Hi all, this is my first post, so an introduction is in order. My name is Luka*, I've been playing and GMing rpgs for 10 years or so and this sentence reads like something out of alcoholix anonymous.

The game mechanic I'd like to discuss a bit is currently not meant to be published. I'm "developing" it for chapter two of my current campaign, possibly it will see free distribution via a website if I'll be satisfied with it, but beyond that... *shrug*.

Elements are drawn from the oldish Alternity game (which had far too many die rolls) and from D&D (which has far too many rules and is generally rather silly IMO), other elements are drawn from my experience of my GM style (rules-middling, leaving players a lot of initiative, emphasis on world-simulation) and my players style (world-sim, enjoy bloody cinematic combat, etc.). Anyway, see the next post for more infor.

*Bandari is derived from my name via a word game. Not important.

Prologue Chapter 1 of my campaign took place in the late bronze age, just prior to the invention of iron weaponry (the players had a hand in it). The players were all nobles, land-holders and slave-owners looking to make their way in the world based loosely on the late 2nd millenium BC Mesopotamia. Chapter 1 ended in June due to the holiday season and time constraints.

Prologue mechanic In chapter 1 we used D&D 3rd edition starting the characters at 5th level and running them until 8th level, which approximately covers the power level I enjoy GMing most (and which is consequently the most enjoyable for my players - you know, happy GM, happy players). All players were multiclassed aristocrats (4 levels) / whatever.
Here is the obvious crux of the matter - I find D&D rather fun - at about 5th to 8th level. Above 8th level the game gets too complicated, below 5th level the characters are too weak to be really "competitive".

Iron Age Chapter 2 (starts in October) will take place about 200 years after chapter 1 - the players will play either nobles on the side of the "old order" - that is, the bronze-age empires and city-states - or nobles on the side of the "new order" of migrating iron-using trader-warriors (think the Aryans, Hyksos or Dorians). Whichever way it happens, the game will start with a bloody battle and progress from there. I'll let the players pretty much decide the outcome by also choosing which side to join with their troops... so they get a feeling that they do impact the outcome of history.

Chapter 2 basic mechanics
The basic conflict resolution I plan to use is based on the fact that I like d20 dice (they're pretty) and one basic precept:

1. in any conflict there is an Active and a Passive principle - one attacks, the other defends. Each conflict will be decided by one roll by the Active principle which will also determine how (un)succesful the attack was. This is something that always bothered me about D&D - why don't you roll for defense, when you roll saving throws? It's inconsistent!

1. a. note of course, that it is possible for two or more simultaneous and opposite conflicts to occur. As in a competition. In that case more rolls take place - one by each character in competition.

1. b. the mechanic will be ripped and simplified from Alternity. I.e. low rolls = good. Graded success. Characters will have different skills (I'm not trying to define them here and now) at which they will range from poor to excellent.

Skill level : the numbers
Poor : 1 / 2 / 4
Avg: 2 / 4 / 8
Good: 3 / 6 / 12
Exc: 4 / 8 / 16
etc.

What the numbers mean: to succeed a character rolls a d20. Any roll equal to or lower than the 3rd number is a success. If the roll is =< than the 2nd number it's a good success. =< than the 1st number it's a great success.

Example:

Borsch the Barbarian is a great axeman (4/8/16) and strikes at a peasant. What he rolls on a d20 determines if he hits the peasant and how well he hits him.
Roll : result
17-20 : Borsch misses the peasant who ducks away into the bushes
9-16 : Borsch hits the peasant a solid blow
5-8: Borsch hits the peasant a mighty blow
1-4: Borsch chops the peasant in half

1. c. Circumstances can modify a roll. Ex: -5 = really easy, +5 = rather difficult. This is mostly up to the GM and not really important right now.

Chapter 2 Character generation
I plan the characters to live fast and heroic and die in blood and gore. This means they have to have a bit of background that is memorable and be quite quick to generate. The players will play (various) descendants of their Chapter 1 characters.

The characters will have skills - no attributes (who needs them?). I thought that card based generation might be rather interesting, where a player would simply draw a set of cards that tell a characters story up to now as well as several "great potentials" that he can save and would let him narrate heroic deeds he does later.

All other skills would be average (2 / 4 / 8) - meaning the character would usually succeed in favorable circumstances (bonus -5 and better) but fail under pressure.

Example of generation:

The player draws 8 cards.

Hearts - skills linked to life, reproduction, children, livestock, health, whatever... (determines what the character is good or great at)
Spades - skills linked to death, war, combat, whatever... (determines what the character is good or great at)
Diamonds - potential successes (situations where the hero will be able to shine - i.e. take over narration from the GM)
Clubs - failures and potential failures (the character's failings and potential failings - could include a heroic death card, or whatever)

And then let the player use 5 points to buy up his skills (1 point for a good skill, 2 for a great skill, 3 for an amazing skill (5/10/20) - the buying is cumulative.

And that's more or less it.

This would be the basis of the system - fast, descriptive card based character generation (i.e. the great axeman, the mighty lover, the builder of tall buildings, the fast runner, the canny trader, the one-armed) and a relatively simple (and lethal) system for conflict resolution.

I've tried to condense the "basics" of both elements into a short post - I hope it wasn't too confusing.

Luka,

If you are looking for feedback on one-off mechanics and similar items that do not comprise whole games, or are not meant to be part of a publishing effort, you would have better luck with the RPG-Create mailing list, located on Yahoo! Their main discussion focus is generally mechanical issues rather than full games, while the Forge's focus is on designs meant for publication (review this forum's sticky topics).

GM: The mighty army of Agonik the Seventh, Black Snake and Guardian of the Sigil of On, stands just a samurian mile away, arrayed in ranks with glinting spears and fierce painted shields. Their chariots hold their flanks. In the centre are the Brothers of Agony, the personal guard of the Black Snake himself, with their blood red and blue feathers.

Alfred (Lord Borman): I survey my grim-faced Sannites and satisfied at their readiness go to my liege king Pradin at the front of the Izarian spearmen.

Bob (Lord Keleb): Me too.

Charlie (Lord Matheur): Me too.

GM: King Pradin the Second welcomes you to his council with high sounding words, but you are certain the young king also looks forward to your wise council.

Lord Borman: Sire, the Sannites are ready. The new long spears will hold off their chariots and my archers will not leave them fresh-faced for long.

Lord Keleb: The Axes of the North grow restless and the priests of Samakuk have augured us a great victory. We must strike hard, though this southern usurper depends upon... (to GM: he's using Jardi chariots, right?)

GM: Yeah, Jardi. Looks like he has about 150 chariots

...depends upon the fierce desert Jardi, our gods are the stronger and shall not desert us.

Lord Matheur: Sire, before we join battle I should challenge a champion of their side to single combat! As your paladin, I am sure the holy blood of the North will not fail us!

GM (King Pradin): Lord Matheur, your bravery is an example to us all! I shall order a Herald Sister forward immediately, to challenge the cowardly Agonik's troops.

GM: A Herald Sister, dressed in the blue and white robes of peaceful conduct crosses the grassy battlefield to the other side, where she conveys the challenge. A roar goes up from the other side.

Lord Keleb: Our troops roar in response! We let them know, we've got twice the lungs their scrawny Jardi mercenaries possess!

Lord Matheur: "Sire, they have accepted the challenge!" Matheur dons his bronze helm with bright red plume, buckles on his large bronze shield with its depiction of the demon Turan and takes his heavy iron war spear, "Gutbiter". He mounts his chariot and his driver takes him to the middle of the battlefield.

GM: A mighty warrior strides forward from the other side and their cheers grow louder as he mounts the Black Snake chariot, before the royal charioteer takes him forward. His cuirass gleams in the sun and twin black horns rise from his helm to embrace a solar disc. Behind his square shield he holds two throwing spears and at his belt is buckled a cruelly curved southern sword.

Lord Matheur: I dismount and greet the other warrior, "Ho, Blackhorn, mine augurers shall soon read your guts and find the omens ill for you and yours!"

GM: Your warriors cheer wildly, but the Blackhorn only laughs as he steps from his king's chariot. "My spears shall make sure that the head-shrinkers will have hard work, filling the new holes in that empty head of yours!" His followers laugh uproriously.

Lord Borman: I order my men to start striking their shields, so the two show-offs stop taunting and get fighting. "We're getting impatient, there are crops to till and women to ride! Get it on, you laggards!"

Lord Matheur: I ready myself to face the Blackhorn.

GM: He readies a throwing spear and faces you calmly.

initiative is determined, possibly by using some skill such as speed. Matheur rolls lower and goes fürst.

Lord Matheur: Holding my shield up I lunge towards my enemy...

GM: He throws his spear before you reach him...

Spear (3/6/12); rolls a 5. A good hit

GM: ...and it pierces your shield, wounding your arm and sending hot blood splashing to the dusty ground below.

Lord Matheur: I spurt on regardless, "First blood may be yours! But first gut will be mine!"

Spear (4/8/16); rolls a 2, +2 for the wounded arm = 4. A great hit

GM: ...he's down

Lord Matheur: I drive my spear in past his shield and through his armor as he attempts to draw his sword. It's tip sticks out his back and his eyes go wide as I twist it violently, the sharp flanges shredding his entrails.

