Topic: I think this will work
Started by: MrNarrator
Started on: 8/12/2007
Board: First Thoughts
On 8/12/2007 at 12:27pm, MrNarrator wrote:
I think this will work
I started out wanting to make an universal system until I realized that there was no such thing. All systems imply something about the setting and games that they govern. So then I decided to make a system that supports the type of games/stories I like. "Life-Sized" is the term I tend to use to describe my tastes, though my friends use "Gritty" and "Semi-Realistic". In my stories/games (my approach to games is that they're about telling a story, which makes me a weird player as I don't care about screen time) the protagonists are not "gods among men" they are, at best, slightly above average. They don't change the world with a single act but with the ripples there from; killing the evil king does not make the world a bright and smiling place but it does trigger a succession war that keeps the dark army busy while the allies regroup and re-arm. I've tried to make rules that support this.
At the most basic there are eight Attributes (Agility, Resilience, Might, Cunning, Perception, Reason, Charisma and Willpower) and twenty-two Skills on a one-to-five range (two being the human average for Attributes). For all tests you roll Attributes d10's (I use d10's because they are the second most common die, at least in my group, and give a greater range than d6's) with the Skill rating being added to the highest result (when determing success only the highest die counts), this sum is checked against a success table to see the degree of success. The base degree of success is a sum of seven with the degree increasing by one for ever two the sum increases. Penalties and bonuses alter the effective skill rating not the die total. These rolls will be written as Attribute/Skill +/-X where X is any bonus or penalty to that roll. Sometimes Attributes can function as skills such as initiative (Cunning/Agility) or feat of strength (Might/Might) rolls. This is my core mechanic, what do you think? Will it work? Do you have to hear more about what I'm working on to know?
On 8/12/2007 at 4:08pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
Re: I think this will work
Hi there,
Welcome to the Forge!
Here's what jumps out at me when I read your dense-packed paragraph: (a) meaningful if limited consequences and scale of characters' actions; (b) a bunch of within-character detailed attributes and a single-action task resolution mechanic.
I don't see how (b) helps (a) happen. It reminds me of all those AD&D2 and Rolemaster campaigns from the 1980s, when every nuance and bootlace of a character was lovingly rendered during character creation, and then what was supposed to happen from all that detail was a capital-S Story with Guts. It tended not to happen, or if it did, the Story was pretty much programmed from the start.
You are describing a classic Attribute + Skill resolution, which in itself is no bad thing - except that in practice, over all these decades of role-playing, it has proven to be "much ado about nothing." X attributes, Y skills, mix and match per character, and ultimately, play comes to look dreadfully alike from adventure to adventure, or from character to character. People then try to combat that by establishing niches (the archer, the assassin, whatever) and all of a sudden one's "open skill" system turns into the same old class system anyway.
Let's get back to (a):
the protagonists are not "gods among men" they are, at best, slightly above average. They don't change the world with a single act but with the ripples there from; killing the evil king does not make the world a bright and smiling place but it does trigger a succession war that keeps the dark army busy while the allies regroup and re-arm.
If all you're using for resolution are task-based, single-action rolls, then there is no way that any of that can happen except through the auspices of a GM who is really in charge of everything and anything. They do X, Y, and Z; the GM rubs his nose and decides, "Gee, that'll delay the dark armies." In which case, the players might as well be pitching pennies or playing rock-paper-scissors for their little tasks. Is that what you want?
Best, Ron
On 8/12/2007 at 5:21pm, Justin Nichol - BFG wrote:
RE: Re: I think this will work
I have to agree. It seems that the two statements you made overall about wanting gritty, human characters and stories really doesn't have anything to do with the Core mechanic. There's nothing wrong with the core mechanic if that's what you want, but as I see it, it doesn't do anything to enforce your idea of a "life-sized" game where characters are not epic world-shakers. You might be better trying to understand how you will instill human interests into the characters made into your system, especially if you want a game where a story unfolds, not just character advancement.
On 8/12/2007 at 8:24pm, simon_hibbs wrote:
RE: Re: I think this will work
Have you worked out the probabilities that this dice mechanic produces? I think you'll probably be surprised at the results.
For example, what are the chances that a character with a characteristic value of 4 will roll at least a 9?
What are the chances that a character with a characteristic value of 5 will roll at least a 9?
