Okay, recently I've been working on an arena combat system for a MMORPC that I am sometimes on. I've run a few previous versions of the system there, this particular version is a new approach from a different direction, which I'm hoping will meet with some success. Whether I get players or not is somewhat academic, this is mainly self-absorbed system-design excercize for me with the added bonus possibility that it will attract players or at least discussion.

Aaaanyway. I posted on the mailing list for this project, but there are currently only two people on it, so I don't expect much feedback. And then I realized I could probably post here (legitimately for once) and get actual useful advice.

So, here's the post from my mailing list:

***
Okay. I need some advice on what to call the single variable the
system is based on. Veterans of the original DA will remember this as
"die level", a term which I hated but couldn't think of anything
better at the time. Well, we're going to think of something better
now. For one thing, it's no longer appropriate since the variable is
in 10 point incremements rather than die faces. For another, it's just
a lame name.

Here's the thing. Every character, when playing the Advanced rules,
starts with 50 (for a short battle) or 100 (for a long battle) points.
In most games, these would be called "Hit Points", but I don't really
care for that term either, although I may fall back on it.

I've been calling it "Vitality" in my notes, but as I polish the
rules I'm realizing that doesn't work either. I'm toying with "Will"
but that doesn't really inspire me.

See, these points don't necessarily represent the character's health,
or stamina, or life- although they do. But they also represent the
character's willpower, fighting spirit, morale, energy, commitment to
the fight, etc. DA vets remember my many long winded explanations, I'm
sure.

Basically, as far as the rules of the game are concerned, what the
number represents is how effective the character is at fighting at the
moment. A character at 100 points has a better chance to succeed than
a character at 70 points, and a way better chance than one at 30
points, because a character always rolls a die that's the same size
(number of faces) as their current "points". So a character at 80
points rolls 1d80, whereas a character at 40 points roll 1d40. It's
that "effectiveness scaling" thing I talked about in my first post.

So, the number isn't just how close a character is to losing (by
running out of points) but how effective they are in the fight (by
having a bigger or smaller die to roll). Characters can both gain and
lose points during a fight. This CAN represent physical damage and
healing, but it can also represent tiredness, broken weapons,
exhausted magical energy, etc. in the case of losing points, and
restored fighting spirit, repaired, borrowed, or improvised weapons,
magical transfusions, or whatever in the case of regaining them.

So... I need a catchall term that encompasses "fighting
effectiveness" in general, and can apply to any possible REASONS for a
warrior's fighting effectiveness to increase or decrease, and
preferably that sounds snazzy.

Any suggestions?
***

So.. um... any suggestions?

Thanks!

Dave

In my recent game design I have found this resource invaluable:

http://www.thesaurus.com

Look up all those words you've been considering. You'll find many promising synonyms. Beware popups.

Yep, I use www.thesaurus.com all the time when I'm designing.

I think of the words you offered, Vitality seems to fit most.  I think Vigor would also work.
I'm not familiar with your game at all, but if it happens to be set in WWII, you could call it "Moxie", that was a popular word back then--these days its a delicious beverage people who live in New England drink.

Stability, Gusto, Oomph.

Energy.

Any of these help?  I like the idea of tying in health to how well a character fights!  Good luck to you!

Peace,

-Steve

Hmm. I hand't thought of using the thesaurus, that may be helpful...

It's a mostly fantasy setting, although in my arena any milieu or genre of character is acceptable, so it's got to be a pretty generic term.

Maybe "Stamina"... I don't know. There are a lot of phrases that *almost* fit, but just don't quite do it for me.

Here are the fruits of a quick Thesaurus search or three:

Vitality, Energy, Stamina, Will, Endurance, Spirit, Hit Points, Life, Guts, Power, Constitution, Skill, Drive, Fortitude, Mettle, Nerve, Resolve, Prowess, Ability, Puissance, Health, Condition, Fitness... etc.

Some of these are more fitting, some less, but the main point is that the term I need encompasses ALL of these things, therefore using any one of them would by synechdoche. Unfortunately that's probably going to be impossible to avoid, so I will just need to pick the MOST appropriate one.

A little more background, in case it helps: In the original Digital Arena system, I went hard simulationist, with long lists of Traits and abilities, each with it's own special rules, to try and mechnically mimic every possible "real" effect. Since there's no computer crunching numbers, players had to personally resolve each and ever mechanical conflict (usually I ended up having to do it myself) which needless to say became burdensome in the extreme. Plus it required tons of record keeping, and constant tweaking and balancing of existing Traits, plus trying to come up with new ones and meeting player requests for Traits and keeping it all fair.

