The Forge Archives

Like everyone else here, I'm having these thoughts about designing my own game.  Despite my best efforts, they refuse to go away...

Some background - The placeholder name is Enlightend.  It's built from a pair of axioms:  i) That things are defined by belief in them; ii) That the universe exists, and tends towards complexity; with everything else mutable.  It will look like a modern occult game, different magical traditions being reflections of a different philosophy on the universe.  (Aside: Yes, it sounds a lot like White Wolf's mage, probably more of a curse than a blessing).

So, on to the discussion point.  There exists two distinct activities that will require some system of resolution.  I feel that a fortune based resolution system is suitible for both cases.  One is a "skill resolution", reflecting activities such as lingistics, psychology, firearms, athletic feats and so on.   The other is "magic resolution".

The desired proberties are similar, with one noticable distinction.  It is desired that the magic resolution system should be such that, with sufficent assisting modifiers, a guarenteed sucess aught to be possible.  Such modifers would tend to accrue principly from the presence of belivers.  This would represent a situation where something is accepted to the point that it no longer requires an Enlightend to force it to occur. This is why a guarenteed sucess is beneficial in this case, as a product of the mechanic, as it would allow a change in global belief to affect technology directly.

For the skill resolution system, it is probably not desirable to have the same behaviour - in other words, even with many benefical modifers, failure should still be possible if the dice are used.

The options are then to have either: a) Two distinct mechanical systems, for the different activities, each one tailored to the desired outcomes; or b) to have a single unified system, to reduce the volume of rules.

And my question is, which is better?

Hi Stuart,

Putting aside all the other aspects of your game notions for future discussion, here's my thought on the final question.

Having two or more "systems" in one game is perfectly OK.

That's probably not what some folks have expected me to say. Elegance, clarity, accuracy - all the usual Edwards aesthetics in game design - would indicate that I'm a "one-game-one-system" guy, right?

And the answer is, "No." The issue is whether they overlap and cause problems for one another. If they don't, then cool - let the difference between them actually power the different experience and "theme" of using them in play. If those differences are part of the point of play, from your perspective as author (and soon, playtester), then having the two different systems active is supporting that point.

Again, though, the real problem is mechanics-overlap. Game designers seem unable to resist having Aspect #1 of a game interfere with and break Aspect #2 (classic example: careful point-balancing for attributes, and then introducing cheap Advantages that add to attributes). That would be your main pitfall to avoid.

Best
Ron

One last point: why play your game, instead of Mage? Answer that one carefully ...

I've found that you can get a lot of mileage out of a single mechanic by tweaking the things that happen in the background.

For example, let's say your typical skill system is a simple roll a die over the target number kind of thing, where skills and attributes add to the roll.  

Now, you want your magic system to feel different from the standard skill mechanic.  You could still use a roll over the target number strategy (even with the same kind of die).  However, perhaps now you ignore skills and attributes and base the bonuses on the number of people who believe it.  Or maybe the number of believers sets the target number (so the difficulty of magic is not "what do I want to do?" but maybe "how many people must be convinced?").

Those are just some quick thoughts.  I feel like there are practically unlimited ways to reuse the same basic mechanic.  On the other hand, a second system is not necessary bad.  I would see it as a case of diminishing returns.  Each new mechanic adds complexity, but contributes less value to the game.  One mechanic is very nice (if not necessary), two is probably fine, three might be pushing it... ten is almost certainly adding more problems than solutions.

On the other hand, tweaking a system without any fundamental design principle is a sure way to make a confused system.

Look at Shadowrun: there are two parameters: number of successes and target number. Because it isn't clear which one is the most important in a given task, you have to look up the rules for pretty much everything. So despite having a single, easy-to-understand system you end up with a terrible mess, simply because you've been trying to tweak so many things into it without any solid rules.

If there was a clear definition in Shadowrun what successes should mean, and what target numbers should mean, the mechanics might be intuitive. However, as they stand they are simply ad hoc things in a confusing mess. (And it doesn't help that 3rd ed is missing some rules from 2nd and 1st ed, they must have simply been forgotten about as they are assumed at some places, but aren't actually in the book)

I certainly agree with Ron that having different mechanics in a game system is not a bad thing, as long as they don't interfere with each other.

