Howdy,
I'm new here, but I've been designing RPGs for a while now.  One of my projects I've been working on (in one form or another) for two years, and I'm starting a website for it. Put simply, it's a generic system (I'm still working on a setting) that puts heavy emphasis on mathematical purity.  When I say "purity" I mean that one point that goes some place should be no more powerful than the same point put somewhere else.  I believe that having a perfectly balanced system can greatly boost the amount of focus people put into the game by taking away player-to-player imbalances and easing differences between encounter difficulties (but perfect this ain't; I know of a few issues).  The problem is, there seems to be a lot of math still visible to potential players.  Most of the moves must be created by players right now, and while this adds hugely to character versatility, it means that players who aren't good at adding up data have to ask for extra help. MoBSystem seems simple to me as its designer, but I don't know how it looks to outsiders.  I haven't finished the site yet, but there's a lot to say.
I guess my question is, how can I, and should I, simplify the math players have to do so that the system is more fun to play?
To illustrate, let's say player Bill decides to create a medieval stereotype character, Xandreliadosuriliorex 'do Hurdygurdy the Ranger.  He wants to have a new move, let's say Leaf Swirl, that blinds the opponent while the Ranger dashes towards it.  The player must consider the move's rank, the move's traits (Accuracy, Damage, Status), and any special powers (movement, elements, shift-states, counter-states, unusualness, or anything else discussed at the basics page).  Then, Bill assigns values to those parts he figures the move needs (At rank 4, Acc 130, Status Blind6, Damage 0, Near 60, etc.), and does this either for each rank manually, or by assigning a pattern (Rank 1 has Acc 70, Rank 2 has 20 more Acc, Rank 3 has another 20, etc.).  Then there's the Style choice and the cost calculation, involving the difference between rank amount (rank amount is 30 for rank 1, 60 for rank 2, 100 for rank 3 and there isn't a lot of rhyme or reason to the pattern I found, but this is the only one that works) and the average damage (or average effect including damage and status) of the attack. As long as patterns are used, the system scales indefinitely (from 1 to 999 or up), but figuring out, say, rank 374 will be more difficult.  The thing is, this is only required at character creation.  I see a couple of solutions:
1. Make a huge list of moves that cover everything,
2. Let players create any move they want and make all kinds of guidelines,
3. Write a port of an existing rules set (Here's looking at you, d20 SRD),
or 4. change the way things work and completely alter the system.
Right now, 4 would be the most difficult, and there have got to be issues with 3, but 1 or 2 both seem feasible.  The thing is, for option 1 the moves would be campaign-specific, and for option 2, some players might be turned off by the work.  Each character might have about 6-12 moves in total, depending on certain rules I haven't developed yet, but it would have to be the same for every character.
If anyone can help here, thank you in advance.
Thomas (Tommy) Ettinger

I've done bits of this for my own systems that I've tinkered with.  The result has been a combination of one and two.  Examples for people who didn't want to do math, and rules for people who did.

Unfortunately they didn't get much play.  However, in all three cases where they did (different system each time), new players were extremely fast with it once the hurdle was jumped.

Naturally, there were imbalances that I did not see initially, but, live and learn.

I think this idea is very interesting, and worthy of a deeper look.

First, I feel intrigued about this idea of mathematical (I would prefer: arithmetical) purity. On a first glance, however, I think this is only a chimera. Not because of the arithmetic level, where everything is clearly zero-sum, but on the semantic and logic level. From this last two levels, imbalance is bound to arise, quite simply because that is in the nature of every system. The amount of complexity in your system makes it more probable that imbalance appears sooner than later.

I tried to get the basics, but it seems you have no resolutions mechanics there, so it's hard for me to understand how this points would work. From what I can gather, it seems certain combinations are more effective against certain others, and then imbalance arises form the arbitrary elements the opposing force introduces.

Second, it also intrigues me your reason for going into this approach. I agree that the idea of balance enhances people focus on the game; however, don't you think the amount of arithmetics involved would diverge from said focus? Again, I say this without understanding the resolution system, so maybe I'm far off.

Third, I think the easiest way to approach this calculations is simply to use a computer. You could, for example, make character creation available online or with downloadable software. It means significantly less work than making a huge list, gets the mathematics out of everyone's head, and you can imbue the guidelines into the software. Also, I wouldn't mind very much about turning players of by the math. If it's very important to the system, then those gamers are not really your target audience in the first place.

Last, I would heavily recommend thinking about number 4 a lot. It would give you a lot on perspective on how you do things already if you try a new approach, and then compare both. Genetic game design, if you will.

Hope that helps you.