A nightmare.

So, the new version has one set of rules that cover everything, every player has the same set of mechanical options available all the time. However, players have total narrative freedom to describe what the mechanics mean in the Shared Imagination Space.

So, when player A attacks player B and succeeds, player B loses 10 "points" from their score. Which not only brings them closer to defeat, but also makes them less effective, since they will be rolling a die that is ten faces "smaller". That's what the game mechanics say. The PLAYERS on the other hand, can describe it however they want- as a wound, as damage to their equipment, as poison, as magical interference, as entanglement, as loss of morale, or fatigue, or whatever they see fit that takes into account the "story so far" of the fight, IE what's already been narrated.

I can't remember how much of this I explained in the original post, so I hope I'm not totally repeating myself. But that's where I'm stuck.

There is richness to be had in choosing a proper term for this (for some fighters it is Soul, or Will, or Vitality, or Bones or whatever) so rather than sacrifice this richness, what if you allowed players to choose whatever name they saw as fit, and add these up for the battle in question? Such as:

Willpower 20
Hatred of Haus Mekios 30
Steelskin 30

Then in a specific battle against a Lord of Haus Mekios, I add those up to 80. You can call this "Battle" or whatever, referencing that is is specific to an instance of a battle. Or, you can simplify further, allowing only a single stat but phrasing it however the players likes. So:

Combat: Willpower (50)

Saying that the stat is generally named "Combat", but allowing the player to define how that is put into the gameworld (Willpower) and the number attached to it.

Hm.

"Combat" is actually a term I hadn't thought of, that might work... although it still sounds too narrow. But since this is a combat game, and combat is pretty much all that's being done, it is very appropriate.

As far as letting everyone name their own... hmm. That bears consideration. But I still need a term to call it in the rules.

You're right about the term bearing the weight of the "color" for this- it's basically the only element of the design that ties together the mechanics and the color of the game. Which explains why it's so crucial to find the "right" word.

The numeric value of this element isn't going to be static though, even from battle to battle. Depending on whether players want a long or short battle they can set the starting value to 100 or 50 respectively. So it's not even really a value that's actually tied to the characters specifically.

thanks for the feedback so far!

FWIW, I believe Trollbabe has just one stat called the "Number", so you can go to something as simepl as that. Refer to is at "the Stat", and have it recorded as "Stat: Endurance" or whatnot.

How about "Steel"?  It kinda plays off of "mettle."

...or Grite, or Force?

Just some ideas.

Nick

Few more:

Presence, Efficacy, Value.

I like that last one especially.

Let us know what you go with!  The suspense is killing me!

-Steve

Still haven't decided... nothing's really grabbed me so far.

nice to see someone else appreciates a little schadenfreude, tho.

Stop worrying so hard, name it something that's close but not perfect, and get on with writing the game. Let your subconscious work on it. Once you realize the perfect word, you'll be only a Find and Replace away from having known it all along.

Oh, I'm not letting it hold me up. Give me some credit, man, pfft.

Of course I just typed up a long post on Free-form combat rules, and the one time I didn't cut and paste into Notepad while drafting, Yahell ate it.

Gawddamn technology.

I think I'm just gonna go with Stamina for now. It's a pretty good fit out of the possible alternatives. If I or somebody comes up with something better down the line, groovy.

Martial Prowess?

Or Prowess

best

Trevis

Dave...

Balls.

Out,
Mike

Okay, I think I've settled on Stamina for this one. The longer I use it, the more it grows on me.

Now, I have another terminology dilemma.

In this game, whenever a player rolls, they are rolling 1dS (where S is their current Stamina), +/- any current bonuses or penalties.

If the player rolls >=S, or =<0, something extra good or extra bad happens, respectively.

In normal game parlance, we all recognize these as "Criticial Success" or "Critical Failure" (many games have their own local terms, but we all know what they mean).

Here's the catch. In this game, you can roll a crit or a botch, and still lose (or win) the roll.

EG, if Avigon is rolling 1d80 and Bertram is rolling 1d60, and Avigon gets a 74 and Bertram gets a 60.. Avigon wins the roll, but Bertram rolled a crit.

So.... since a crit here isn't necessarily a success or failure.... what do I call them?

I guess I can just go with "crit" and "botch", but as you've probably figured out by now, I'm picky about finding the appropriate dialect for each gaming project.

Why do you have to have terms for them at all? Why not simply describe the outcome? This is a computer game, right? If you don't need a meter for it or something you don't have to label it. Or do you have descriptions that come along with the damage like games like Final Fantasy have like "Crit! 43287 HP!"

From another POV what happens mechanically in the situation you've described? The mechanical result may suggest something.

On another note, don't know if you've thought of this, but you're making larger ability levels have less and less crits. Unless there's some adjustment that you're not making clear (might be the case since you indicate that somehow a roll can be out of it's normal range). That is, on a d60 a crit occurs 1 in 60, and for a d100 a crit occurs on a 1 in 100. So lower is better from this POV, counteracting possibly in some way the advantage of having a higher ability level. Why not have the crit range increase as abilities go up instead?

Mike

Some good questions, there, Mike. Let me take a crack at answering them.

Mike wrote:
Why do you have to have terms for them at all? Why not simply describe the outcome? This is a computer game, right? If you don't need a meter for it or something you don't have to label it. Or do you have descriptions that come along with the damage like games like Final Fantasy have like "Crit! 43287 HP!"
From another POV what happens mechanically in the situation you've described? The mechanical result may suggest something.

Mike wrote:
On another note, don't know if you've thought of this, but you're making larger ability levels have less and less crits. Unless there's some adjustment that you're not making clear (might be the case since you indicate that somehow a roll can be out of it's normal range). That is, on a d60 a crit occurs 1 in 60, and for a d100 a crit occurs on a 1 in 100. So lower is better from this POV, counteracting possibly in some way the advantage of having a higher ability level. Why not have the crit range increase as abilities go up instead?

Nev wrote:
If the Attacker's roll is 0 or Lower, the Attacker becomes Off-Balance (a -10% penalty that lasts until they are Steadied by themselves or a comrade).

As for this being a "computer game", well, only insofar as it will be played on a computer. You could play it at a table with minis, but most minis players don't bother describing what the figures are "doing", they just stick to the mechanics and tactics.

The program this will be played on has a primitive dice engine that can't mix die sizes, which limits me somewhat in my designs. It shows characters on the screen in orthagonal view like the later Ultima games (it was written by a couple who worked on Ultima Online), but it doesn't have any built in stat tracking. All of the "game" activity will be parsed by the players themselves.

My earliest design for this game, which enjoyed a brief run of popularity, had a problem where once you were down toward the low end of the scale Stamina wise, the chances of making a comeback were slim to none. Many players expressed a mild despair that the most they could hope to do was drag fights out at this point, but since there was a tiny chance they might still win they didn't want to give up. So, I could have gone with straight +/-5 or +/-10 scaling, and did consider those options for a while. But the +/-10% ensures that weakened players aren't getting screwed by the mechanics. A -10 on a d20 is a hell of a lot more serious than on a d70, frex, while a -2 vs a -7 is a little less of a problem.

So, yeah, I did think of it, and I did it that way on purpose. Also, because you can crit or botch REGARDLESS of whether or not you win the conflict (rolls in this game are more emphatically conflict resolution, whereas the original version was arguably much closer to task res.), the range of potential outcomes to a conflict are broader and have more potential to be less repetitive and therefore more interesting. Or at least that's my hope.

*blink*

I'm certain it's my fault, Mike, but somewhere between your first post and this one, you and I started having two completely different conversations. We are replying to each other's words, but deriving entirely unrelated meanings to them. Wee ^_^
Like I said, I'm certain it's a result of my poor communication, which I will try really hard to remedy here. Incidentally, I tend to become extremely pedantic when trying to explain things, which many people take personally- please don't, it's the only way I can keep track of things in my own head.

Mike wrote:

Nev wrote:
If the Attacker's roll is 0 or Lower, the Attacker becomes Off-Balance (a -10% penalty that lasts until they are Steadied by themselves or a comrade).

If I get you here, the idea is that on the roll in question, the mechanical result is a -10%, but that can be narrated any way one likes. Correct?

Mike wrote:
I'd call that a penalty, then. As in "You rolled a penalty, dude, what form does it take?" Basically any sort of color you give to the term is asking to color a player's idea of what it means. So I'd stick to a technical term here. Botch works, too, but only because of it's play history (that is players know that a botch means you get some penalty, and work out what sort).

Mike wrote:

Nev wrote:
As for this being a "computer game", well, only insofar as it will be played on a computer. You could play it at a table with minis, but most minis players don't bother describing what the figures are "doing", they just stick to the mechanics and tactics.

Ah, Computer Aided Role-Playing (CARP)! I've made several of these in my day.

Nev wrote:
The program this will be played on has a primitive dice engine that can't mix die sizes, which limits me somewhat in my designs. It shows characters on the screen in orthagonal view like the later Ultima games (it was written by a couple who worked on Ultima Online), but it doesn't have any built in stat tracking. All of the "game" activity will be parsed by the players themselves.

