My game: Invasion (working title): Dice Mechanics (long)

[Brian Leybourne]

Hi all.

I could do with some help regarding a game I've been working on, on and off for several years now, but have recently been encouraged to get back into it. Very much an indie game.

Initially, I want to talk die mechanics. The setting etc needs to be discussed too, of course, but I want to get the (at least basic) mechanics in my head first, and the ones I have used for this game in the past cannot be kept, so I'm kind of starting from scratch.

I've been toying around with two systems. One can be found here, and is interesting, but a bit clunky. I've also been considering a second system and am very interested in feedback.

It's kind of similar to a system that Szilard proposed many months back (which I can't find right now), but independantly developed. Below are my notes on the system, I would be very interested in thoughts.

Characters roll 2d6, and check the result on the following table:

2-3 (or just 2) – Catastrophic failure
4-6 (or 3-6) – Failure
7 – Bare minimum success, possibly requires expenditure of fate point or whatever for success
8-10 (or 8-11) – Success
11-12 (or just 12) – Illustrious success

The kicker is in the number of D6's actually thrown. Characters may have a positive or negative modifier on their roll (both, actually, but they cancel out to a final bonus or penalty). A positive modifier adds to the number of dice rolled, and the two highest are selected. So, in the case of a +3 roll, 5d6 dice are rolled and the best two are added together. A negative modifier also adds to the number of dice, but the lowest two dice are considered, so a -4 modifier means that 6d6 are rolled and the lowest two are tallied. The bonus/penalty is limited to +/- 8 overall (so you'll never roll more than 10 dice at once).

When a task is attempted, characters have several modifiers:

Attributes. There are some attributes (I don't know what they are yet). They are rated from -3 to +3, with 0 being the human average. There will probably be variations of Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence etc. Whatever task is being performed will fall under an attribute (always). If it falls equally under two attributes, maybe you get the average of the two or maybe you get the highest, I'm not sure yet.

Skill. I don't think skills will be declared individually, but rather bought in professions etc. If you can successfully argue that a profession you have listed for your character should be applicable for the current roll, then you get the modifier for that profession added to your roll. Skill modifiers are capped at +3

Task difficulty (when unopposed). This is determined by the GM, with a maximum of 6. A simple, everyday task has a modifier of 0, while the hardest difficulty (you're picking a lock, at night, with your fingernails, and you're blindfolded) would have a modifier of -6. In this way, the worlds most skilled and "attributed" person (for a task) has as much chance of succeeding in the worlds hardest variation of that task (6-6=0)as an average, unskilled person has at succeeding at the simplest (0-0=0). The range would be:

0 – Simple, everyday task (maybe consider not requiring a roll at all)
-1 – Very easy task
-2 – Average difficulty
-3 – Tricky
-4 – Difficult
-5 – Hard
-6 – Very hard

Yeah, ok, those descriptions need work. Basically, a totally average person with only minor skill at something has +1, if they're slightly above average that means +2 overall, so an average difficulty task (-2) takes them right back to 0 (average chance of success). Harder task = harder roll; more skills/adept = easier roll. Both = average again.

Conditional modifiers roll into this as well, and can add or subtract to the total so far. A certain lock may have a difficulty of Tricky to pick (-3) but doing it at night might add another -1 and a lack of lockpicks another -2. On the other hand, a set of excellent lockpicks might instead add +2. Remember, the overall bonus can never exceed +/- 8.

Example:

Garrick is using a theological argument to sway some hungry heretics to his religion before they light the fire under his cauldron. Garrick has a Charisma/personality/whatever attribute of +2. Moreover, he is a highly skilled missionary and knows his theology well, so he gains a +3 skill bonus. The GM decides that convincing the heretics will be Tricky, thus a -3 penalty. In addition, he assigns Garrick an additional -1 because he's tied up and covered in steak sauce, hardly the image of a dignified and convincing clergyman (and their tummies are growling). Adding these all up, Garrick makes a +1 roll, so he rolls 3d6 and tallies the two highest. His total is a 9, he succeeds, and they stop to listen to what he has to say without cooking him.

Opposed checks.

I'm in two minds about this. As I see it, there are two possibilities.

Possibility One: Make an opposed roll (each). If Paul is attacking Richard with martial arts, he rolls using his dexterity + his martial arts attacking skill (or whatever). Richard also rolls, using HIS dexcterity and his blocking skill (and maybe a bonus because he has steel rods sewn into his sleeves, or whatever). If the attacker fails (6 or less) then the attack fails. If he gets 7 or more, compare what he gets to the defenders total for the "severity" of the success. So if Paul gets a 10 and Richard gets an 8, Paul hits him with 2 levels of success (whatever that means). Perhaps if Richard fails (6 or less) the difference is doubled. A catastrophic failure by Richard might double it again, while an Illustrious success by Paul might also provide a double, etc. You get the idea.