Xeriar, I like your idea, and I'm glad to hear that it "clicked" for players. I think that making a list of moves that covers everything a GM needs would make the most sense, because he can't be busy creating a monster's moves every time the need for it comes up.  If players get to create their own moves though, I think that would work better for them.
Sabbatregent, I should have mentioned the resolution.  Points are actually points per turn that are used to fuel moves.  A rank 1 move has anywhere from 10 Acc and 90 Effect to 50 Acc and 50 Effect and vice versa.  In all cases, the move costs 30 points.  Behind the scenes (I did this so players don't have to add up 156 and 891 repeatedly), the moves are not equivalent (the first has average effect 9, the middle has average effect 25), so in move creation you subtract the average effect from the rank amount (30 - 9 or 30 - 25) to get how much it boosts the Special Gauge.  So, back to resolution.  You roll a d10 or more preferably a d20, and if it is lower than the percentile accuracy of the move (70 Acc gets a hit on 1-14, 160 Acc gets 1 hit, then another on 1-12), it hits.  The thing is, defensive moves can reduce the Acc of oncoming attacks before the roll is made. This is called Avoid, and parallel "shift-states" exist for Damage and Status (Protect and Barrier respectively). So, you count in all shift-states as they alter the move (Acc 70 Damage 40 Status Doom4 against a target with Avoid 30 Protect negative 20 Barrier 3 becomes Acc 40 Damage 60 Status Doom1), then roll to hit, put Damage on the target, put Status on a target, then shift-states and counter-states. You then lower your points in the Style that you were using to fuel that move and raise your Special Gauge by the amount you calculated at move creation. Damage takes away from the target's Protect, which is typically very large, and ends up getting whittled down by attacks.  Status effects can lower ability scores (which are just moves that happen automatically and provide offensive or defensive effects), damage, or subtract from the points that allow players to use moves.  Now, shift-states do not alter the costs of moves, even though they may affect the average effect of a move by a lot or a little depending on the move in question.  Even though this is an uncertain factor, there should (in theory) be enough variation in moves to balance out any problems.
To answer your second point, I think the calculations do take away from focus at first, but as players adjust to the game they might not see the data anymore, just that Rangers hit often when they wield two weapons and this is a game mechanic.
To answer the third point, I've been thinking about a PHP bot to moderate games and perform all calculations for online play. This one seems to be pretty difficult right now, but maybe I'll finish it someday.
I don't know if I could completely change the system without losing access to most of what I've worked on, but I could try to simplify costs and Avoid/Protect/Barrier calculation, I guess. Still, Avoid and all those are just like extra hp meters in other games, so it can't be that horrible, can it?
Just thinking about it,
Thomas (Tommy) Ettinger

Well, no I have a better picture. Thanks for the clarification. It's seems really interesting, and it does take into account several factors in a single roll. An AP example would be quite long, however.

Getting back to the original question: Consider two starting characters, built with the same amount of points for maneuvers. Since the system balances all points equally, who would win in a single fight?, and what would be the factors that determine the winner? For example, let's say a Ranger against a plain Fighter.

I didn't read the replies, but here is my suggestion.
Both 1 and 2.

Ok, so players can make anything they want and you've got all the rules, that's awesome. (Good for A type players) Then, you have a whole bunch of things premade so somebody can go "Ranger+Leaf Swirl+Wolf Pet + Duel Wielding + Down Thrust." (Good for B type players. )

Also, from personal experience, character creation takes too much time for most systems, so keep it as short as possible. Luckily, having premade moves is an excellent way of staying true to that rule.

Thomas,

When I see something about there being evocatively named special moves in a game, I'm instantly interested.

However, the amount of math you present seems awfully complicated to me. Maybe it would be different if I was mathematically inclined, but I'm not. Truth be told, looking at your second post, I have trouble even focusing my eyes on it. It seems many times more complicated than d20 - and in d20, the major portion of prep is working out the numbers. It's even much more difficult on the GM's side, as he usually needs to work out more than one non-player character for each session, while the players create only one character each, at the start of the game.

It's very bothersome, as it's time that could be spent in a fun way instead (e.g. thinking up the comboes themselves rather than calculating stuff, or simply playing the game).

Basically, what I see looks overly complex, and I'd advice streamlining the game. If you're bothered that there might be a problem with it yourself (and you obviously are, hence this thread), then the problem most probably is there, and it demands action.

I suggest checking out Zodiac Final Fantasy RPG for a pretty fun system of creating special abilities from a number of pre-defined components. E.g. you take a Power Attack lvl 3 as the base for your ability, you add Fire element option, you add random target option (there's a limit of two options per technique), you add some descriptive color and voila, Magma Strike in no time. It might be inspiring to you.

