make wandering monster checks periodically; therefore, the longer you stay in the dungeon, the more wandering monsters you run into. Then you look closer and see that wandering monsters don't have gold, and therefore are not worth XP. They are solely a drain on resources, and a source of potential death.

What's the GM satisfaction in this game?

I've always found that adequately challenging the players, and watching them have fun engaging with that challenge, is extremely satisfying. It's more than enough.

Callan,
I don't think there's much mileage in comparing a session of roleplaying to a session of chess or football. A session of chess or football is a whole game. A whole game of roleplaying is almost always multiple sessions. Also, roleplaying sessions need not (and usually don't, in my experience) contain an entire, discrete reward cycle.

-Marshall

[Marshall Burns]

Callan,
Does it make you feel better about it to know that, after concluding an expedition, either the expedition was profitable or not, and either your character(s) died or not, and the group can grok who contributed to these outcomes and in what way?

-Marshall

[JoyWriter]

The take 20 rule is basically this; take 20 times as long to do a task (compared to it's base duration), and you will get an automatic 20 for the roll. When DMing 3.5 a question that should always be asked is "Why don't they just take 20 all the time?". Basically the rule is there to make success uncertain only in urgent or unrepeatable situations, but putting the choice on the player side.

On foraging time, I realised that I was thinking of sticking a mechanic right in your game's fruitful void: The ratio of cool stuff to time is presumably exactly what the players should be creating, and trying to maximise. And the more diverse that category of cool stuff is, the more difficult it is to decide when you are maximising it.

I had a brainwave myself about how the GM could challenge himself, and so challenge the players: What if he wants to keep them playing for as long as possible? ie as a design objective when making dungeons he can score himself by how many countdown chips he goes through, meaning he wants to make the dungeon tantalising and draw people in, so will use treasure, and will then add obstacles, whereas the players are trying to get as much cool stuff as possible without death or being in too much danger. What's the final attaching point between those two? The treasure density decides the size of the countdown pile, acting as a sort of points allowance for the GM. You still tick through the tokens as normal, it's just in more dangerous places you have an encounter and rebuild the pile more frequently. Although having considered using the system you suggest, I reckon some randomised version is probably better, so people don't check their watches and get ready to be ambushed!

What I like about this idea of GM challenge is that the GM has a direct player to player incentive for running it well as normal, and that is easy to check during play, but running it well on a macro dungeon-design scale is anchored in the requirement to keep players in there for as long as possible (with restrictions on labyrinths and giant metal front doors, so the goals don't conflict). Then the challenge scaling system matches monster frequency/deadliness to treasure density, insuring a reasonably steady risk/reward dynamic for the other players, and matching up their not quite opposed objectives!

Why bother adding in that extra layer? Because your system already seems to focus on bigging up the challenge elements on the player end, taking how many people played and putting it front and centre in the rules, so it seems like doing the equivalent for the GM could make it even more rewarding. Finally a new GM who wants to "win" can do it without party kill! Basically I hope that adding that as an intermediate layer could help inexperienced GMs graduate to considering player psychology and how to challenge them.

I also had this image of the GM's toolbox being something like the dungeon keeper games, with different "tiles"; setting up a place where foraging for healing components is good, visible over a chasm, with an area of higher treasure and higher risk the other way "take the time to be prepared and risk more low level encounters, or plow streight into the dangerous ones?". Stuff like that could be awesome.

[MacLeod]

This game idea almost sounds like it would be perfect GMless and run almost exclusively on randomly generated events (via cards and/or tables). =)

Either way, it sounds very interesting. Just how much do you have left to write for this game before it is ready for playtesting?