Possibility Two: Only the PC ever rolls. In the example above, if Paul is the PC and Richard an NPC, Paul totals up his total attacking bonus, then subtracts Richard's total defensive bonus and then makes a single roll. Success means he has hit, failure means he hasn't (the actual number rolled determines how well he has or hasn't hit). The next round, Richard attacks back. Paul defends, rolling with his defensive bonus as a bonus and Richard's attacking bonus as a penalty. If the roll is successful, he has blocked or avoided the attack. If it fails, he has been hit. This option cuts down on the number of rolls the GM has to make, so that NPC's only have to ever roll in the case of unopposed rolls (and there shouldn't be too many of those while PC's are around).

I have to think through which option is the best one. Any ideas?

Fate/Karma points: I quite like the idea of using fate points in some manner. Maybe you earn them when fortune doesn't go your way, and you can spend them to make sure it does. So perhaps a total roll of 7 is only a success if you spend a fate point to "tip the scales in your favor". If you don't, the 7 is a failure and you instead GAIN a fate point. Maybe also catastrophic failures and illustrious successes earn/lose you fate points as well. Note sure, it's just an idea in the back of my head. You could also spend up to a set number of fate points (say 3) to add that bonus to a roll, but you couldn't choose to lose dice to gain fate points (too open to twinking on unimportant rolls) and instead might earn them at GM fiat or whatever.

So, any thoughts? I guess one concern is that the basic mechanic (xd6 take the best or worst 2) might have too much variation in it. At +1, for example, you're 66% likley to get an 8 or above. At only -1, you're therefore 66% likely to get a 6 or below. At +/-2 you're talking something like 80% each way (and then 95% at +/-3). Too skewed? Not too skewed? How could it be fixed perhaps?

Thanks guys, there's a lot of really fantastic folk here at the forge, hopefully some of you can spare a glance or two in my direction :-)

Brian.

[Drew Stevens]

First- Overall mechanic.

I like it :)  Kinda like Little Fears- but more dillulted, so the characters aren't so ultracompetent.

Second- opposed checks.

I'm inclined towards the one-roll combat; whoever is attacking takes his opponent Dodge bonus (of whatever name) as a penelty.  Seems faster and leaner to me.

[Andrew Martin]

I'm going to be blunt. Please don't be offended by this. Why not use an existing "generic" system, like WEG's D6 or Masterbook system, or Fudge or Fuzion? At the moment, Fudge would be an exact fit for your Attribute range from -3 to +3. What makes this system more suitable for your setting? Because if you're trying to make a generic system, what you have so far is far less versatile than what Fudge has as standard.

[Eric J.]

I post this without the intention of offense.  However, your mechanic is still in development which makes criticism more applicible to productivity.

Anyway-
I'd half to say that it is probably more complex than it should be.  What is this new RPG supposed to be about? That might help us understand your mechanic better.

Right now it is sounding much like the D20 mechanic with a slightly better curve.

[Brian Leybourne]

I'm not easily offended, don't worry about that. And yes, criticism is good.

Andrew,
I know nothing about fudge, having always avoided generic systems such as that and gurps. Basically, why would I want to use a generic system when I can have the fun of making one up? If it's in any way similar to fudge's mechanics, then it's purely coincidental.

Eric,
I'm not really sure how it's in any way even close to the D20 system. Can you explain that comment? In fact, even the concept of a "D20 curve" is a bit puzzling, since, using a single die, D20 is an entirely linear rolling system and not a curve at all.

Also, can you explain where the system is overly complex? I'm not getting defensive - it's a genuine question. To me (at least) it seems particularly simple - you roll some dice, and either take the two best or the two worst ones. To work out how many to roll, you just add together a few numbers. Yes, it's slightly more complex than rolling one die and adding a number (D20) but compared to something like storyteller, it's far simpler.

In fact, I'm quite amused that from two respective posters I have been told it's too complex and that it's too generic. How can you have that both ways? :-)

The RPG is based on films like Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The Hidden, The Faculty, et al. However, the twist is that the PC's are actually the parasitic invaders rather than the people fighting against them. This leads to (hopefully) plenty of body swapping fun and intrigue, trying to dominate the humans of the world, but also fighting against other parasitic invaders who have been sent by a different "mother/queen bee/whatever" and who want to see you fail just as much as they want themselves to succeed. Does that help :-)

As an aside, doing some more math it turns out that at +/-4 (i.e. 6 dice) the chance of getting an 8 or above on a negative roll is only 2% (and thus only 2% chance to fail on a positive roll), so having a maximum overall bonus or penalty of 8 is a bit pointless, 4 either way seems to be a logical cap.