The problem with 'roll some dice and take the highest' systems, of which I've seen many, is that once you have more than 2 or 3 dice, the changes of NOT rolling a very high result are vanishingly small. The probability distribution of likely outcomes becomes very compressed into a narrow range, much more compressed than most people intuitively expect.
Best regards,
Simon Hibbs
On 8/12/2007 at 8:52pm, MrNarrator wrote:
RE: Re: I think this will work
I believe much of your problems with what I've done so far is that my mechanic doesn't promote storytelling which it doesn't, no core mechanic does. What you look for in a core mechanic is that it doesn't get in the way of the story. It's secondary mechanics that flavour your story. In Vampire: The Masquerade it's the Humanity/Path system, a secondary mechanic, that makes it a game about dealing with the change from human to vampire. Core Mechanics say nothing about the theme of a game but they do say something about the scale...
Justin wrote:
It seems that the two statements you made overall about wanting gritty, human characters and stories really doesn't have anything to do with the Core mechanic. There's nothing wrong with the core mechanic if that's what you want, but as I see it, it doesn't do anything to enforce your idea of a "life-sized" game where characters are not epic world-shakers.
I could enforce some of my "life-sized" goals simply by specifying how much a degree of success does, something which I will have to do anyway. The rest of the "life-sized" grittiness comes through in things like damage, movement, recovery, acrobatics, &c.
Ron wrote:
It reminds me of all those AD&D2 and Rolemaster campaigns from the 1980s, when every nuance and bootlace of a character was lovingly rendered during character creation, and then what was supposed to happen from all that detail was a capital-S Story with Guts. It tended not to happen, or if it did, the Story was pretty much programmed from the start.
I hadn't thought of that, mostly because I never plan my stories. The story in all my games is the PC's and what they do. My "plans" for any given game/session is only what the NPC's will be doing if the PC's don't interfere. I quess I don't see the problem because I've been part of a good group.
Ron wrote:
You are describing a classic Attribute + Skill resolution, which in itself is no bad thing - except that in practice, over all these decades of role-playing, it has proven to be "much ado about nothing." X attributes, Y skills, mix and match per character, and ultimately, play comes to look dreadfully alike from adventure to adventure, or from character to character. People then try to combat that by establishing niches (the archer, the assassin, whatever) and all of a sudden one's "open skill" system turns into the same old class system anyway.
Someone being the best at shooting things doesn't mean he can't do other things well or that the others can't hold there own in a fire-fight, it just means that when the shot has to be made they'll turn to him. Which isn't the same as a class system. Though, again, my take on the issue maybe because I've always been part of a good group, one whose members spend their time trying to make their characters more well rounded.
Ron wrote:
If all you're using for resolution are task-based, single-action rolls, then there is no way that any of that can happen except through the auspices of a GM who is really in charge of everything and anything. They do X, Y, and Z; the GM rubs his nose and decides, "Gee, that'll delay the dark armies." In which case, the players might as well be pitching pennies or playing rock-paper-scissors for their little tasks. Is that what you want?
First (or would it be fourth?), unless you reduce him to a chart-checker the GM always is the one in charge, of the NPC's anyway. How much the PC's actions effect the world comes down not to the rules but rather to whather or not the GM is an arse.
Second (fifth), I expand the "single-action roll" thing to cover a larger scope with a single line. Ready for it? One line;
"Players can accumulate larger degrees of success over time/rolls to simulate larger, more complex actions."
There, one line. Yea!
simon_hibbs wrote:
Have you worked out the probabilities that this dice mechanic produces? I think you'll probably be surprised at the results.
For example, what are the chances that a character with a characteristic value of 4 will roll at least a 9?
What are the chances that a character with a characteristic value of 5 will roll at least a 9?
The problem with 'roll some dice and take the highest' systems, of which I've seen many, is that once you have more than 2 or 3 dice, the changes of NOT rolling a very high result are vanishingly small. The probability distribution of likely outcomes becomes very compressed into a narrow range, much more compressed than most people intuitively expect.
Question where are you getting the "9" from? Neither the number nor word "9" appears in my post. But to answer your question, no I haven't done a probability curve for this mechanic. And as for your problem with the system; you're saying that people who are good at something tend not to fail. Who would have thought? Man, I wish there was a font for sarcasm.