But I'm not sure that it is the right choice in your situation.

Let us assume that there is a single system which resolves both "skills" and magic. Let me say that I'm not convinced that a skill should never be automatically successful. A linguist might become good enough that he has no chance of making a mistake on a problem which would confound a linguistics student. I think when you say that you have no chance of failure on skills, what you probably mean is that there is an unwritten drama mechanic by which the referee gets to decide whether a skill attempt is automatic or requires resolution via the fortune mechanic. The crevice is twelve feet wide...ten feet...eight feet...six, four, two, at some point you're going to say, just step across the thing, you don't need to roll for it. But granted that you want to distinguish the referee's decision that a skill does not require a roll from the determination that the success of magic is automatic, it still can use the same system.

You need to design the system such that it seems there is a reasonable chance of success for the least able and a reasonable chance of failure for the most able at the same task; then you have to include some idea of modifiers to be permitted to shift this. Now, you could throw in a cold hard "automatic failure" number at one end of the scale; but that has the effect of leveling the advantage of ability as the difficulty increases. A better solution is to limit the maximum adjustment, either by stating quite simply that no combination of bonuses may exceed X or by crafting the available bonuses such that having every conceivable one available in the game will not exceed X, and maximum ability plus X will not be automatic success. Then you don't apply that cap to magic, or at least don't apply it the same way. You say that any of these bonuses may not exceed X, and after that bonuses (or penalties) for belief may be added based on this formula. Thus you have one exception to the limit, in that belief, and only belief, can push the chance of success at magic, and only at magic, to automatic.

Now, maybe there are other reasons to want independent systems in your game that aren't apparent from your post; perhaps it's not more than you want the psychological impact on the players of making them think magic is different from everything else. But I don't see a compelling reason to require separate resolution systems based on what you've said.

--M. J. Young

I tend to agree with those who say two seperate systems would be fine, especially if evolving a second system for Magic makes it that much more fantastic.

However, I have never been comfortable with Auto successes because they systems seem to break down a bit when opposition shows up. What if I, as an unbeliever resist your Soul Burn attack (as an example)? What if I, as a believer resist your healing attempt because I do not feel worthy?

Obviously there are situations where rolling the dice is simply rolling the dice and wasting time but most times having some sense of possible failure adds... well to the game.  Failures can be good things as far as actually Role Playing.

Of course if the Universe says there is no resisting certain magics then thats fine because it makes sense within the Confines of that Universe.

SMH
ADGBoss

Quote from: ADGBossHowever, I have never been comfortable with Auto successes because they systems seem to break down a bit when opposition shows up.

I think there are three kinds of "automatic success" that aren't always distinguished but are handled differently.

The first is the sort in which the action is in essence ignored, presumed to function for purposes of resolution. We don't roll t see if you managed to walk across the room, given that there's nothing that would impede your ability to do so. Although that's really drama resolution of default success, it does count as an automatic success action.

The second sort is the type to which you seem to be referring, the "this never fails" sort exemplified, for example, by the D&D Magic Missile spell that "can't miss". The fact that it's defined as absolute creates problems when something opposes it; if somehow the system is built such that the opposing something is also absolute, there is no way to resolve the outcome.

But the third sort is, I think, useful in a game mechanics sense, and in a real way bridges the gap between those things that "can't fail" in the first sort and those things that are resolved normally. These are those things which under current circumstances are so likely to succeed that failure is impossible once all modifiers are in.

Looked at this way, the difference between not rolling to walk across the room and rolling to walk across the room when you are inebriated and the floor is pitching during an earthquake is one of modifiers. You don't roll for the former because your chance of success is so near 100% that we're not going to bother with it; the modified chance of success would show it as automatic. You do roll for the latter because the penalties against your ability to walk in that circumstance are great enough to bring your chance of success below 100%, and resolution becomes necessary.

With this approach, the unstoppable force and the immovable object are what they are not because of some absolute, but because relatively they are this powerful; when they hit each other, each becomes modifiers against the success of the other, and you are pulled down into the realm of resolution mechanics.