Keep the comments coming!

Brian.

[Eric J.]

Okay, it's like D20 with a much better curve.

And D20 has a curve.  It's just a linear one.

BTW- I might have missunderstood.  I'll go back and re-read it.

[Andrew Martin]

Andrew,
I know nothing about fudge, having always avoided generic systems such as that and gurps. Basically, why would I want to use a generic system when I can have the fun of making one up? If it's in any way similar to fudge's mechanics, then it's purely coincidental.

So then if you want the fun of making up a system, why not make a system that is ideally suited for your game setting and system? One that exactly promotes your desired style of play? Why bother trying to make a "generic" system? :)

[Brian Leybourne]

So then if you want the fun of making up a system, why not make a system that is ideally suited for your game setting and system? One that exactly promotes your desired style of play? Why bother trying to make a "generic" system? :)

Hmm.. I kind of see where you're coming from I think. But, using that definition, just about every single game out there could be described as a generic system, couldn't it?

Deadlands? OK, it uses cards and poker hands, so it's pretty specific to the wild west setting. However, I can't think of a single example of a game other than that which doesn't have a system that you could call generic. No, I don't know every game out there, but even just thinking of the ones I know well (D20, Amber, Storyteller, TROS, Sorcerer, Star Trek, Buffy (hell, it's CALLED Unisystem), Star Wars, etc etc) they all have systems that could be ported out to any other game.

So, given that you could call almost every system generic, where's the problem? :-)

I am making it with the game setting in mind, as I have ideas as to how the attributes will work when you're talking about parasites invading a body and taking it over, etc. But if I have the wrong tack, then tell me what you mean by making the system more specific to the setting. Examples would be good :-)

And D20 has a curve. It's just a linear one.

"Linear Curve" is an oxymoron, surely. Every result from "1+X" to "20+X" is equally likely in D20... (X being your bonus). Where's the curve?

Brian.

[Paganini]

"Linear Curve" is an oxymoron, surely. Every result from "1+X" to "20+X" is equally likely in D20... (X being your bonus). Where's the curve?

You get things like "flat curves" in math. Calculus is all about "instantaneous change." (I.E., change in something that isn't changing.) It's math. It doesn't have to make sense. :)

Anyway, I just want to point something out. The fact that there are many games on the market that are generic-seeming doesn't make that quality a good thing. It just means that Ron is right when he says that too much existing RPG design is rehashing and unfocused munging of old material, "just because that's the way RPGs are."

It's a Good Thing (TM) to have a system that is exactly and precisely tailored to meet a particular set of gaming goals. It doesn't matter if GURPS, d20, D6 (etc.) all do the same things in one way or another. You don't have to follow their bad examples!

Just one other note: Generic does not mean simple, nor is complex the same as specific. GURPS is generic. :)

[Brian Leybourne]

OK, I can accept that.

But instead of just saying "generic bad" help me out with some examples of what you're talking about so I can avoid genericity (is that a word? Generiticism? Generatrix? *grin*).

I still kind of like the proposed d6 system, and am keen to discuss that. However, I'm also keen to discuss how one goes about more specific mechanics design. Lets have some examples and proposals...

Brian.

[Andrew Martin]

I still kind of like the proposed d6 system, and am keen to discuss that.

Fudge is better! :) But this can easily get in to a lot of posts that all state "No! Use system blah blah it's better!"

Better is to describe your desired style of play, and design the system to suit that.

[Andrew Martin]

No, I don't know every game out there, but even just thinking of the ones I know well (D20, Amber, Storyteller, TROS, Sorcerer, Star Trek, Buffy (hell, it's CALLED Unisystem), Star Wars, etc etc) they all have systems that could be ported out to any other game.

I've got a number of game settings that those mechanics can't be ported to, no matter how hard you try. :) Here's a couple: Amber (I wanted characters ranked First, Second, Third and so on), my Star Odyssey setting (I needed infinite range for attributes and skills), my Blood & Politics setting (10+ game years pass between game sessions), Cherry Blossoms (which will use a Fudge superset), Mecha (which uses pairs of attributes).

[Andrew Martin]

However, I'm also keen to discuss how one goes about more specific mechanics design. Lets have some examples and proposals...

First of all, forget the idea that system is separate from setting or style. Players either follow the rules of the system or they follow the rules of the "setting". If players follow the rules of the system and those rules don't align with the setting, those kind of players are called rules-lawyers. If players follow the rules of the "setting", they're called role-players.

