Okay, so let's look at a system for spell-casting in Worlds of Hurt. This is a high fantasy RPG, and I am just going to outline the magic system, partly for practice and partly in the hopes that someone will have the fortitude to read through it and give me their impressions.

The goal here in creating this system is to generate a rich tactical system using a relatively small number of spells. Casters are given a number of options over and above the choice of spells, and they must weigh the benefits and risks of these options when choosing the details.

[center]The Magic Allotment[/center]

First, the number of spells a character may cast in a given game session is determined by a Crunch Stat, 'Magic'. Crunch Stats are purchased by spending experience points at a cumulative cost (Magic of 1 costs 1 x.p., Magic of 2 costs 3 total x.p., and Magic of 3 costs 6 x.p., etc.).

[center]Spell Schools[/center]

The ability to actually cast spells is purchased through Special Abilities (also bought with Experience Points), a Minor Ability gets you 1 school of magic, and a major gets you 2. There are 6 schools of magic, each being defined in functional terms and kept pretty exclusive; divination, enchantment, healing, mind affecting, offensive, support.

So, a player buys points in Magic to generate the actual spells and buys Special Abilities to get schools of Magic granting her access to actual spell lists (and a player can only take 3 schools). Every caster automatically gains access to all spells in her any school(s) she has purchased.

[center]Success or Failure I: The Roll and the Modifier[/center]

Success or failure in casting a spell is determined by rolling 3d6 and modifying this through a Functioning Stat. Sometimes this is rolled against a Target number (usually 12), and sometimes it is an opposed roll. The Functioning Stat will be a combination of 'Magic' and some other Crunch Stat:

Magic+Aggression = Magic Attack (used for Offensive spells). This is normally an opposed roll.
Magic+Presence = Mind Affecting Attack (used for Mind Affecting Spells). This is normally an opposed roll.
Magic+Focus = Magic Task (used for Healing and Support Spells). This is normally rolled at a Target of 12.

Note: Divination and Enchantment spells are sometimes rolled against a Target and sometimes as opposed rolls.

[center]Success or Failure II: The General Spell Modifier[/center]

Now: There are no spell levels, and you do not need to memorize anything. You can use any spells from any schools you know until your Magic stat is exhausted. But each spell imposes a penalty on the roll, and the more powerful the spell, the higher the penalty. Healing is 1, Push-Em-Over is 4, Quickness is 5, etc.

Variables: The default range of all spells is 1". This may be increased in 3" increments. The default Area of Effect is 1 person. This may be increased in 2" increments. And most spells have a default effect which can be multiplied (for example Energy Attack does 1 point of damage. Now for every increment by which a variable is increased, the caster adds 1 to her penalty for casting a given spell).

The penalty for each individual spell is added to the total penalty for increasing the variables for the spell to get the General Spell Modifier (GSM) for the specific roll. The GSM is a penalty weighed against against the Functioning Stat of the caster, and the balance is applied to the die roll.

This creates a dilemma by which a caster must measure the benefits of tougher spells and/or increases to key spell variables against decreased odds of success.

[center]Success or Failure III: Burning Actions for Bonuses[/center]

But there is one more potential modifier:

For every extra Action a Spell Caster spends casting a given spell, she gains a bonus of 1, and she can do this for up to 1 round per point of her Magic score. The number of Actions a Character has in a given round is determined by her Speed.

This creates a dilemma whereby a spell caster must weigh the benefits of extra time spent on a spell against the opportunity costs of spending that time on other things (and if she casts for more than one round, the risks of being hurt before completing the spell).

[center]Example[/center]

So, imagine a spell caster, 'Uncle Hakeem'. Let us say that Uncle Hakeem wants to cast a healing spell, and he has a Magic score of 5 and a Focus score of 4, so he will have a Magic Task Bonus of +9. Let us say that he has a Speed of 3, and one of his buddies (an orc, named 'Bile-Brew') is 15" away from him on the battlefield.  Bile-Brew is badly injured (say down 22 out of 25 Durability Points and he is taking penalties due to the damage). Another companion (a Yoda-like creature named 'Goad') is 8" directly to the left of Bile-Brew, and that companion is a little bit injured (say 4 out of 20 points).

