Just (another) game idea

[jphannil]

Hello and greetings from someone just signed in the forge.

I've been playing rpg's since the beginning of the 90's, not as much now as I used to. I've always been a gm and my priorities have shifted from first om simulationism to narrativism I guess. Well few years I've been toying with idea of universal and very scetchy rpg that suits my needs, which are:

1) any setting, heck I love playing in different settings
2) loose character creation with different kind of approaches
3) universal resolution mechanic including ALL stuff, ie. combat and other stuff are just examples of this, combat does not need different rules

And, I've come up with DIO, well, the name is not so good anymore since it doesn't use only d10 anymore. Unfortunately it is in finnish but I've been toying with the idea of translating it to english and putting that version online. These are the main points:

Character creation
Story-base character creation and universal unlisted traits (no skills and abilities-difference) values ranging from -10 to 10 but the game is open to any number 'interval' on being used. Creations rules are for open creation (no points or hassles), point bought traits and random traits.

General mechanic
Mechanic is quite simple, take the value of the trait and add dice, take value of difficulty (set by GM) and add dice, compare. The thing is, the dice can be altered with different situation (from d2 to d20), the dice being the Luck factor, if you throw the dice away you have karma method, some d2 and d4 dices are when skill or competence rules and d10 or d12 for very random situations where luck counts. GM can alter the luck dice with situational modifiers, for example if someone takes risks to accomplish something very difficult (the propability of winning gets increased when luck increases, if difficulty is greater than your trait) etc.

General mechanic also includes possibility to modify contest to simulate anything from one roll contest to long, cinematic battle scenes, this is so that I don't need any combat rules, I can simulate submarine battle and sword fight with same rules, altough very broadly.

Experience
Experience comes with three different possibilities,
1) GM experience = gm tells when your traits change
2) experience points = you gain points which you can allocate to raise values of traits
3) learning by doing (RQ-style) = you gain points to traits what you use.

Anyone interested reading of this kind of game, is it worth translating it to english?

Best regards

[taalyn]

Hyva:a: Petteri!

In general, we like more information. Translating bits and posting them here is always a good idea, as far as I'm concerned, because you get great feedback.

As others have said, if it's a game _you_ are excited about, then you should post it. If you're not so excited, and wonder whether anyone else would be...why would we be excited about a game that you aren't excited about?

Aidan

[Mike Holmes]

There are a number of other generic d(variable) systems in existence right now. Have you seen The Window? Do you have anything not yet posted which would make it stand out from games like this? Otherwise I'm seeing very little new here.

Mike

[jphannil]

Yep, I've seen window, the ladder, fudge and number of other indie game systems, actually, this one borrows a great bit from these systems. The things I haven't seen in any system yet:

1) Luck factor, you can either determine not to roll and to decide the fact or to roll the dice and see the consequences, my system has variable luck levels that give different 'feel' to the situation.

2) Usually the generic systems in the web are very granular, I mean there are usually 4-7 values for a trait (fudge, ladder, the window for example). My system has all from -10 to +10, 21 values. From my point of view this gives more flexibility and smoother character advancement through experience.

Yes, I am very much excited of this game or more like a scetch but someday it will be a game :)

Best regards

[jphannil]

Further more, my trait value scale (from -10 to 10) is open, and does not need any special features if it is crossed.

Say the players encounter a dinosaur or a supernaturally strong critter. How strong is this creature, as gm you can whim it's strength is about 20 or 100 and thst's that, it can be done easily. If two jedi's are battling each other they both might have lightsaber trait of +15 and the combat can be played normally without any special rules.

Some systems are closed (i.e. system has minimum and maximum possible trait values, if they are crossed the game breaks down).

Best regards

[Mike Holmes]

Who decides on whether or not to roll the dice? Could you give an example of resolution in general?

While the system is open-ended in terms of potential stats, it does have the problem with failure of ranges to overlap. That is, if you have a +6, and I have a -6 in some trait that we're competing with, and the GM determines that the luck factor is a d10 for me, then I can't win. Is this intentional? This will become a real problem with the dinosaur, unless I get some big stat, or the GM allows me to roll a d1000. Setting the luck variable will require a lot of coaching on the part of the text to get across in any case, I think.

