Topic: [Viewpoint] Request for Comments
Started by: Aaron Powell
Started on: 6/23/2004
Board: Indie Game Design
On 6/23/2004 at 8:52pm, Aaron Powell wrote:
[Viewpoint] Request for Comments
A friend and I have been working on a set of game mechanics that we're calling Viewpoint. The system's mainly designed to address issues we've had with other sets of rules we've played in the past, with an emphasis on making the rules themselves fun to play. What we have developed so far is all online in wiki format at http://www.viewpointrpg.com and I'm curious to hear what others think about them.
In particular, I'm looking for thoughts on the initiative mechanic as well as damage (on the same page as initiative). I'm happy with both but, obviously, am a little biased. Any other general comments would be welcomed as well.
Thanks.
On 6/23/2004 at 11:00pm, MarktheAnimator wrote:
A few comments :)
Hello,
Your initiative system is pretty good. One thing to keep in mind tho is that the more dice you use, the more average your results will be. A single die will generate numbers that each have an equal chance of occuring, whereas multiple dice will always create a bell curve, with average numbers being the most common. The more dice you use, the more average your results.
So I'd suggest not allowing too many extra dice, or you could use different types of dice for initiative, or apply a base modifier to the initiative roll.
Also, the option to interrupt another's action is good, but perhaps there could be a penalty to waiting? If you are waiting, would it really be possible to interrupt another? You could instead say that a person that is waiting can use his interrupt action to go after the next person. This is just an idea to toss around....
Your damage sytem seems a bit complex. I'd have to play it out to see how it works.
I personally don't like to do a lot of calculating and prefer a straightforward system (my system used to be very complex and you needed a calculator to determine damage). However, your damage system looks good.
I suppose the trick is to put in lots of detail while still preserving the speed of play. So as long as the complexity doesn't slow things down, use it.
I very much like the way you have both injury damage and fatigue damage.
My system used to work this way (10 or 15 years ago). My players never liked to keep track of both however.
Now, my system (for comparison purposes) uses three types of damage.
Injury (with 5 wound levels), trauma (extra hit point damage), and fatigue.
Fatigue isn't part of damage and is used for keeping track of your actions.
Unarmed combat in my game will inflict fatigue and trauma. Injury and trauma is reserved for weapons.
I like the clarity of the way you wrote the system. It's easy to understand and follow.
Your system may not need any tweaking at all. I just thought I'd throw in a few thoughts.
On 6/24/2004 at 8:01pm, Aaron Powell wrote:
Re: A few comments :)
MarktheAnimator wrote: Hello,
Your initiative system is pretty good. One thing to keep in mind tho is that the more dice you use, the more average your results will be. A single die will generate numbers that each have an equal chance of occuring, whereas multiple dice will always create a bell curve, with average numbers being the most common. The more dice you use, the more average your results.
So I'd suggest not allowing too many extra dice, or you could use different types of dice for initiative, or apply a base modifier to the initiative roll.
I was leaning towards an average of perhaps five dice per character. Fewer than that means there will be a need to roll initiative quite frequently, something I'd like to avoid. More simply results in a lot of numbers to keep track of. But that does bring up the issue of how to handle ties. I suppose I could base the tie breaking on the number of initiative dice remaining, with the character with more dice going first; and then further break ties based on highest initiative score.
Also, the option to interrupt another's action is good, but perhaps there could be a penalty to waiting? If you are waiting, would it really be possible to interrupt another? You could instead say that a person that is waiting can use his interrupt action to go after the next person. This is just an idea to toss around....
That would work. I like that. But allow the interrupting character to bid additional dice if he really wants to go before the player he's interrupting. Because I want to encourage the bidding mechanic as much as possible and (1) I rather like it and (2) it lends a level of suspense to combat.
Your damage sytem seems a bit complex. I'd have to play it out to see how it works.
I personally don't like to do a lot of calculating and prefer a straightforward system (my system used to be very complex and you needed a calculator to determine damage). However, your damage system looks good.
I suppose the trick is to put in lots of detail while still preserving the speed of play. So as long as the complexity doesn't slow things down, use it.
I very much like the way you have both injury damage and fatigue damage.
My system used to work this way (10 or 15 years ago). My players never liked to keep track of both however.
I don't think I actually have it written up in the damage rules section yet (it's mentioned in the design philosophy, though), but fatigue is meant to be totally optional. It's a way to add a level of complexity/realism to damage resolution, but it can easily be dropped. Still, from my limited playtesting at the moment, fatigue is pretty quick, as you can actually record it before the damage dice are rolled since it's always equal to the number of dice rolled, independent of result. And I plan to have a nice little track for it with checkboxes on the character sheet to make this even faster.
Now, my system (for comparison purposes) uses three types of damage.
Injury (with 5 wound levels), trauma (extra hit point damage), and fatigue.
Fatigue isn't part of damage and is used for keeping track of your actions.
Unarmed combat in my game will inflict fatigue and trauma. Injury and trauma is reserved for weapons.
That's similar to what I'm going for, in that most unarmed attacks will have very low damage levels (i.e., they will end up having to beat high target numbers to cause wounds). However, those attacks will roll a higher number of dice, so they'll inflict a greater amount of fatigue.
I like the clarity of the way you wrote the system. It's easy to understand and follow.
Thank you. It's important to me that it be easy to read, so I'm glad you found that to be the case.
Your system may not need any tweaking at all. I just thought I'd throw in a few thoughts.
I appreciate it. You've given me some good stuff to think about regarding initiative, and I'll post an update here when I have it worked out a bit more.
Thanks again,