Time's system - Chapter 2 & 3

[Time]

[Bankuei]

  Based on your previous thread, and getting a better idea for what you're aiming for, it seems like a lot of math goes into resolution for this game.  I've played Gurps and I understand the desire for quicker play, but it seems like a lot of modifiers and calculations go into this.

  Many games go quicker by abstracting and using smaller numbers.  Realism can be specifics(a list of techniques and moves that work with each other) or generic(a fighting style).  You might want to think about abstracting just a little to cut down the math.  Games you might want to look at:  Unknown Armies(percentile system, make your own skills and magic, very cool), Big Eyes Small Mouth(great on the advantages/disadvantages, quick game play), Over the Edge(again, make your own skills/abilities, quick game play).  These might help inspire some ideas on how you want to design your game.

Bankuei

[Time]

I was afraid it was too much math.  When I look at it, I don't see it as being "too much," but that may be because I'm the one who wrote it so I understand what I'm trying to do.

I've heard some great things about the games you mentioned so I will definetly check them out.

-Time

[Bankuei]

  Well, actually, I'm pretty solid with math, its just I know many people who aren't.  Folks come to me to decipher rpgs out of the assembly level binary language some people love to write in.  I'm one of the few people who understood Albedo, Rolemaster, Herowars(in picking the rules from the layout), in 20 minutes each.  
  While some of us are more mathmatically inclined, and have no problem doing the math, going beyond the teen's for most folks is too high to do off the top of their heads with speed.  The other thing to keep in mind is how much of a differentiation you need.  If people only come in weak, strong, and super, you don't need a rating from 1-30, when 1-3 does the same thing.
   Unless a lot of mini-modifiers are going to make a difference(see D&D), most games really only need ratings from 1-10 or something similar.  It also makes things a lot easier to check for breaks in the rules and power abuse areas when the math is simple.  You'll want to check what is possible for people at the weakest possible ability, average, and maximum to test the way the odds play.
   I look forward to seeing how you tailor this system to your game world, as well as some of the background to your world.

Bankuei

[Time]

The reason that the modifier numbers were large was that I was trying to stick with a % type system - "roll under 65% and it works"

However - I see your point with smaller numbers.  If I'm looking for a fast, low/easy math  system smaller numbers might be easier to use, allowing conflict resolution to be smoother.  Good points.

Maybe I should rethink the % as the basis for die rolling.

-Time

[kwill]

On 2001-10-29 18:10, Time wrote:

Maybe I should rethink the % as the basis for die rolling.

not necc. -- see the comment about Unknown Armies above

UA does some great things with the d% roll, while keeping the intuative "roll under 65% means I've got a 65% chance"

what it doesn't do is burden the player with modifiers and other such overhead, you roll based on your skill and there it is (with doubles, 11, 22, 33, etc turning a roll into a "crit" (critical failure or success depending on whether you failed or succeeded) and 01 and 00 being super-crits -- the long and short of it is, something interesting happens 11% of the time)

(modifiers are possible, but the suggestion is simply to give a + or - in lots of 10 based on the GM's understanding of the difficulty involved)

[Mithras]

I did not like that huge list of difficulty modifiers. Ouch! What's wrong with:

-20
-10
-5
+5
+10
+20

and leave it at that?

Also, are combat rolls opposed? Or do the defenders then make another roll to parry or block a successful roll before attacking themselves (RuneQuest style)?

Apologies if you already said, I did a quick read through ...!!!

[Time]

Good point on the % idea David - I haven't had a chance to look over Unknows Armies yet, but I like the snapshot you gave me.

Mithras,
I like the idea on the shorter modfier list.  Short list = less/easer math.

Attacks are not opposed.  It runs (at this point) like this: To make and attack
Attack: relevant Stat + skill level +/- defense of target +/- and additional modifiers = %chance

Example: An attack may figure out like this - Dex 25 + short sword 10 - defense 5 = 30%

Basically, your defence choices and skills are subtracted from the attacker's % chance.