I could get a finer granularity by taking one of the d10 systems out there, and multiplying everything by 10 including using a d100. The simplicity that they take on is often a design choice, not a flaw (though with the Window, and some dice pool games, I'd agree that the granularity is artificuially chunky). So I'm not sure how much we gain from your system there.

Not giving guidelines for chargen, while freeing, doesn't make your system better. It just prevents bad things from happening. It doesn't do anything to make the game a more effective tool. You can't argue that the game is better because it doesn't have something that some players want.

Mike

[jphannil]

Ok, here is an example:

John is trying to climb over the fence, let's say 5 meters high and very hard to climb up at. While John is not really athletic, he has slightly over average physique, which gives him trait value +1 for this kind of climbing activities. GM set's the difficulty at +4, meaning that the fence is bit too much for him.

Let's say the situation is normal and John just needs to get over the fence, GM sets the luck dice to d4 (there is no stress or anything similar involved). John's player throws d4, gets result 3, that added to his trait value is 4. GM throws difficulty dice d4, gets 2, result is 6. John tries to climb over the fence but he fails, it's too much for him.

Now the situation is different, John is being chased by angry bull and John has to climb over the fence to get to safety. There is a lot of stress in the situation, so GM set's the luck dice at d8. Now John has much better chances of going over the fence, but also good chances to blow it big time (he hurries and falls from the top of the fence next to the raging bull or something).

I don't really get your point of the chargen issue. The character creation system is like this

1. You write character story

2. You pick traits from that story with gm

Free method: you assign values to the traits by 'common sense' according to the story, and with the help of the gm.

Point method: you assign values to the traits by point pool method

Random method: you assign values to the traits randomly (you can choose which value to put in what trait you wish, according to the story) and then you distribute few more points to traits.

These three methods are not necessarily used all at the same time, GM can set that in that particular genre, only random characters will do or something like that.

So what was your point with the chargen ?

Best regards

[DevP]

About the luck levels: in many tasks, you can determine very quickly if you can do a task without putting in greater effort, and you can go no further unless you take a chance. For example:

"You chase after him, but he's slowly outpacing you."
"Your lift yourself up the fence, but it's tough; the handles are not easy to climb, and the metal is a bit slick with water."
"Your punch is effortlessly elbow-blocked by Doctor Ninja."

So, in many cases you can forgo the luck dice. Encourage your players further to describe what kinds of maneuvers they're doing; assign trickier maneuvers higher levels of luck die.

[jphannil]

Dev: You got it, exactly my idea of using the luck dice.

The gm set's the luck dice but not with luck :), the luck dice is determined by the situation: genre, stress level, character's maneuvers. More risky means possibility to accomplish something you normally would not, but it comes with a price. The setting of the luck dice is about as difficult for the gm as is setting the difficulty, if you are used to it.

Note also that if you have greater ability than the difficulty (you can master the situation), more luck actually decreases your possibilities of success (however increases the possibility to success big time).

I haven't really decided if I employ critical failures or successes, and how to do it, but the degree of success or failure determines how god or bad it is.


Mike: the decision about not rolling the dice is also one for the gm. The no dice -option is kind of luck level zero. Used for situations where gm doesn't want the result to be affected by randomness.

Also, if you cannot accomplish the task (Mike's example of -6 against 6 with luck dice d10), gm can decide that the dice is not rolled and result is clear (however if degree of failure is required, then the roll must be made). For success the player has to push it (the luck dice) somehow, and +6 and -6 difference is quite a big one, it's like comparing national chess champion to someone who just learned how to play chess.

Best regards

[Mike Holmes]

On the chargen issue, your first post was not clear. I thought that the only method was the freeform method. For the points method, how many points do you assign? Is it zero based?

How broad are traits selected? Have you thought about guidelines? For the freeform method, anything is suitable. For points or random, however, breadth becomes a concern.


Have you considered just allowing the player to select the die they roll, select the Luck level? Representing the character "going for it" to the extent represented by the dice? Given that you can only go to a d20 (really large dice would give an inordinate chance for success for underdogs), and that larger dice have a proportionally greater risk, I don't see any "winning" strategy. It's all just risk assessment. So it would make a neat gambling mechanic. I do think that underdogs will go for the big dice, but I also think that's a dramatic effect.

The player would still have to narrate something appropriate (and the GM could veto big dice on lame descriptions). But it would alleviate the GM from having to do that part himself.

I'm still ambivalent about the massive underdog having no chance, even a tiny one (even in the "normal" human range the peak can never be defeated by the worst example). But that's not to say it isn't a potentially valid design choice.

What do you do with the degree of success or failure? Are there any mechanical effects? Or is it just for description?

Mike

[Walt Freitag]

Have you considered just allowing the player to select the die they roll, select the Luck level? Representing the character "going for it" to the extent represented by the dice? Given that you can only go to a d20 (really large dice would give an inordinate chance for success for underdogs), and that larger dice have a proportionally greater risk, I don't see any "winning" strategy. It's all just risk assessment. So it would make a neat gambling mechanic. I do think that underdogs will go for the big dice, but I also think that's a dramatic effect.

I may be missing something, but it looks to me like there is an obvious "winning" strategy. A player whose trait is lower than the difficulty (with modifiers taken into account) is always better off rolling the largest luck die allowed, while a player whose trait is higher is always better off with the smallest (or none at all).

A few possible ways to make it more of an even tradeoff: one, don't tell the player the actual difficulty or modifier figures until after the luck die is chosen (but I don't recommend this, I see it leading to all sorts of subtle problems); two, make the absolute degree of failure (amount by which the trait + luck roll + modifiers falls below the difficulty + luck roll) more consistently significant in deciding the severity of the consequences.

If only "centered" dice (e.g. a d10 numbered -4 to +4 with two zeros) were generally available, it would be a lot easier to design systems where the relative influence of luck in a given situation is represented independently of skill and difficulty factors. (Two previous threads about such systems, here and here, but they're both pretty dense.) Fudge dice are the only centered dice available off the shelf that I know about. With centered dice, you could modify the luck factor on each side independently by changing the die size, without skewing the mean result as substituting different sized normal dice does.

- Walt

[Mike Holmes]

Walt, that's why I asked about the use of the Margin. If it's just pass/fail, you're right about what's the best strategy. My assumption was that, since we're being forced to roll to calculate it, even in cases where the pass/fail is academic, that the margin means something. If so, then underdogs may want to go with lower dice to keep some chance of success, but to limit the lower end of the failure range (heck, in some cases, players might even take an auto fail to limit damage while, say, waiting for the cavalry to arrive). While overdogs (?) may want to go risky in order to get a more impressive success.

Basically, I was assuming something like your option 2.

It occurs to me from my example, that opposing forces might try to force things to one end or the other as well as the PC. Perhaps the GM could select a die, then the player, and an "average" between the two of some sort (rounded down?) would give the resultant actual die. Neat way to get the "opposed" effect, without a different mechanic.

Petteri, have you considered having the player roll both dice, adding one and subtracting the other? Same net effect mathematically, but different psychologically.

Mike

[jphannil]

Mike: yes I have thought of player rolling both dice, I decided it this way because:

1) In contested rolls, other person must roll the dice anyway, so the mechanic is more similar to this one (or then contested rolls would have to be made normal rolls, with other side trait value as the difficulty level).

2) This way (gm rolls the other dice) gm can hide his dice result, and so keep the difficulty and the result to himself, but the player got some hint about how good he succeeded (he sees his own dice result).

On the point of player choosing a die, that is a very good possibility, since the degree of success most definitely affects the situation, failing by one level is altogether different than failing with 5-6 levels or something. So big die is not automatically 'an underdog paradise'. In contest situations both sides would choose a die and then gm would choose something in the middle, that would be appropriate.

I am over halfway of translating the system to english, and after the weekend it is possible I get it online. However during the weekend (I have no net at home) I cannot read your great answers and suggestions :(

There are also rules for extended contests, where one round of the contest is built of normal contest roll, the result being marked as advantage points (degree of success). And gm set's the number of advantage points required for winning the whole contest. I have a little problem in this section: what to do if the contest includes several persons or sides, like 2 against 1 or 3 against 2 (this system simulates every long contest, from fights to debates, if necessary).

The breadth of the traits is another problem, and even if I limit myself to freeform character creation, the problem still occurs in experience and raising of the traits. I have been toying with an idea to set breadth to traits (value from 1 to 3) and value 2 needs double the experience to value 1 to be risen up one level, value 3 needs triple.