Try to describe the effects of playing one or more sessions, then design rules that, when followed, generate the same behaviour in a player as that of a roleplayer. That way your system will no longer create rules-lawyers and role-players.

At the moment, your setting is about the PC's being parasitic body snatchers, yet your game system involves adding attribute and skill, which clearly rewards players for having characters with high attributes, as the high attributes can be used with more than one skill. If you're trying to simulate parasitic body snatchers, then it seems fairly obvious to me that simulating the parasite's Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence or even the host's Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence is a pointless exercise. Instead, you might want PC's to have a Influence Host skill, along with a Act Normal skill, and perhaps a Recognise Parasitized Host skill. This would seem to me the important parts of the game, not whether the parasite has Strength, Dexterity or Intelligence.

[Jake Norwood]

I think I see where Andrew is going. Let's answer a few questions:

Why are you snatching bodies? What do you do once you've got one? Are you trying to subjugate mankind? What elements of the host remain, and what parts of the parasite are superimposed. It may be appropriate, for example, to have all physical traits refer back to the host, but all skills or mental traits back to the parasite. What kinds of conflicts would arise from this mechanical relationship?

Oh, and design your own system, but make sure it caters exactly to your goals.

Jake

[Brian Leybourne]

Andrew said:

At the moment, your setting is about the PC's being parasitic body snatchers, yet your game system involves adding attribute and skill, which clearly rewards players for having characters with high attributes, as the high attributes can be used with more than one skill. If you're trying to simulate parasitic body snatchers, then it seems fairly obvious to me that simulating the parasite's Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence or even the host's Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence is a pointless exercise. Instead, you might want PC's to have a Influence Host skill, along with a Act Normal skill, and perhaps a Recognise Parasitized Host skill. This would seem to me the important parts of the game, not whether the parasite has Strength, Dexterity or Intelligence.

and Jake said:

Why are you snatching bodies? What do you do once you've got one? Are you trying to subjugate mankind? What elements of the host remain, and what parts of the parasite are superimposed. It may be appropriate, for example, to have all physical traits refer back to the host, but all skills or mental traits back to the parasite. What kinds of conflicts would arise from this mechanical relationship?

I'll try to answer both at the same time.

Yes, the idea is that physical traits reflect the host, while mental traits belong to the parasite/PC itself. Andrew, I completely agree with you that the parasite needs certain skills such as identifying other parasites, tapping into the subconscious of the host body to try to glean enough information to be able to pass as the person, and so on, but physical abilities (as defined by the host body) have to be accounted for as well. Plus of course the system has to be able to cope with non-parasite humans for various npc's, animals, and so on.

There's also (at least a possibility that) the PC's can tap into the host enough to be able to draw on some skills (the kinds of things you learn through repitition and thus are "body remembered"). This along with the total reliance on the physical attributes of the host makes selecting the right host(s) vital, and switching bodies to fulfill different tasks occasionally or even frequently necessary (and I think that kind of thing is pretty cool and would be fun).

Attribute plus skill systems? Well, actually I happen to like them. On the other hand, I may be trying too hard to push a square peg into a round hole. I'm still quite open to a more "focused" and less generic die system.

What happens in a typical game session? Well, obviously everything is in flux and under development, but at the moment I'm going on the concept that the PC's are parasites sent in as a "team" to earth (from wherever). Unlike the body snatchers etc films, it's not just a matter of grabbing as many humans as possible and sticking a slug on their backs, because that would be boring to play. The concept is more one of the PC's being an advanced group. Their goal would be to "pave the way" for the future invasion by getting control over police, military, political etc organisations and/or people. PC's would have to use different hosts to get close to targets, learn power structures and infiltrate them, and so on. Complications to this would include other parasites from opposed "queens" who has similar goals as well as a desire to make your own fail (but still without alerting the world at large from the existance of the parasites, because then they're ALL in danger), as well as more mundane opposition such as humans thinking you're acting strange and so on and so forth. That kind of thing.

So given that as a concept for what happens in a game session, it certainly seems to me like you need to know what your characters are capable of, physically and mentally, and a necessity to be able to determine the outcome of almost any action. I don't know if the system I proposed is right for that, it's just one idea. I'm open to others (but please don't mention FUDGE again. I don't care if it's better, in fact I'm sure it is because it's been around being tweaked and improved for years. I want to make up my own system - with help, sure - not use one someone else developed.)

SO that's the game in a nutshell. Would it be a good/fun game? I don't know, you tell me :-) I hope so, and I think it would, but maybe I'm just pipe dreaming.

As always, any and all comments are more than welcome. This thread started off as a die mechanics thread only, but has expanded into setting as well, so comments on any aspect discussed so far are good.

Brian.