Also, I think you can benefit from considering some things:

-You want to have "the purity" in your game, but in order for a point in X to be exactly as valuable as a point in Y, the system would have to ascertain that both X and Y are equally useful, and usefull equally often. So, situations that call for X should occur as often as situations that call for Y. If the game is very combat focused for example, and you include elemental powers and weaknesses, unless the group encounters opponents weak against the given element more or less as often as foes weak against another thing. Also, if a combat focused game includes many stats that are used in combat, some parameters will most probably be more useful as others (e.g. it might be like this: regardless if you can trade 1 point of, say, Power for 5 points of, say, Speed, every additional point of Power can matter, while Speed is not needed past a certain value).

-Do you really need the level of granularity you have? Working with smaller numbers is usually easier and faster than working with 1-999 scale. And often, only a small part of the scale is explored at all in the game - e.g. if PCs advanced one step per session on average, they'd have to play for years to cover a substantial portion of the scale. Sometimes, the increase is illusory too, as higher numbers on the sheet probably mean more difficult challenges during the session, so it evens out.

(Actually, I have an idea - what if player characters' stats were always very close to zero, only to allow variations inside the group, and instead, as the group advances and changes the rest of the world was sliding up or down the scale, as appropriate?)

-A game so complex needs a very thorough playtesting. It's difficult to write a working game without tossing out some ideas in the process and reworking some portion of rules, sometimes doing things from scratch. It's always a lot of work, but the amount of work and writing time that needs to be invested in the development always raises along with the level of complexity. In short, make sure you're ready for the investments achieve your goals - if not, either abandon the goals or re-adjust them.

Hi Mr T (I don't know the rest of your first name :P )

Are you sure you want all moves to be equal, or all players rights to affect the game world to be equal? For example, with player rights, one player could be playing a lamo little hobbit, and the other player is playing a kick ass high born ranger. Clearly neither of them want to have equal powers. However, say you have screen time points and BOTH players have an equal amount - they spend these to get focus time with their character. Radically different character power levels, perfectly equal game play/screen time rights. Along with screen time, there are other area's where exactly the same thing can be done.

Your thoughts?

sabbatregent, good question.  If a plain Fighter enters combat with a Ranger of some kind, the advantage is first going to be with the Player Character, if either is one.  Then, let's say the Fighter has lower Accuracy and Evasion, much higher Attack and Defense, lower Magic and Resist, and higher Health.  The ranger will hit more often, and if he uses low-accuracy moves will statistically deal more damage, and his higher Magic will inflict greater Status effects, thus crippling the Fighter in the long run.  However, the Fighter will have greater HP, thus giving him marginally more staying power in the event that the Ranger uses damaging moves (less likely; Rangers focus on natural poisons, traps and archery/pinning moves).  It will probably be the Ranger that succeeds, but if the Fighter gets on an early lucky streak, the Ranger is toast.
David, All right, a mix of A and B seems to be the consensus.  I agree with all the points you made.  Plus, I would definitely write up the Ranger you described given the time.
Filip, how about this.  I could write a simple Javascript program that keeps track of and performs all calculations given the factors, thus drastically simplifying/speeding up the busy work.  I looked at Zodiac FF RPG, and the math on it doesn't look terribly "easy" either, but I like the attack option idea.  But to answer your points, the first thing is moves are not equal all the time.  You may want a more accurate, lower-damage move as a finisher against dangerous foes with very low HP, or an inaccurate high damage move against high-HP enduring enemies.  The second point is, the system probably should never reach 999 or even 30.  The thing is it can. If you really need a "God Mode" where players can become phenomenally powerful with the aid of the Gods, or if they have...a giant robot or...something, they can have it without changing the entire system. 
Callan, I've never really considered a player wanting to play a "lamo" character, and I've set the system accordingly.  That player could be stronger defensively (the point of the Res ability), or have fantastic Specials or better items/organizational ties (I may be small, but I control a crime syndicate that rules Gotham!). Screen time points I'm not terribly familiar with, but they help balance the time each player spends as the focus of the group, right? So in theory, all characters are pretty much equivalent, and if one takes too much time then he/she can be forced to "lose a turn" or something later (by being a bigger, more important threat earlier, the enemies logically hit him/her with Status effects to weaken him/her).  Oh, and call me Tommy.
Wow, a lot of Ranger examples. Thanks for all your speedy replies (the Forge is great),
Thomas (Tommy) Ettinger

Thanks for the reply, Thomas. I have one follow up question:

Given that you can, with some degree of accuracy, what kind of character would win in a fight, I would really have to ask what does balance means in this case. Some of the points alloted were more powerful and effective than others. For instance, low-accuracy seems to be better in the example, so not all points are really equal. I Do I get this right?

And as a minor problem: it's kind of counterintuitive that the Fighter is the most likely to lose in a physical fight against a Ranger. You may want to take that into account when thinking about intra player balance.

Thomas,

Welcome to the Forge! :)

This is a lot of math indeed. I'm not sure using planetary bombing with trillions of damage points on your basics page is a good introductory example :)

Here are my questions (the first one is just an extension/rephrasing of what other people have brought up):

1) If all points spent are equal, doesn't that take the fun away from building your own moves? After all, there would be no payoff for spending time learning the system and coming up with more potent moves.