Looking at your examples, it may well be that the modifiers for healing or soul burn make them automatic in the vast majority of instances, but your specific disbelief counts against that bringing it back into a resolution roll situation.

--M. J. Young

Hmm, well I had a really, really nice long reply yesterday, snatched away by a power cut.  

So:  looks like the consensus is that it's not inherently a bad thing - but it could be.  At this stage I'm considering a 2 exploding dice bell curve for skills, and a single die system for magic.

On some of the specific points

Quote from: M. J. YoungI think when you say that you have no chance of failure on skills, what you probably mean is that there is an unwritten drama mechanic by which the referee gets to decide whether a skill attempt is automatic or requires resolution via the fortune mechanic.

Couldn't have put it better myself.  That's exactly what I mean.  Better to write that down, rather than leave it unwritten, however, I think.  With that in mind, the concept of a possible failure for any skill role has meaning - If the GM didn't think that there was a question over the result or is wanting to build tension, then there's no point in the roll.  With that in mind, it's probably best scaling everything to the "typical case", not ideal case, giving bonus in ideal situations.  This would mean that an unmodified resolution roll would be the norm.

Quote from: M. J. YoungA better solution is to limit the maximum adjustment, either by stating quite simply that no combination of bonuses may exceed X or by crafting the available bonuses such that having every conceivable one available in the game will not exceed X, and maximum ability plus X will not be automatic success.

It's a temping idea, but I'm not in favour of this approach.  A simple cap on modifers is not something I like - if there are four different factors affecting something, then why do only three count?  In short, I find that unessescarily arbitary.  

The other option doesn't have that problem but it would require the designer to be, essentially, omnipitent.  By which I mean that what happens after you've tuned the whole system, what happens when someone asks about a factor you've not considered?

Quote from: M. J. Young(because) ...  you want the psychological impact on the players of making them think magic is different from everything else

I must admit that that is one of my reasons for considering a pair of resolution systems.

And your example off the third kind of automatic sucess if precisly why I want the cases for automatically working magic to be resolved systematically - and not by the GM fiat as in the case for skills.  Have you been reading my notes? :)

Quote from: Pale FireIf there was a clear definition in Shadowrun what successes should mean, and what target numbers should mean, the mechanics might be intuitive.

I think that's a good comment, and one to bear in mind...

Quote from: Ron EdwardsOne last point: why play your game, instead of Mage? Answer that one carefully ...

Ah, yes.   I've carefully skrited around answearing this one to date, relying on "It'll be better, course!".  I'm not sure if you ment it as a rehtorical question, but it's time to pin that down anyway.  Initial point - I don't think that they are particularly close, no closer than any other pair of games that hold the "genre label" of modern occult.  Just that at an high level of abstraction, they sound similar.

Enlightened will revolve around the idea of crafting the future, and what sort of future that will be.  More specifically - what limitations will be put on the future, and why.  This will be supported by allowing the whole nature of the world to evolve, and what is fantastical and what it normal to change places as this happens.

It will allow for different types of magic to work in fundementally distinct metaphysical manners.  The differences between styles will not be Colour. It won't be balanced.  Some magical styles will be superior practically all the time - there is no way to balance them.

At least that's the plan - if it doesn't work out, then I'll try again, and keep trying till it does.  I'm looking at the plans for a city, and glancing at my lean to, and thinking I've got a long way to go yet.

Stuart

QuoteAt least that's the plan - if it doesn't work out, then I'll try again, and keep trying till it does. I'm looking at the plans for a city, and glancing at my lean to, and thinking I've got a long way to go yet.

Heh.  In the new Knuckduster supplement "cow towns", there's a section on New Babylon.  First theres a picture titled "Plan for New Babylon".  Its a map of the town plan complete with a couple dozen streets, several parks, rail stations, a university, and several hundred carefully labeled lots.

Below it is a picture titled "The actual town of New Babylon" which is a photograph of a single ramshakle falling down shack with the handwritten sign "Saloon" painted on the side.

From now on when I begin a project and people want to know how far I've gotten, I'm going to reply "about as far as New Babylon" :-)

QuoteFrom now on when I begin a project and people want to know how far I've gotten, I'm going to reply "about as far as New Babylon" :-)

So how is that Robot Pirate game coming along... ;-)