-Time

[Mike Holmes]

OK, what I see is a Simulationist game. So I'm going to critique it like one. Oh, and I tend to be thorough on Sim stuff, so be warned.

On 2001-10-29 13:33, Time wrote:
I said in the other thread that I wanted this to be the "best it can be"  by that I mean I want it to be as close to my concept as possible.

Best for whom? That's the important question. Your players? Target market? Who?

I guess Mike is right (even though he called me Matt - it's Brett, the guy who played Turkey in Empire in Arms with Eric Schaefer in Madison) - I'm looking for G with N thrown in for kicks.  I want the N aspect to influence the G aspect though - I want to promote creative roleplaying, I'm just not sure how to get that into a system.  Perhaps Valamir's right and setting specific is the way to make that happen?

I knew it had a double t in it. :smile:

What Ralph suggests is a way to make the game stick to the setting better. That will not make story by itself. To get actual Narrativism, you need to do things to promote plot. Background mechanics, mechanics for altering the story in play, that sort of stuff. Otherwise, the best that you can hope for is a game that stays out of the way of Narrativism. The problem there is that all the tons of Sim and Gam stuff will get in the way.

-Rule of 1 and Rule of 100
Any roll of 1 is a success and any roll of 100 is a failure.

Standard. You'll have the obligatory statement that blatantly impossible things or super easy stuff shouldn't be rolled for? So that we don;t have people shooting the moon out of the sky one percent of the time? Or dying when tying their shoe laces?

-Critical Success, Critical Failure
If a character succeeds by more than twice their skill level, they have a critical success.

To clarify, that should read "roll under half their chance of success"? Or am I missing something? Also, that's the modified final chance, or the base skill chance?

Quote

If they fail by twice their skill level, they have the misfortune to have a critical failure.

Again that should read "Rolls over twice the chance of success"? And, again, is that fully modified chance, or just base skill chance?

Quote

Skill + power/spell + applicable stat +/- Difficulty Rating = % chance

-Difficulty Rating (DR):
These are applied in non-combat skill or ability tests.

+35 and up = So simple that only the those with no understanding would find this at all challenging  
+30 = Very, very easy
+25 = Quite Simple
+20 = Accomplished with ease
+15 = Even basic knowledge is enough to make this task simple
+10 = Should prove simple even for those with only basic understanding of the issue.
+5 = May still be challenging for those with very little skill
0 = No modification, can be attempted as straight ability/skill test
-5 = Infinitesimal.  Only poses a problem to those with very little or no skill
-10 = Slight.  An issue for those with only basic understanding of the skill
-15 = Moderate.  May cause problems for experienced persons
-20 = Challenging. Requires a great deal of finesse and concentration to accomplish
-25 = Difficult. Very hard to perform without low level mastery
-30 = Extreme.  Only a master would have a chance to do this more than once.
-35 and up = Nearly impossible.  To accomplish this would be a feat worthy of songs and legends.

Use skill: relevant Stat + skill level +/- difficulty ratting (DR) = % chance
(Str 25 + climb 5 - 10 DR = 20%)

DR for skill checks is determined by any set difficulty that the GM applies.

So, if I have Leatherworking at 140% (costing me 14 points, or less than ten percent of my total), I have only a one percent chance of failure at creating something that is "Nearly impossible.  To accomplish this would be a feat worthy of songs and legends." Hmmm... Even if you limit skills to 100% that still means that a character can have a 65% chance to pull off such stunts. A piker with a measly 50% skill still has nearly a one in six chance of pulling off such "Nearly Impossible" tasks. For 5 CP.

That's more skewed than RM. With RM the guy with the 140% skill still has a 2% chance of failing. :smile:

-Contested Skill Rolls:
When another person is actively attempting to stop or hinder a skill test, each person involved makes the necessary skill roll and the one who succeeds by the most wins.  In the case of a tie, the test is done again and will continue until one person wins.

Combat is not contested? Why not? This is a big mistake in my opinion. At the very least the player defending should get a defense roll. Better yet, just have both make attack rolls and forget all the defense modifiers. Higher roller hits. See Mithras' Zenobia combat system for an excellent example (which I have stolen and now use for combat almost exclusively).