GM: As he crumbles to his knees black blood and bile fall from his mouth and you pull his guts out along with your spear. "Ye gods, the omens are poor!" he utters, holding his guts in his hands, before falling face first to the ground. A great cheer goes up from your side while a grim hush falls on the enemy's lines.

...

greyorm wrote:
Luka,

If you are looking for feedback on one-off mechanics and similar items that do not comprise whole games, or are not meant to be part of a publishing effort, you would have better luck with the RPG-Create mailing list, located on Yahoo! Their main discussion focus is generally mechanical issues rather than full games, while the Forge's focus is on designs meant for publication (review this forum's sticky topics).

Bandari wrote: OK - thanks! If you're still interested in this game - let me know. I do plan on finishin it, but as for publishing... I don't think I have the kind of time or resources that would take. I view games as interesting projects and a fun hobby - not necessarily something I'd publish though (the fact that my language is spoken by only about 2 mil people would also tend to discourage publishing).

Bandari,

I'm possibly being dense, probably even, but what exactly is it you'd like help with?  You seem to have lots of ideas already for how you want your game to run, what's the problem you're struggling with that you'd like to bounce around and develop?

If you can crystallise it I'll do what I can to comment and hopefully be of some use.

Luka wrote: 1. in any conflict there is an Active and a Passive principle - one attacks, the other defends. Each conflict will be decided by one roll by the Active principle which will also determine how (un)succesful the attack was. This is something that always bothered me about D&D - why don't you roll for defense, when you roll saving throws? It's inconsistent!

Technically, at least in D&D 3E, your defense is equivalent to a Take 10 action. You get 10 + modifiers for AC, etc. Also, Wizards published combat variants where you do roll your defense instead of just getting 10 + mods.

The extra roll doesn't add a lot to play, in my opinion. I assume the designers agreed and left it out for that reason. It's another point of contact that slows down play.

[Dammit. Should have previewed before saving. Sorry. Anyway.]

Welcome to the Forge, Luka. Almost forgot that. What's your native language, anyway?

I'd like to see more about your card-based character generation. I can't see how you're mapping a card to actual scores. Tell me more!

You might peek at the Trapped! game linked in my signature. I use card-based chargen, conflict resolution, and idea generation.

I read your example of play (structured design). You seem to be glossing over a bunch of stuff, and maybe it'd make more sense to me if I knew Alternity. A bunch of questions:

How does the GM determine that the enemy can throw a spear before Lord Matheur reaches him?
How does the GM translate a "good hit" into "it pierces your shield, wounding your arm"?

greyorm wrote:

Bandari wrote: OK - thanks! If you're still interested in this game - let me know. I do plan on finishin it, but as for publishing... I don't think I have the kind of time or resources that would take. I view games as interesting projects and a fun hobby - not necessarily something I'd publish though (the fact that my language is spoken by only about 2 mil people would also tend to discourage publishing).

Luka,

When I say "Publish" I don't mean "produce a glossy hardbound book that is sold in a bookstore." I'm using the Forge definition of "publish": which includes a book in the game store, a PDF or HTML on the Internet, a direct mailing, or anything else that is readily available to the public.

If you're doing any of those things, and if this is meant to be a game in and of itself (not just an add-on to some other rules (like D&D)), then you're more than welcome to discuss it here. The card-mechanic you are using looks particularly interesting.

(Also note, things are going to be quiet around here for a week -- due to GenCon happening and everyone being away).

Adam wrote:

Luka wrote: 1.

Technically, at least in D&D 3E, your defense is equivalent to a Take 10 action. You get 10 + modifiers for AC, etc. Also, Wizards published combat variants where you do roll your defense instead of just getting 10 + mods.

The extra roll doesn't add a lot to play, in my opinion. I assume the designers agreed and left it out for that reason. It's another point of contact that slows down play.

Adam wrote:
[Dammit. Should have previewed before saving. Sorry. Anyway.]

Welcome to the Forge, Luka. Almost forgot that. What's your native language, anyway?

I'd like to see more about your card-based character generation. I can't see how you're mapping a card to actual scores. Tell me more!

You might peek at the Trapped! game linked in my signature. I use card-based chargen, conflict resolution, and idea generation.

I read your example of play (structured design). You seem to be glossing over a bunch of stuff, and maybe it'd make more sense to me if I knew Alternity. A bunch of questions:

Adam wrote:
[Dammit. Should have previewed before saving. Sorry. Anyway.]
A bunch of questions:

a. How does the GM determine that the enemy can throw a spear before Lord Matheur reaches him?
b. How does the GM translate a "good hit" into "it pierces your shield, wounding your arm"?

I think you're copping out on the rules. If System were just "common sense" and "storytelling," we wouldn't need any rules at all, would we?  Granted, I don't have a lot of information about your game to go on, but here's why I think that.

Your game seems to be a spin-off of D&D 3E, which is a pretty coherent Gamist game. That is, it's about giving players a chance to Step On Up and show their stuff to other players, through clever strategic character generation choices and by clever tactical choices during play. You said that you want your game to feel like mid-level D&D.

Your players are going to want to make the same kind of tactical choices as they did in D&D, if you set their expectations the way you seem to be going. That means they'll need some system for determining distance, range, movement, and so on.

When you play D&D 3E, do you use miniatures or maps? If, in 3E, Lord Matheur was 25' away from his enemy, you would determine if the enemy could throw his spear at Matheur by an initiative roll (winner acts first, and Matheur can probably move 30' and attack in the same turn). If the distance was 35', things would be different. Matheur might have to win initiative and charge (double movement plus attack) to avoid getting attacked. If the distance was 10' and Matheur had a longspear, he might get an attack of opportunity when the enemy initiated a ranged attack. See what I mean?

Are you shooting for a different kind of feel?

Adam wrote:
I think you're copping out on the rules. If System were just "common sense" and "storytelling," we wouldn't need any rules at all, would we?  Granted, I don't have a lot of information about your game to go on, but here's why I think that.

Your game seems to be a spin-off of D&D 3E, which is a pretty coherent Gamist game. That is, it's about giving players a chance to Step On Up and show their stuff to other players, through clever strategic character generation choices and by clever tactical choices during play. You said that you want your game to feel like mid-level D&D.

Your players are going to want to make the same kind of tactical choices as they did in D&D, if you set their expectations the way you seem to be going. That means they'll need some system for determining distance, range, movement, and so on.

When you play D&D 3E, do you use miniatures or maps? If, in 3E, Lord Matheur was 25' away from his enemy, you would determine if the enemy could throw his spear at Matheur by an initiative roll (winner acts first, and Matheur can probably move 30' and attack in the same turn). If the distance was 35', things would be different. Matheur might have to win initiative and charge (double movement plus attack) to avoid getting attacked. If the distance was 10' and Matheur had a longspear, he might get an attack of opportunity when the enemy initiated a ranged attack. See what I mean?

Are you shooting for a different kind of feel?

Bandari wrote:
Let's see - the feel I'm shooting for is a heroic, descriptive, and often tragic (deadly) game of drama, politics, intrigue, warfare, slavery... currently in the iron age.

Adam wrote:

Bandari wrote:
Let's see - the feel I'm shooting for is a heroic, descriptive, and often tragic (deadly) game of drama, politics, intrigue, warfare, slavery... currently in the iron age.

And then, the question you have to ask yourself is, "What about my game makes all that happen?" Don't expect it to just happen because you want it to. The system has to support it and reward it.

You mention a lot of things up there, but you left out personal combat, unless you meant to roll it into "warfare." When combat occurs in your game, is it usually part of a greater battle? I ask because combat in warfare is very different than one-on-one melee. Certainly there is chance for the latter in the former, but most combat games focus on the latter and ignore the larger issues of war.

I think you need to design carefully to get "heroic" and "often tragic (deadly)" in the same game. It sounds like you're saying that characters die often, but for heroic causes. The system must support that, or it won't happen. How will you reward the player for the honorable or heroic death of his character? In a lot of games, death of the character is the worst thing that can happen to a player. Players do everything they can to avoid it, including ignoring the rules.

And of "drama, politics, intrigue, warfare, slavery," only one of those is combat-oriented. I recommend that you stop worrying about the combat system and start designing rules that will handle politics, intrigue, drama, and slavery. If you can manage that, you'll have a game people will line up to play. If you just have a combat system with some text that tells players to add in all the drama and politics themselves, it'll be a bad D&D clone.

Definitely read the Fantasy Heartbreaker articles in the Articles section linked at the top. These should inspire you rather than crush you, honestly. You have been playing D&D and it isn't satisfying you. Instead of trying to "drift" the 3E rules, you are striking out to create a new game that does what you want. Cool. Now make it do what you want. You're carrying in a lot of baggage from your D&D experience. Try to put that aside. Your game should look almost nothing like D&D because you don't want D&D. You don't want a Gamist game. Drama, intrigue, politics, slavery!  D&D doesn't do those things particularly well, really.  When it does, it's cuz the DM and players were clever, but System Matters.  Design a system that does what you want.