I think that covered your comments, if not please direct your hate.
On 8/12/2007 at 9:18pm, ODDin wrote:
RE: Re: I think this will work
Hmm, that's weird, I could swear I posted in this thread, yet I see no post, nor did I get any message about it being deleted or something. Was it actually deleted (if so, why?) or was it just my Explorer rolling a 1 in its Post Message skill?
Anyway, I was saying something along the lines of:
1. If you want the feel of gritty realism, you should consider the chances of success in various actions, and compare that to how normal people would fare at this. It's easier if it's modern-day, but it can be imagined in a fantasy setting as well. What chances would you have at hitting someone with a thrown knife? What chances would you have at bashing down a door? Etc...
2. As you said yourself, a thing that adds a lot to realism is a realistic combat system - usually one that uses wounds, penalties for damage etc. Consider what's been done with The Riddle of Steel, a great RPG with a very realistic combat system.
3. The thing is, however, that while you are correct that the core mechanics don't necessarily actively encourage narrativism and realism in a narrativist and realistic system (this doesn't have to be the case, though), the fact remains that this is what your system is mainly about, and thus we don't really care much about the core mechanic you use which doesn't promote these ends, especially considering it isn't exactly an original and innovative core mechanic at that. What interests us (me, at least) is what new you do do in order to promote the realism and the narration.
On 8/12/2007 at 9:41pm, MrNarrator wrote:
RE: Re: I think this will work
Why is everything about combat? There's more life than fighting. If you were to average out every game I've ever run (including the D&D game about bountyhunters) there would slightly less than one combat every three sessions.
But ODDin you're right the mechanic is not original as I just stole and tweaked until I was happy.
As for being new, I'll try but I'm not sure whether or not I'll know if I do it as I've only incountered a dozen systems (if you count things like D20 and the World of Darkness as single systems) so there a chance that I'll think I'm doing something innovative when I'm really just duplacting the work of someone I've never heard of.
On 8/12/2007 at 10:32pm, anders_larsen wrote:
RE: Re: I think this will work
I believe much of your problems with what I've done so far is that my mechanic doesn't promote storytelling which it doesn't, no core mechanic does. What you look for in a core mechanic is that it doesn't get in the way of the story.
Well, I directly disagree with this. If you want a game of collaborate storytelling, you will need a resolution mechanic which facilitates this. The point we disagree on (I think) is that you see the resolution mechanic as something which determined if an action succeed or not, where I prefer a resolution mechanic which help the players agree on what should happen in the fiction of the game. Unfortunately it is hard for my to really explain the defence between these two concepts (maybe other people here can), but I can recommend you take a look at "Dogs in the Vineyard".
I agree, though, that the resolution mechanic should not necessarily enforce a theme - that should be done by some secondary mechanic - but the resolution mechanic should enable the players to address this theme. If it can not do that, the theme will not be important for the game.
I hadn't thought of that, mostly because I never plan my stories. The story in all my games is the PC's and what they do. My "plans" for any given game/session is only what the NPC's will be doing if the PC's don't interfere. I quess I don't see the problem because I've been part of a good group.
The way you describe you run a game, seems to work very well. But the problem is that you do not communicate this in the core rules. This is a very common mistake that people do not think it is important to describe how a game should be structured when they make the basic mechanic, when in fact it is normally more important for how well the game function than any of the mechanic you describe in you first post.
I will recommend that you take the concepts: "It is the PC's story" and "The GM should only plan the NPC intentions, not the story", and put them into the core mechanic.
Second (fifth), I expand the "single-action roll" thing to cover a larger scope with a single line. Ready for it? One line;
"Players can accumulate larger degrees of success over time/rolls to simulate larger, more complex actions."
Can you give an example of how this work?
- Anders
On 8/12/2007 at 10:35pm, Grinning Moon wrote:
RE: Re: I think this will work
...So you posed a question, then, with the goal of becoming defensive and attacking anyone who gave you an answer?
Because that's what it looks like to me.
I believe much of your problems with what I've done so far is that my mechanic doesn't promote storytelling which it doesn't, no core mechanic does.
Nobody said that they have a problem with your mechanic. They were just asking you how it reinforced the idea behind your game.
And yes, there certainly are examples of core mechanics designed to promote the theme of a game.