Certain physical and mental feats cannot be accomplished by someone who is not skilled in them.

If you have no skill in Sorcery or Faith Magic, you cannot cast spells.  If you have no skill in computer programming., you cannot decode and encryption program on a Unix system.

In cases like these, it is simply impossible for an unskilled person to attempt these things.  It cannot be done.

Ah-hah. There's the root of that statement I mentioned above.

So, if you are skilled with a knife, but find yourself using a club, while these weapons are not the same, because you know how to fight you have a good idea of how a club should be used, but you will not be as affective as a person who is skilled in club.

Relevant Stat + * skill level being used +/- DR = % chance

What's that asterisk mean? Whatever it means it could be a big problem.

Initiative and Time
This is determined by the Move of a character, with Dex breaking ties, and then Str breaking any of those ties, and then simultaneous if there is still a tie.

Too many tie breakers to remember.

Weapons have a Rate of Attack (RA) which indicates how often it may be used.

1/1 = every round - single hand weapons, hand held thrown weapons, repeating range weapons
1/2 = every other round - two handed weapons, bows
1/3 = every third round - weapons that are required to be "loaded" like a crossbow

The RA can be modified to one step better - with 1/1 being the best - if the character has either the Str or Dex greater than the Target Stat (TS) listed for the weapon.

Lots of Gamist time will be spent on determining that optimum weapon, I'm guessing. And going from 1/1 to 1/2 is HUGE. Not at all realistic, if that's what you're going for. Perhaps a penalty to your Move for purposes of determining initiative instead?

All combatants get one attack/action per round and occur at the Move of the character, unless they have a second attack due to a skill or power.  

Or unless they are using a slow weapon, as above, right? Do these things multiply? Slow weapon and haste makes for 1/1?

These second attacks/actions take place at * the Move score of the character.  Any additional attacks/actions are taken at * the Move score and so on.

I'm starting to think that those asterisks are halfs. Do you round fractions or do you keep em?

Quote

Example:  Bill has an Initiative of 20 and fights with two weapons as he purchased the skills for it.  Chuck has a Initiative of  25 and only uses a single weapon.

Chuck attacks first at 25, and then Bill goes on 20  and 10.

Um, call it a personal problem if you like, but the idea that wielding two weapons gives you twice the attacks seems ludicrous. If I have time to attack with a sword in my left hand and a sword in my right, couldn't I have just attacked twice with the one in my right? Especially if I'm right handed? The advantage of having a weapon in your off-hand have to do with angles of attack, and defense. Not speed.

Time in Game
Actions and attacks in the game are broken into turns and rounds.
1 turn = 1 second
1 round = 1 minute

Thus there are 60 turns to a round.

This is not at all clear. Do you mean to say that you get one attack per minute usually, and the Turns are the initiative that you go on? Or something like that? This is how it reads. No game but D&D has one minute rounds, and I think they even fixed that in 3rd ed. Everyone realized that this was an artifact of D&D wargame roots. Are you sure you don't mean 1 second rounds like GURPS? But then what are the 1 minute rounds for? The longest non-D&D combat round I've seen is 15 seconds (lots of games just leave the time abstrac these days). YOu might want to look at these lengths and how they relate to Move scores. Humans are fast land animals capable of crossing large distances in a short time. Somethings wayyy off here.

Quote

Quote

Quote

Hp loss can be stopped by first aid, other basic healing skills or a *  Int check.  Under care and with only the most basic of actions, the character can heal 2pts per day.  Once at * hp, the character may again move normally with the above penalties.  Same at * hp. Once healed past * hp, the character may function normally.

So, our average guy is up in a day or two, but our guy who took 15 dagger strokes will take a month? Should be proportional to HP, or even better for high stamina characters I'd think.

Stunned/knockout
A target is stunned for 1rnd if an attack succeeds by at least 10.

And cannot take an action? Defend? What is the implication?

