*
*
Home
Help
Login
Register
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 20, 2014, 07:45:44 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Search:     Advanced search
275647 Posts in 27717 Topics by 4283 Members Latest Member: - otto Most online today: 69 - most online ever: 429 (November 03, 2007, 04:35:43 AM)
Pages: 1 [2]
Print
Author Topic: A more evolved dice mechanic  (Read 2208 times)
Ar Kayon
Member

Posts: 190


« Reply #15 on: April 10, 2010, 04:40:53 PM »

The exercise was to create a dice mechanic that scaled very accurately.  The result of the dice rank design shown is that characters will always be at the correct scale in relativity to any challenge.  For example, if someone of great skill was challenging someone of little skill, he will have a high consistency of success whereas two men of great but equal skill each have less consistency.  So, instead of high-level characters hitting each other constantly due to huge skill modifiers, their to-hit ratios will be more believable.

Implications:
*Large amounts of hit points are not needed.
*An independent, static defense value (such as armor class) is not needed.
*Conducive to simulation style.

I'm sure I can make it much better, however, but I haven't bothered to critically analyze the system as I no longer have a setting to attach the rules to.
Logged
MacLeod
Member

Posts: 216


« Reply #16 on: April 11, 2010, 08:56:04 PM »

I think its an interesting idea. It reminds me of Talsilanta's Action Table where the 'target numbers' are always the same regardless of the action being performed.

In any event, I wouldn't change too much...

Rank 0 would be 1D3
Rank 6 would be 1D20
Rank 7 would be 2D6
Rank 8 would be 2D8
Rank 9 would be 2D10

Makes it so your Effective Range would never change from...
3 = Partial Success
2 = Success
1 = Critical Success

I propose this idea because I'm sure there would be lots of moments where players suffer penalties and might end up using Rank 6 a lot more often than might be readily apparent. Plus, I think while Rank 0 would end up being rare... applying math to the rolls wouldn't fit the style of this dice mechanic. =)

I'd like to see this mechanic attached to a game... though, my personal preference is toward heroic/cinematic style games. Also, the Attack / Fight Back rules on the other page are a bit wacky. =P

Also, another excellent Die Step system is Spellbound Kingdoms... Though it operates similarly but more simply than Earthdawn.
Logged

~*/\Matthew Miller/\*~
Ar Kayon
Member

Posts: 190


« Reply #17 on: April 11, 2010, 11:30:16 PM »

I]Player rolls a 3; GM rolls in secret, which is a 1 for the combat action and 3 for the armor check<
Logged
MacLeod
Member

Posts: 216


« Reply #18 on: April 12, 2010, 12:00:38 AM »

That makes a lot of sense. =) Personally, I prefer lots of abstraction, hand-waving and fast yet colorfully narrative moments.

I would imagine the health system for this game like this; 1 Critical box, 2 Moderate boxes, 3 Minor boxes. Armor adds boxes. When a category fills up it spills over to the next category. Taking a Critical always defeats the individual which is a condition under which the opponent decides their fate (AKA not always death).
Heroic PCs would probably have a resource they could expend to demote a damage type.
Super characters gain special abilities that increase boxes... or special defensive powers that can break Critical and Moderate damage down into manageable chunks.

Classy example, by the way! =P
Logged

~*/\Matthew Miller/\*~
Ar Kayon
Member

Posts: 190


« Reply #19 on: April 12, 2010, 10:54:29 AM »

I would imagine the health system for this game like this; 1 Critical box, 2 Moderate boxes, 3 Minor boxes. Armor adds boxes. When a category fills up it spills over to the next category. Taking a Critical always defeats the individual which is a condition under which the opponent decides their fate (AKA not always death).
Heroic PCs would probably have a resource they could expend to demote a damage type.
Super characters gain special abilities that increase boxes... or special defensive powers that can break Critical and Moderate damage down into manageable chunks.
Logged
MacLeod
Member

Posts: 216


« Reply #20 on: April 12, 2010, 11:54:20 AM »

The difference is primarily connotation as I want to differentiate heroic characters and normal characters by virtue of skill and training rather than superhuman gifts.
I guess the importance of this decision relies heavily on what you are going to apply this rules set to. If you are building a toolkit then you'll want room for Super Heroes, Mythical Monsters, Wizards, Vampires, etc... Then again, if the core of the rules is most definitely Mundane then it wouldn't be too difficult to build a supernatural powers add-on. =)

Quote
Logged

~*/\Matthew Miller/\*~
Ar Kayon
Member

Posts: 190


« Reply #21 on: April 12, 2010, 01:16:07 PM »

I guess the importance of this decision relies heavily on what you are going to apply this rules set to. If you are building a toolkit then you'll want room for Super Heroes, Mythical Monsters, Wizards, Vampires, etc... Then again, if the core of the rules is most definitely Mundane then it wouldn't be too difficult to build a supernatural powers add-on. =)

The core system will not have attributes.  Instead, in order to differentiate natural abilities, I was thinking that upon character creation you can buy talent or ineptitude along broad skill categories.  For example, you can buy "powerful" or "fast" talent prefixes and ineptitude prefixes such as "clumsy" or "stubborn". 

Implications
- Prevents incompatibility with an external system that values different natural abilities.  By not having a separate attribute module in which core rules are designed around, you could easily insert your own set of natural abilities without having to rework the system.  Thus, designing a system around super heroes with fantastic abilities shouldn't be too much of a hassle; you could simply increase the range of a particular prefix in most instances (e.g. "super-powerful")
- Encourages diversity of natural abilities rather than min/maxing.

Logged
MacLeod
Member

Posts: 216


« Reply #22 on: April 12, 2010, 01:59:55 PM »

I've been on a player-defined qualities kick lately... Trying to find ways to combine a narrative type system of that previously mentioned nature with something a little more gamist...

So what I'm trying to say is, I think that is a great idea. =)

Are you going to establish an optional shopping list of 'keywords' or will it be entirely player-defined? One of the issues with letting players do as they please is the broad versus specific use of words. Of course, GM intervention can stop that but it's a concern nonetheless. Nothing like that guy who writes down Athletic and Towering Mental Faculties and pours points into those two aspects. =P
Logged

~*/\Matthew Miller/\*~
Ar Kayon
Member

Posts: 190


« Reply #23 on: April 12, 2010, 03:11:54 PM »

Talents and inaptitudes (thought it would be better than "ineptitude") will be system-defined, but those individual qualities will not be part of the core rules, only the concept.  They will be system-defined and have a narrow quantitive range in order to prevent munchkin saboteurs from doing their dirty work.  I don't want a pimp-my-character system; I want something where players focus on what's actually going on. 

I took Mass Effect 2 as the perfect example of a game where attributes are absent and special skills enhance tactical color without unbalancing the system.
Logged
MacLeod
Member

Posts: 216


« Reply #24 on: April 12, 2010, 04:42:09 PM »

This is true. =) ME2 is awesome.
I think system-defined is a strong path to follow. I imagine that the Talent choices will have differing levels of broad versus specific. Such as Strong being decently broad then you'd have specific spells or narrow paths of magic.

Well hey, I don't really have any more illuminating questions as of yet... but I'll be watching this thread for further points to comment on. =D
Logged

~*/\Matthew Miller/\*~
Locke
Member

Posts: 85


« Reply #25 on: April 13, 2010, 11:01:49 AM »

This is true. =) ME2 is awesome.
I think system-defined is a strong path to follow. I imagine that the Talent choices will have differing levels of broad versus specific. Such as Strong being decently broad then you'd have specific spells or narrow paths of magic.

Well hey, I don't really have any more illuminating questions as of yet... but I'll be watching this thread for further points to comment on. =D

Hmmm I haven't played ME, but will have to check it out.  It kinda seems like the talents and what you talk of are similar to what I have done in my system.  Check it out in sig.
Logged

Check out my game Age Past, unique rolling system, in Beta now.  Tell me what you think!
https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B-7APna9ZhHEZmRhNmFmODktOTgxNy00NDllLTk0MjgtMjI4YzJlN2MyNmEw&hl=en

Thanks!
Jeff Mechlinski
Pages: 1 [2]
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Oxygen design by Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!