What you look for in a core mechanic is that it doesn't get in the way of the story. It's secondary mechanics that flavour your story. In Vampire: The Masquerade it's the Humanity/Path system, a secondary mechanic, that makes it a game about dealing with the change from human to vampire. Core Mechanics say nothing about the theme of a game but they do say something about the scale...
Some folks (myself included) would disagree with your assertion that Vampire's path mechanics are 'secondary'. And while you certainly do want to avoid having your rules bump heads with your setting, it's often the better game that goes the extra mile and actually meshes the setting and rules together.
I could enforce some of my "life-sized" goals simply by specifying how much a degree of success does, something which I will have to do anyway. The rest of the "life-sized" grittiness comes through in things like damage, movement, recovery, acrobatics, &c.
Certainly you could. In the end, though, I think what folks are getting at is that this is simply flavor tacked onto some generic rules - and simply wondering whether or not this is what you wanted.
I hadn't thought of that, mostly because I never plan my stories. The story in all my games is the PC's and what they do. My "plans" for any given game/session is only what the NPC's will be doing if the PC's don't interfere. I quess I don't see the problem because I've been part of a good group.
I think you missed the entire point Mr. Edwards was bringing-up. In the campaigns mentioned, the setting and concepts were merely tacked onto some generic rules not designed expressly to support them (similar to what you just finished describing for your own game). The result was that the campaigns didn't feel like they were achieving what they set out to do - you weren't conquering an empire, for example, you were just going through the motions and telling everyone that you were conquering an empire.
It has little to do with group dynamics. I could run a D20 Modern campaign right off the cuff where the characters are politicians running for the president of the United States, creating smear ads, holding rallies, competing in debates and taking stances on a variety of issues - but it wouldn't work very well with those mechanics, and certainly wouldn't feel genuine (what with all of the rules I'd have to improvise).
Someone being the best at shooting things doesn't mean he can't do other things well or that the others can't hold there own in a fire-fight, it just means that when the shot has to be made they'll turn to him. Which isn't the same as a class system. Though, again, my take on the issue maybe because I've always been part of a good group, one whose members spend their time trying to make their characters more well rounded.
Sure it is. For example, in D&D, everyone can swing a sword. But who's the best at it? (...this is a somewhat rhetorical question. There's lots of ways to make a few different classes 'the best' in melee combat). Lots of people can shoot bows. Who's the best at that? There's plenty of magic users and healers, too. What're the best ones?
The point is not that classes are the pinnacle of character generation, but that characters who are little more than a set of attributes of varying strength may as well be segregated in classes.
First (or would it be fourth?), unless you reduce him to a chart-checker the GM always is the one in charge, of the NPC's anyway. How much the PC's actions effect the world comes down not to the rules but rather to whather or not the GM is an arse.
This, again, depends on whether or not the game lends itself to such circumstances. In some games, for example, there is no GM - so how can he be in charge? And if your game is about your PCs effecting the world around you, and your rules are all about this, it certainly wouldn't be up to a GM's demeanor as to whether or not your PCs are having an impact on their surroundings.
Second (fifth), I expand the "single-action roll" thing to cover a larger scope with a single line. Ready for it? One line;
"Players can accumulate larger degrees of success over time/rolls to simulate larger, more complex actions."
There, one line. Yea!
There's no need to get snide or condescending.
And I fail to see how this answers what points have been brought up. The magnitude of one's success being amplified by open-ended die rolls and/or time increments isn't exactly a fresh idea, and I fail to see how it would make one's game grittier.
Question where are you getting the "9" from? Neither the number nor word "9" appears in my post. But to answer your question, no I haven't done a probability curve for this mechanic. And as for your problem with the system; you're saying that people who are good at something tend not to fail. Who would have thought? Man, I wish there was a font for sarcasm.
With a reply like this, I don't see how you can expect anyone to try helping you out or offering constructive criticism.
He was giving an example of a high roll (the second highest possible, since you're using D10s) and illustrating a perfectly valid point:
When you're rolling 4 or 5 dice, the chances that you'll not roll a single die of a high value are so rediculously small that there's not much point in doing the roll at all. This, to me, doesn't seem very gritty at all. In fairness, however, I suppose we'd need to view your chart first in order to see if there's more going on than what your initial post suggested (...though, personally, I wouldn't look forward to having to consult a chart every single time I made a roll. This seems rather cumbersome).
Why is everything about combat? There's more life than fighting. If you were to average out every game I've ever run (including the D&D game about bountyhunters) there would slightly less than one combat every three sessions.
Well, the only examples you yourself have given involved combat. Actually, I'd thought right up until you said this that your game was going to be warfare or combat-centric.
You're also stretching your credibility with that last statement, given that anyone who plays D&D regularly is well aware that the game is far better suited to killing things and taking stuff (which, in my opinion, is all well and fine) than social interaction.
But ODDin you're right the mechanic is not original as I just stole and tweaked until I was happy.
As for being new, I'll try but I'm not sure whether or not I'll know if I do it as I've only incountered a dozen systems (if you count things like D20 and the World of Darkness as single systems) so there a chance that I'll think I'm doing something innovative when I'm really just duplacting the work of someone I've never heard of.
You don't need to be innovative, in my opinion. You might consider asking yourself, however:
'Why am I playing this? Why aren't I playing, say, GURPS instead?'
If you don't have a good answer, you might then want to consider why you're going to all the trouble of designing an entirely new game.
On 8/13/2007 at 12:41am, Noon wrote:
RE: Re: I think this will work
First (or would it be fourth?), unless you reduce him to a chart-checker the GM always is the one in charge, of the NPC's anyway. How much the PC's actions effect the world comes down not to the rules but rather to whather or not the GM is an arse.
Second (fifth), I expand the "single-action roll" thing to cover a larger scope with a single line. Ready for it? One line;
"Players can accumulate larger degrees of success over time/rolls to simulate larger, more complex actions."
There, one line. Yea!
I know you think it's just about whether the GM's an arse, but think of this mechanic:
At the start of play the group the group decides on the big goal, like killing the evil king. This is then given a point total for completion, that's probably a thousand or so.
Okay, the big thing is every single roll made adds to this total! There's a chart with a range of points it could give. The GM can decide that some rolls don't give much points, but if a roll is made by the rules it has to give a minimum of X points.
This way either the GM either says 'yes' and what the player says, happens, or if he asks for a roll it HAS to add to the point total, thus taking them toward their goal anyway!
I'm not writing this as a suggestion to see if you like it, but to demonstrate it doesn't have to be about whether the GM's an arse or not. It doesn't! And this is just one system, there can be many more! Would you agree it stops it being about whether the GM's an arse? Frankly it sounds just like your concept of accumulating successes.
PS: If you do actually like the idea, feel free to use it. :)
On 8/13/2007 at 9:44am, simon_hibbs wrote:
RE: Re: I think this will work
MrNarrator wrote:simon_hibbs wrote:
Have you worked out the probabilities that this dice mechanic produces? I think you'll probably be surprised at the results.
For example, what are the chances that a character with a characteristic value of 4 will roll at least a 9?
What are the chances that a character with a characteristic value of 5 will roll at least a 9?
The problem with 'roll some dice and take the highest' systems, of which I've seen many, is that once you have more than 2 or 3 dice, the changes of NOT rolling a very high result are vanishingly small. The probability distribution of likely outcomes becomes very compressed into a narrow range, much more compressed than most people intuitively expect.
Question where are you getting the "9" from? Neither the number nor word "9" appears in my post.
You are rolling D10s. I arbitrarily chose a very high result (at least 9, i.e. either a 9 or 10) because they represent an extremely good result. It was purely for demonstration purposes.
But to answer your question, no I haven't done a probability curve for this mechanic. And as for your problem with the system; you're saying that people who are good at something tend not to fail. Who would have thought? Man, I wish there was a font for sarcasm.
I'm not just pointing out that high stats are very likely to produce very high results. I'm pointing out that once you get above mediocre results, the benefits of having higher stats are tiny. A character with a stat of 5 is insignificantly better off than a character with a stat of 4, who is only very marginaly better off than a character with a stat of 3.
What this means is that every point you increase a skill by linearly improves your chance of success. Increasing your skill from 6 to 7 gives exactly the same relative advantage as increasing it from 1 to 2. However increasing a stat beyond about 3 gives very rapidly diminishing returns.
I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing, maybe that's what you want. I'm just pointing it out.