Just (another) game idea

[jphannil]

Thank you Mike for a nice reply.

That is a thing I haven't even thought of writing, the usual thing being that I (like others) play as we are used to play and so I didn't bother to address the issue, but you are right, it should, and the decision could be made here.

In our usual games the gm says when to use dice and when not to, simple. But my playing group has always been very gm-oriented, including me. My ultimate experience of rpg is that players don't need to bother with the mechanics. That is not to say it cannot be played differently. But as I read your post I see that I haven't addressed the issue and that line you copied is wrong, the players don't initiate the resolution system in my games, or at least hasn't been doing it yet. So I am going to write it as we play it, gm tries to keep the system to himself and player tries to get 'in character'. This might be not very 'modern' as a gaming style, but that is how it has been.

Best regards

[Mike Holmes]

This might be not very 'modern' as a gaming style, but that is how it has been.

Who cares about "modern". What's important is "effective." It would be refreshing to see a game that put a more traditional method into solid terms for once.

But that does mean that you can just say, "It's the GM who decides." Because that doesn't tell the GM what works other than that he has to trust his own judegement. If this is a toolkit on that level, then say so. If there's a good way to do it that you are aware works with the system, let the reader know.

Somtimes designers balk at this. They think it's "telling people how to play." But that's not the intent, and it wouldn't matter if that's what you were doing anyway. As Marco put it recently, all you're doing with any ruleset is suggesting one (or more in some cases) way that the game works from what you've found. Once the participants have an idea of that one way that works, they can, and will in all cases, make any modifications that they deem neccessary. But at least they have a stable jumping off point.

So, I find it interesting, for example, your comment about not needing the resolution system in most cases. Is there some way you could encode that into the system? Just as a wild-ass example, you could do something like limiting the GM to only having each player roll for at most three things each session. That would force the GM to pace himself better in terms of when to use the resolution system. If some sort of limit like that actually works well to with the resolution system and overall concept of play as you see it, then it ought to be in the rules.

At the very least you can make suggestions about when to use the system. Note however, that the more subjective you make the decision, the less such advice tends to be used in play. The more mechanical you make something, the more that it's a "rule", the more consideration it will get in play.

Mike

[jphannil]

Where did I say that resolution system is not needed in most cases ?

I use the resolution system quite much, my use of the resolution system is based on drama, the more dramatic situation, more system is being used.

So a player is opening a door, no big deal.

Player is opening a door trying to leave silently after he escaped from ropes, ok a roll can be done.

Player is opening a door trying to leave silently while a guard is standing outside, heck yes, a roll.

Player is trying to pick a lock open when a grey giant ape is after him, most definately roll.

These examples are based on excitement, but other drama aspects can apply too. If there is a debate which affects the characters situation greatly, it can be rolled as well (however not without proper playing from the player, meaning arguments and such).

Best regards

[Mike Holmes]

My ultimate experience of rpg is that players don't need to bother with the mechanics.

This seemed to imply to me that you thought that play without mechanics was superior.

But that doesn't matter. All that matters is that you get into your game the sorts of ideas that you're articulating in the post above.

Here's another thread that might be interesting to you:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8091

Mike

[jphannil]

Ok, with that comment 'players don't need to bother with the mechanics' I mean players, not the gm. In my games as a gm, I keep the system and most of the results to myself, and only describe what happens to the players. Players can participate in mechanics in two ways:

1) they roll when needed, and add their trait value

2) they have character sheets and can handle character experience

Ok, there is a third thing, if I tell player if character has hindrances like damage or tiredness that affects the traits, sometimes I tell how much is the penalty, sometimes not.

Other than this, the players get input only from my descriptions. In this way new rpgers and old rpgers are in same line, they both get same input and system itself (even if player knows how the system works) won't help. I've seen that in my games, common sense is the best rule and it creates variable results beyond any mechanical system. This is the reason I started to build this 'rules light' system, to get what I want out of it, the numbers in chaos&order should point to the direction I will take the situation in, but the numbers itself won't tell any details of the situation itself.

[Mike Holmes]

Cool stuff. Get that into your text. That'll excite lots of players. Many people like to play this way. If they find a game that's designed to support it, they'll be ecstatic.

Mike

[jphannil]

Ok, I put a new version online:

http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~jphannil/Chao.html

New stuff:
- defined style of play (as in great discussions with Mike Holmes suggested) and the invoking of the resolution system

- Character creation is clarified a bit, more info about natural and obtained traits and especially assigning trait values when there are none present.

- Game system has few new features, success roll result now can be boosted with group effort, if such is applicable. In contest rolls there can be multiple sides to the conflict (example: a race of some kind).

- Disability system (handles physical damage, exhaustion, mental shock, magical exhaustion, whatever ...) but the rules concerning this are at alpha state. These are not very elegant, anyone has better suggestions ?

This weekend I have a slight possibility for playtesting again, let's see what comes up from that.

Concerning the breadth of the traits I am still puzzled how to handle this elegantly.