Target is knocked out if an attack succeeds by at least 20.

20%? So if I have a base 50% skill, I will miss fifty percent of the time, hit normally 10% of the time, hit and stun 10% of the time, and hit and knock out 30% of the time.

None of this depends on the defender at all? So if I get 20% over what I need to hit a dragon, and it's out? Cool. Lemme at the dragons!

Subdual damage
For when you want to knock someone out - you declare the intent to subdue and then use fists or other normally "non-lethal" attacks designed to render your opponent unconscious.  Subdual damage is equal to your Hp.  If you  have 20 Hp and you take 20 subdual points, you are out.  If that same person takes 10 subdual and then takes 10 regular damage, they are out (10+10 = 20) but not dead, any additional damage will be "real" and my kill you.

Note that this D&D holdover is in no way realistic. You cannot knock a person out in RL without seriously hurting them. As one PA told me when I asked. "Any injury that causes a person to lose conciousness is potentially life threatening." So, include any such rule if you like, but it doesn't represent any sort of reality, just TV/movie violence.

Also, given that I can easily knock out my opponent with a regular blow, I'll probably just try that.

Standard Combat Maneuvers
Parrying/Defense Maneuver
Anyone skilled with a melee weapon (fist, sword, axe) may attempt to parry.  This is done one of two ways:
By forfeiting your attack and only parrying, you get your full weapon skill added to your defense - this is a total parry.

You can also opt to take * of your weapon skill and add that to your defense and then attack with only * your weapon skill - this is a partial parry.

All out Attack
Anyone skilled with a weapon may make an all out attack.  There are two variations of this:
By taking no head of your personal safety, you gain no defense skill, but instead add that to your attack skill.

By having a bit more regard for your life, you take half of your defense and add it to your attack, and then only use 1/2 of your defense normally.

Why not allow any portion to be used either way. This is exactly how Rolemaster does it. This does have all sorts of problems in general, however. That's a whole essay if you'd like to see it.

+/- in combat
cannot see at all (blind) = -10
poor light = -5
use of off hand = -5
use of weapon that you are unskilled with = -5
called shot = -2 to -25, depending on the difficulty of the particular shot

What is the effect of a called shot? Extra damage or effects? Do you allow for sectional armor? Hit locs on non-called shots?

target unaware of attack = +10
target stunned/surprised = +5

So, I strike a person unaware of the attack, and I only get a +10%? That's nt even enough to do an extra point of damage with the optional rules. RM gives a +40.

Multiple weapons in combat
To fight with two weapons at once (one in each hand) the character will require the necessary skill (e.g. rapier & dagger, long sword & short sword, double swords...) and then that skill is used for their combat.

"That skill" is ambiguous. What do you mean?

The character then has two attacks a round, one at their normal Initiative, and the other at * their Initiative.

Again, I find this problematic. Why wouldn't everyone do this? What do shields do? How does ranged combat work?

Also, you said you wanted this to work with modern stuff, but I see no rules for firearms or anything like it.


Summary
OK, even more Gamist than I thought. Overall, it looks a lot like Rolemaster which is a set of fixes of D&D. Very little Simulative stuff, and nothing even remotely Narrativist. Are you sure you aren't trying to cater to a Gamist crowd? If not you need to consider major revisions, IMO.

Mike

[ This Message was edited by: Mike Holmes on 2001-10-30 13:24 ]

[Time]

WOW!  That's a lot to chew on - but very good stuff.  I wanted honest critics and you and the others have given it to me, thank you.

It does look like some major revisions are needed to get what I want.  I think I may take Valamir's advice and start looking at my setting and see how I can work the system to fit the feel I want.  That may not be where I end up, but I think it will be a good place to start, and by keeping your questions in mind I think I'll have a much better focus - and from what I'm gathering, focus is everything.  I'll  also start digging into the other systems that everyone suggested.  Once I get a bit more solid and focused I'll bring this back up again and see what everyone thinks then.  

Thanks again to everyone who took the time to look this over for me - This isn't the last you'll hear from me on this.  :smile: