Description-based Attribute system

[smc]

I rambled on about the system I am working on in another thread, and I've been making some pretty big adjustments as I continue to play-test.

The system currently uses a dice pool, with the average human a 2d6 in each attribute. Another important component of the system is that cards are used to track equipment, combat manuevers, NPC's, etc.

I originally had a set of standard attributes (i.e. strength, agility, etc.), which is purchased using a point-buy system (6 is average, and we divide by 3 to determine the # of dice), but this just lacks atmosphere for me. I was thinking instead of having the player's choose cards with decsriptions for their character, which then gives them bonus dice in their pool for specific tasks. Each character would be considered to have 2d6 in every atribute/skill test in the game, but could increase their dice pool for specific tasks/challenges based on the description of their character, or decrease the available dice because of a particular weakness.

For example, a particular character might be "Strong", "Perceptive", and "Willfull". He would get 3d6 on rolls that test his strength, his perception, or his willfullness. Characters can also take cards that define their skills. Combat skills might include "Swordsmen", "Archer", and "Brawler".

Characters can take additional cards of the same type to increase their abilites in that area (i.e. 3 strength cards would give the character 5d6 in their strength pool). Alternatively, maybe I have individual cards which use wording to imply this progression (a character can upgrade his "strong" card to a "very strong" card, etc.).

Of course, characters can also take cards that make them deficient in a particular area, giving them only 1d6 for that pool. (i.e. "weak" instead of "Strong").

I think this will accmomplish a couple of things. Task/challenge resolution will be pretty straight-forward, since 2d6 is used for everything, except for a few select areas where the character uses his traits to define his dice pool. Also, character creation will be a bit more atmospheric (good for newbies), without all of the arcane number stuff. Let's say you get 5 advantage cards and two disadvantage cards. Pretty simple.

So, my questions to the group:

- I am sure this has done before. Can anyone point me to a system that uses this paradigm?

- I am uncomfortable with the mix of adjectives ("strong") and nouns ("archer"). Any ideas on how to perhaps use adjectives to describe combat skills and regular skills (the setting is a fairly standard fantasy-medieval), without making the skill sets too generic or completely seperating skills from attributes?

Thanks in advance!

[smc]

As an aside, here's a simple example of an NPC using this sytem.

Typical Orc:

Strong
Unintelligent
Brawler

Therefore, the orc gets an extra d6 (or 9 points total, since the system will typically have the PC make all rolls against a fixed value) on strength tests and damage, along with an extra d6 when he fights hand-to-hand or with simple weapons such as clubs. However, he gets only 1d6 on tests of his intelligence.

And that's all the stats we need to know for this guy, other than his chosen weapon and armor.

[Valamir]

Story Engine was Descriptor Based.

And, I humbly submit Universalis, in which the entire world is defined the way you defined an Ork.

[HMT]

See Storyboard.

[Mark Johnson]

Your game looks interesting so far, but I have a few questions:

How are the dice read?  I am a little unclear, it appears to be a total valued pool; you might want to consider a success based or highest roll system.  My next question may be based on a flawed understanding of your system, so bear with me.

Why aren't you using opposed rolls? If I understand it correctly, a PC with one die cannot defeat an NPC with 3 dice (9 points), however an NPC with one die (3 points)  might be able to defeat a PC with 3 dice depending on how you read ties.  

Do you use task resolution or conflict resolution?  

Although it doesn't work exactly like your system, you might check out Risus.

Good luck,
Mark

[smc]

How are the dice read?  I am a little unclear, it appears to be a total valued pool; you might want to consider a success based or highest roll system.

The system, I understand, is similiar to "EABA", with the player always pulling the top 3 dice out of their roll. The more dice they have in their pool, then the better chance they have of rolling high. Rolls are typically made against a difficulty value, which is either situational, or dependent upon the stats of an opposing NPC.

Why aren't you using opposed rolls? If I understand it correctly, a PC with one die cannot defeat an NPC with 3 dice (9 points), however an NPC with one die (3 points)  might be able to defeat a PC with 3 dice depending on how you read ties.