In point base character creation, the traits are divided to natural traits (the ones everyone has +0 if not described, like abilities and such) and obtained traits (skills and traits requiring learning and something that everyone doesn't have naturally). The first ones being zero based in points (negative traits give more points to distribute) costing trait value x 3, and the other ones costing trait value + 11 (so value -10 costs one point, -9 costs two etc.). Total amount of points is 100 in normal games.

In random method the player rolls 4d6-14 to all traits (he can shuffle them at will) and then add 10 more points to traits.

Best regards

[jphannil]

Ok, the new working title is Chaos & Order, if you have better suggestion, feel free to inform me :)

I managed to translate it to english, it is in:
http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~jphannil/Chao.html

If you find (and you will) some errors, feel free to comment.

The two questions I have to this group are:

1) What to do with extended contest roll if there are many sides to the conflict ?

2) Do this system, in your opinion, need rules for disadvantages (by which can physical damage, exhaustion, mental stability, magic points, whatever be handled) ?

Best regards

[Mike Holmes]

One of the hardest things to write in a game is a description of how a resolution system gets initiated into use. You write:

The success roll is used, when gm or player wants to know if character can perform some action and the result of that action is not known beforehand.

This is a bit vague. I mean, one can argue that any action isn't sure before hand. Taken to an extreme, a player might ask the GM if he can cross the street. Which the GM would then have to respond, "of course," doing the mental calculation quickly that the difference in difficulty and luck involved wouldn't require a die roll, essentially. What this often leads to is people writing stuff like, "Don't use the system for stuff like crossing the street, and tying your shoes." But that's not sufficient either. Because sometimes you will want to roll to cross the street. Consider movie chases, which often make crossing the street into a hazard. Why not have that be a roll? When it comes down to it, your system addresses all cases, potentially, and says that you can, if you like, determine how well you crossed the street, even when it's sure. So given that it's to be consulted even in "sure" cases of success or failure, where do you draw the line?

No, what you need to do is to make a positive statement about when it is appropriate to initiate use of the resolution system, when it's neccessary to have that success margin generated. Given the design of the game, what's appropriate?

Is it negotiated? How so? In many games, the result is negotiated by GM fiat over time. That is, the player says, "I cross the street," and the GM responds, "OK, now what do you do?" The lack of resort to the resolution system tells the player that this isn't an appropriate place for it's use. But your text says that the player has rights equal to the GMs in terms of initiation (but not in determining whether or not to use the Extended Contest method). I think that's cool, but is it what you intended? Further, if that's the case, what can you tell a player about when it's appropriate to use the system? Is it "any time you want to roll for something?" leaving the GM to force rolls when the player might not want to do so?

Basically, in this text and elsewhere, you're doing what many RPG designers do, which is to leave these sorts of decisions up to the participants' traditions of play. If you're fine with that, well, OK. But you miss an opportunity to make your game tighter by ignoring addressing these sorts of things. Note how in most combat systems, suddenly what you can initiate, when you can initiate it, how you can initiate it, these things are all suddenly become tightly curtailed and detailed. This heightened attention says something about the action being initiated. I'm not suggesting that you go this way, but my point is that it's very much the extra rules about combat that give it some extra focus.

Now, your game is generic, and as such, it's probably not easy to decide on particular areas to focus on. But that doesn't mean that you can't have some better defined thoughts behind how resolution should be conducted in general terms. Note that in leaving such a thing undefined, that you are making a game that's only suitable for players who are experienced with RPGs. Designers often do this as well, assuming that the only people who will play their game will be people who have played RPGs before, or who are being introduced by people who play RPGs. Which is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I'm not saying that your system must appeal to non-experienced gamers, but why not? If you write more specific text on how this sort of thing operates you not only reap the benefits in terms of player understanding of how the system works best, but also in making it accessible to more players.

You're still early in the writing, and you may already have plans to address this sort of thing. If so, then disregard this. But I wanted to mention it early so that you might have it in mind when you do get to writing out the rest of the game. Poorly described initiation (and other phases) of resolution is one of the most common problems in designs, and tends to be really common in generic designs, IMO. With a little thought, this is not too difficult to rectify.

Mike