Best regards

[Mike Holmes]

Somebody else comment now, damnit! ;-)

If nobody else does, I'll get back to this at some point.

Mike

[jphannil]

Seems to me that nobody is not really that interested of my game :/ but anyway, I'll poke a little more :)

I've been thinking of changing the behaviour of extended contest so that in stead of winning side getting advantage points, all contestants could have a pool of points which are reduced and when 0 is reached the contest would end. Statistically the effect would be same but this would offer few advantages:

1) Some situations would be more intuitively modelled, for example fight scenes where these points would indicate characters 'ability to act' or something like that, when 0 points is reached, he is out of the fight.

2) Gm could set different amounts of points for contestants giving flexibility and more modelling power to the situation.

What do you think ?

[Mike Holmes]

Petteri,

I think you just perfectly described the Extended Conflict rules from Hero Quest. Are you familiar?

Mike

[aghori]

Seeing Walt Freitag's message about fudge and centered dice I came up with an idea for a centered dice system mixing fudge's with jphannil's mechanics.

A d6 is throwed along with the luck dice, the d6 will determine the direction as follows:

d6 result          Effect
1-2         luck result is substracted from skill rating
3-4         luck result is nor added but substracted, but still useful for ties
5-6         luck result is added to skill rating

or

d6 result         Effect
1-3           luck result is substracted
4-6           luck result is added

In this second option, when the luck dice throws  its maximum value it counts as zero. A similar system with 1 and 6 meaning exploding dice would be also interesting.

So a 12 in a d12  and an 8 in a d8 would count as zero.

[failrate]

I just read your new version of the system.  I like it.  A few caveats, though...

I couldn't find either guidelines or a game mechanic that actually demonstrated how using higher luck die was in any way a potential disadvantage.  I remember you mentioning how it could be used as such in an earlier post, but it's NOT THERE in the actual written rules.

The same is true for over-the-top successes.

That said, I really like the system.  It seems reasonably fair and balanced, and you provided a good deal of optional rules that make sense.

Speaking of optional rules and luck dice, have you ever heard of the game Button Men?  I believe it's published by CheapAss Games.  Anyway, in this game, each button man has different dice it can use to make attacks.  These are standard polyhedrons just like you use in C&O.  Anyway, if a character uses a die to attack, and the attack is beaten by the opponent's die, then that button man loses the die.  So, if I roll a d4 and get a three, and you roll a d6 and get a five, then my d4 is "killed".  Of course, I could also roll a 1 on my d20 and have it get killed by a 2 on your d4, as well, so the strategy used is to save the big dice for when the player really thinks they need them.  So, even if the size of the die rolled didn't influence the possible severity of success or failure, then the possiblity of losing a strong die for a period of gameplay would definitely inhibit a player from using it.  This might overcomplicate your rules, but it struck me as being a great game mechanic that might fit into an RPG somewhere, somehow, someday.  Maybe I'll steal it for my next project.

[jphannil]

Thanks for the replies guys.

Mike: I haven't got the HeroQuest, but I've heard about it and read some HQ stuff here in the Forge (actually I got the AP idea from there :). The action point solution is (mathematically) equivalent to my advantage point system, it is only 'upside down' and not downside up, and it could give many options. Do you think it is plagiating if I use it ? I mean almost every game has hit points, aren't they taken straight from D & D.

failrate: Hmm, I don't quite get what you mean by using higher luck die as a disadvantage. The thing we were talking about earlier was that higher luck die doesn't necessarily mean greater possibility for the underdog (the one who has less than 50% of success). This is because high luck die can also open in the wrong direction giving the underdog a massive failure. That is the reason why I decided (as Mike suggested) to let the player choose the luck die used. There is no 'winning strategy', only gambling with chaos and order :)

Interesting mechanics you posted. From that button men example, did the system have some skills i.e. how the dices were spread for the players or something like that ?

I've been thinking of using C&O in IRC-game after I get the net, I hope it is simple and intuitive enough for the task :)

Best regards and thanks for the replies

[jphannil]

Aghori: very interesting indeed. the mechanic you suggested would have few nice advantages, for example in contest situations both sides can use different luck die instead of gm choosing one in the middle. The results could also be more intuitive and difficulty roll wouldn't be needed separately at all, player could just toss those two dice.

In contest situations though this means 4 dice rolls per contest round, in my method only 2 are needed. I don't really know how big a drawback this would be.

What do you mean by that exploding die roll (1 and 6) ?

Best regards

[Mike Holmes]

Do you think it is plagiating if I use it ? I mean almost every game has hit points, aren't they taken straight from D & D.

Not if you do it well. ;-)

I only mention Hero Quest in that if you looked at it, you'd see that there's quite a bit in the rules about that mechanic that make it work right. If you don't have that stuff it could be problematic depending on your final implementation. But given a use that latches it on to your system strongly then it's not problematic at all.

No more than, say, HQ's AP system being a plagerization of the d20 SW Vitality mechanic. ;-) I jest!

But seriously, write it out and we'll see how it looks when you're done. I'll bet at that point that it'll look substantively unique.

Mike