Yes, that's a good point. I need to give some thought to handle the values, but I have a couple of goals .... I want to make the game player-centric, where the players are the center of the universe, and--as the GM--I simply don't want to be rolling a bunch of dice. I want to put the PC's fate in the hands of their players.

I also want to make the system cinematic, with plenty of mooks who will die horrible deaths, so I will probably be tweaking things to give the players an advantage. One advantage that the PC's will get is the ability to play manuever cards, which will give them additional dice. A manuever card might be "feint", which lets the PC make a check to see if they outwit the opponent, and get some extra dice to hit.

Manuever cards use up action points. The NPC's are more static and have limited actions, to which the PC's respond. There isn't really an initiative system, since the PC's will be able to perform manuevers in response to the actions of the NPC's (until they run out of points). The idea is to create something freewheeling with the PC's attacking, blocking or parrying attacks, dodging, manuevering to help their friends, falling back ... this will keep the players involved throughout the combat because there isn't defined "turns", and it will involve some strategy since they have a limited resource (action points), and they will need to think about when/why to use their maneuvers.

That said, I will probably treat big-bad NPC's just like regular PC's, in order to make the resolution of that encounter more interesting.

Do you use task resolution or conflict resolution?  .

Not quite sure :) I am defining combat and tasks as "challenges". The mechanics are the same ... but combat is obviosuly a bit more involved than other challenges because I like crunchy combat options.

Although it doesn't work exactly like your system, you might check out Risus.

Thanks. I will take a look.

[Mark Johnson]

smc,

I had actually seen your earlier thread; but I had not made a connection with this iteration because of the changes you made.  You are definitely on the right track here; having the cards as descriptors seems to fill your design goals much more clearly than a list of standard attributes.  Good work!

I totally appreciate the fact that you want to empower players with a PC roll only system.  Your mechanic is a bit wobbly and deprotaganizing, as I noted, when rolling one or two dice.  A single disadvantage card, with no advantages would often yield a no win situation for the PCs.  You might consider upping the "average" roll to 3 dice rather than 2.  In actual game terms, it might not make much of a differences if all characters are toting around a lot of applicable descriptors and manuevers; bit I do find it aesthetically more elegant to have the average be 3 rather than 2 since you are using a "keep 3" system.  How does it work in actual play?

What type of setting/genre are you planning to use this for?  It screams out "martial arts" to me.  What have you been using it for?

Good luck,
Mark

[smc]

You might consider upping the "average" roll to 3 dice rather than 2.  In actual game terms, it might not make much of a differences if all characters are toting around a lot of applicable descriptors and manuevers; bit I do find it aesthetically more elegant to have the average be 3 rather than 2 since you are using a "keep 3" system.  How does it work in actual play?

I agree with that assessment, and it is something I was working on. I'm not sure why I got stuck in the 2d6=average mode originally, perhaps because I was trying to keep the dice pools relatively low. I agree that having a 3d6 as the standard is more elegant, especially since I am pulling the 3 high dice.

What type of setting/genre are you planning to use this for?  It screams out "martial arts" to me.  What have you been using it for?

Martial-oriented low-magic fantasy is my current arena for testing (though it's _very_ low magic at this point since I don't have a magic system). I'd like something akin to ROTS, where combat is a fixture in gameplay and where character's fight because there is "something to fight for".  However, it won't be as gritty as ROTS.

My ultimte goal ....? Think of the fight agains the Uruk-hai at the end of LOTR: FOTR. I want to be able to mimic this sort of chaotic, moving combat with a decent level of detail for specific "moments" but keeping a fast and exciting pace for resolution.

I am revising the card play and positioning system for combat towards this end. I won't go into detail at this stage, but the basics are that each PC can have a "stack" of opponents, and that they are able to manuever to "intercept" other opponents, "draw" enemies out of a friend's stack, use terrain to reduce the number of enemies in their own stack, withdraw, use missile weapons, etc ... all using a system that is highly abstracted in terms of tactical-level positioning but offers lots of options for stratetic-level positioning. It also won't use an initaitive system, and the PC's will simply play their manuever cards in response to actions by the NPC's (until they run out of action points).

I'll post more details once I have an alpha version of the rules and some more playtesting.