I dunno, Dave, I'd get a better program. There are tons available that can do better than what you're describing. Worse case, I can program you up a spreadsheet that can do whatever you like as far as all this (including keeping track of stats if you like). You could use this alongside whatever you're planning on using now if there's some maps or something that you can't export, or some other useful part of the interface. Why have only one tool, especially if it doesn't do what you want?

Mike wrote:

Nev wrote:
My earliest design for this game, which enjoyed a brief run of popularity, had a problem where once you were down toward the low end of the scale Stamina wise, the chances of making a comeback were slim to none. Many players expressed a mild despair that the most they could hope to do was drag fights out at this point, but since there was a tiny chance they might still win they didn't want to give up. So, I could have gone with straight +/-5 or +/-10 scaling, and did consider those options for a while. But the +/-10% ensures that weakened players aren't getting screwed by the mechanics. A -10 on a d20 is a hell of a lot more serious than on a d70, frex, while a -2 vs a -7 is a little less of a problem.

OK, highly confused. First, what I was suggesting is not going to a set figure, but to a percentage. So that seems to agree with what you're saying above. Further, what you have currently is, in fact, a set figure from what I can tell (hence why I suggested changing it to a percentage). But oddest of all, if you want, in fact, to counter the Death Spiral phenomenon you note, actually the plan to have set figures is the best way to do it. So what you seem to have does match your apparent goal.

But the fact is I think that there's something very wrong with the thought process here. Further, the set figure seems to be 1. Which seems to be pretty undramatic. So I think I must be missing something here. In any case, I can give you loads better ways to deal with the Death Spiral phenomenon, especially if we let the computer do some of the calculations.

Mike wrote:

Nev wrote:
So, yeah, I did think of it, and I did it that way on purpose. Also, because you can crit or botch REGARDLESS of whether or not you win the conflict (rolls in this game are more emphatically conflict resolution, whereas the original version was arguably much closer to task res.), the range of potential outcomes to a conflict are broader and have more potential to be less repetitive and therefore more interesting. Or at least that's my hope.

Well that's really not pertinent to what I was talking about, but I agree with your assessment about it being more interesting. That said, I'm not seeing how it's not task resolution. It's just FITM task resolution. As I've said many times, just the potential to get to the end of a some non-negotiated conflict in one roll is not conflict resolution. You have to be able to negotiate the scope of the resolution to make it conflict resolution. That is, you have to be able to agree on what the conflict is. Not all conflicts, even in fights, will be "beat your opponent."

Mike wrote:
Oh, and I'm not seeing any gamism at all here. That is, at least at this point, I haven't seen any tactics that the player can wield, simply a resolution system. If the player's input doesn't have any effect on his chances to win, it's not a system that supports gamism. Much like Hero Quest doesn't support gamism (but is all about the contests). I wouldn't worry about this, however, I'd just stick to what you have and see how it goes until you get to some more playtesting.

Mike wrote:
Anyhow, if I were you, I'd have a spreadsheet that took the character abilities into account, did the die rolling and automatically calculated who got what bonuses, penalties, damage or other adjustments from the outcome of a conflict. BTW, you realize that the same resolution system could easily be applied to any sort of contest, right? You just use a different stat for each contest.

Holy cats lots you wrote there. But I'm going to try to be brief.

First, I think I'm going to need a write up of the system in order to address the "crit" issue. Right now I'm just not getting it. I think there are just parts of the procedure that I haven't seen that are making it impossible to judge how it's going to work. Further, as I said, I think what you have might work for your goals. Also any mode analysis isn't going to make any sense without a write-up where I can see the whole system so let's skip that (as you say, who cares).

Given the nature of the community, go with Crit/Botch. Why not.

I don't think that a spreadsheet has to be complicated, and I only suggested it because it's a tool that's pretty portable and easy to program. I could make you a small VB application if that would suit better. But given your requirements for it to be available to all, I guess that's out of the question anyhow. So don't worry about that, either, I guess.

That about covers it for now, it seems.

Mike

Whew. Been a busy week.

Mike wrote:
First, I think I'm going to need a write up of the system in order to address the "crit" issue. Right now I'm just not getting it. I think there are just parts of the procedure that I haven't seen that are making it impossible to judge how it's going to work. Further, as I said, I think what you have might work for your goals. Also any mode analysis isn't going to make any sense without a write-up where I can see the whole system so let's skip that (as you say, who cares).