2) Once the characters have their moves down, the GM faces the following issue (and this pertains to D&D and other specialization games as well): Does she create opponents who are weak to the created moves, or strong against them, or what?  That is, if there's no ability to change moves, make up combos, or otherwise be creative during a conflict, and the GM has unlimited resources, the effectiveness of any move created really ends up hinging on the GM's decisions, not the players'.

Wow, a lot of responses!
sabbatregent, with a low-accuracy, high-effect move (10 acc, 90 damage, let's say), then you will deal (on average) 9 points of damage.  If the opponent has negative Avoid (as the Ranger's high Precision score would cause), then that move becomes many times more powerful (negative 20 Avoid means it becomes a 30 acc 90 damage move, averaging 27 damage).  On the other hand, if the opponent has positive Avoid, then the attack will miss without doing anything but lower Avoid by 10.  Low accuracy moves are simply higher-risk moves; they could do a lot more or a lot less depending on the situation.  About the Ranger/Fighter combat, because this system has more abstract moves (without a grid, you place or trigger traps in a different way from when you do have one), the Ranger is considered not to have fully entered direct physical combat; that's what the higher Evasion means in general.  Similarly, the Fighter is expected to be more reliant on his armor and strength while the Ranger specializes in hunting (if he usually hunts elk, then he's used to hitting big, slow targets). The thing is, the Ranger's attacks will not touch the Fighter's HP directly; instead they will inflict Poison condition, Slow condition, or even Pain condition to whittle down the Fighter and prevent his direct attacks using snares, darts, knives and such.  A different kind of Ranger, let's say one that dual-wields scimitars, would have to enter direct combat, and the lower damage that he deals there would fail to penetrate the Fighter's armor. 
xenopulse, I do see now that the planetary bombing example is not so great.  But for point 1, you have to keep in mind that only the average is equal, and only in the long run.  Status effects, defensive traits, and unusual attack types can all make attacks different, and are better than others in certain circumstances.  A good character requires a diverse range of attacks or the support of other characters (more commonly the latter). A move doesn't need to more "potent" (in the sense of average damage) to be useful.  There are ranks for "higher level" moves, and these are important because there is a limit on the number of moves you can use each turn (you shouldn't be using dozens/turn unless you are trying to hit tons of targets, and even then at most 10 or so).
I agree with your second point, and I think that an adaptation of the system Filip mentioned would work well for this. If a player can customize a move on-the-fly (possibly a limited number of times per session, to emphasize it and limit the time spent on it), then players get a much wider repertoire and can break stalemates that slow down gameplay. For example, the player could expend some of the Special Gauge to charge a weapon with elemental energy, or boost a spell with a shockwave. So, a GM could create opponents who are strong against the players simply to challenge them, and the players could return fire by using their Specials.  If the selected opponents turn out to be significantly weaker, then the GM could give them a marginal benefit, like initial Calm or Analyzing status, before the next combat with similar opponents begins. The encounters should ramp up in difficulty (or as close as the group can get to a gradual increase) as the adventure approaches a climactic battle.  I will try to let the players have as much creativity as possible, during combat; I see it as a goal.
Thanks again,
Thomas (Tommy) Ettinger

Hi Tommy,

T. wrote: Screen time points I'm not terribly familiar with, but they help balance the time each player spends as the focus of the group, right? So in theory, all characters are pretty much equivalent, and if one takes too much time then he/she can be forced to "lose a turn" or something later (by being a bigger, more important threat earlier, the enemies logically hit him/her with Status effects to weaken him/her).

Not to derail the conversation, but the more I read about your game, it seems very similiar to way Hero creates powers.  Have you check out the Hero system?

Tommy,

Making changes on the fly sounds great, if it's a) feasible and b) doesn't negate the whole deal of having separate powers in the first place.  That is, it needs to be relatively simple and fast to make changes, but it also needs to be somewhat limited or the ranger will be no different from the fighter or the mage (and that last point only matters if you want set types and niche protection).

That all said: I'm looking forward to seeing how you put it all together. I think the next thing for you to do in order to get clarity on where to take the design is to write up an example of play. That's a technique that has helped me immensely in the past. Write it like a dialogue, and include all of the steps necessary to play the game: what the players say, what math they need to do, where and how much do they write down, and so on.

I agree with xenopulse completely, an example of play would be great.

Said example should showcase the balance of the points, since, really, at this point, I like your system but I can't understand how it is more balanced than another. Since this is one of the main design goals, I think it's important players do understand how and why the points balance. Otherwise, if this idea gets lost, if players think the characters are not balanced, then it doesn't really matter that it is.

You could make pre-made moves have 10 less points then self made moves. That way there is a mechanical motivation for move creation.