A Healing Spell does 1 point of healing per point on the die roll in excess of 12 (there is no effect to multiply here). So, if Uncle Hakeem only wants to heal Bile-Brew, he will have to take a penalty of -6 on his spell (1 for the Healing Spell and 5 for the range), which means if he pops the spell out in one Task, Uncle Hakeem will be casting at a +3, which means the odds are that he will only heal Bile-Brew for about 2-3 points. If Uncle Hakeem also tries to heal Goad, he will have to add 2 increments of radius (assuming he locates the spell directly between the two of them), so his bonus will only be +1, which means the odds are very low that Hakeem will accomplish anything worthwhile.

Now if Hakeem casts his spell for a full Turn, he will get a +2 Bonus for the extra actions spent on the spell regardless of the option he chooses. If Hakeem is brave, he may just declare that he is casting a Healing spell in the first round and continue casting at the end of his Turn. The gamble here is that he will not be hurt during the course of his Turn. If he ism hit while casting that will mess up his spell, and of course there is the possibility that either Bile-Brew or Goad will be killed before he finishes. But if Uncle Hakeem makes it safely through and finishes the spell when he Activates for a second Turn of casting, he may add a total bonus of +5 to his spell (3 for the first round and 2 more for the first two Actions of the second). He can add this to either option (healing Bile-Brew alone at a total bonus of +8, or healing both companions at a total Bonus of +6).

[center]Final Comments[/center]

Offensive Variation: So, you can imagine how this would work with other spells such as offensive spells. Using the same spell you can hurt a lot of enemy a little or a couple enemy a lot. And if the enemy is foolish enough to let you cast unmolested for a few Turns in a row, well then your options will be substantially improved.

Mental Damage: Bear in mind with offensive spells there is an additional consideration. Enemy will take mental damage equal to the difference whenever they lose a roll versus an offensive spell. If the caster uses a spell to disarm an opponent, success means they drop their weapon and take mental damage in the process. But if a caster loses, then she will take Mental Damage equal to the difference minus her Focus score. So, the offensive caster can afford to lose, but not to lose big.

Aid: One general feature of this game allows any character to Aid another Character whenever she is within 1" of her companion when that companion must make a roll. When Aiding a Character must spend 1 point off an allotment determined by presence (another Crunch Stat), and she must go on Hold, thus losing 1 Action on her next Turn. In return she may add half her bonus (rounded high) on the roll in question to the Bonus of the person making the roll. Aid bonuses may be enhanced when characters share an affinity for one another. This creates two important options for casters

1) a bystander may help the caster with the spell. And bear in mind that Functioning Stats are usually a combination of two Crunch Stats. So, a Melee Fighter may not have any points in Magic, but if she has 5 points in Aggression, then she can give a +3 bonus to a caster. If the fighter has something in common with the caster (say that they are both beautiful, old, stalwart, compassionate, serve the same noble, etc.)

2) A Sheldman can be very useful in protecting casters while they keep going on a spell over the course of a couple rounds.Say, someone shoots at the spell caster while she is in the middle of a spell. A nearby fighter may choose to Aid the caster on her defence roll, thus giving her better chances of getting the spell off.

Greater Magic: For massive spells (think resurrection), the Spell Modifiers are huge (say -50, in some cases -100). Casters can cast most of these at leisure, so imagine a Magic Score of 10 and a Speed of 4, that's 40 total actions that can be spent on a spell.

Okay, that's it. Basic Question here is what do you think?

Basic answer:

It's complicated. At least, it reads complicated. I have to confess that I had to stop my eyes from glazing once or twice while reading.

It does seem like it offers some decent tactical options for a miniatures battle. The level of complication would probably reduced with a greater understanding of the 'functional' and 'crunch' stats, which I imagine would come with reading the actual book. Illustrations would also help I think, though that's simply the hazard of text media.

The example helped a LOT in making it clear how it worked.

So, I'm pretty sure my answer is mostly non-useful to you. If your question(s) were clearer and more specific than "What do you think?" the feedback would be more useful.

Actually Lance, that was an amazingly helpful answer. I know it's not the most precise question, but first impressions are what I was driving for. And your response will help me a great deal.

Oh yes, the Stat system would normally come before the magic, and it takes more time than I put into the explanation above.

It works like this. Players advance their characters basic abilities by purchasing points in Crunch Stats (Aggression, Athleticism, Caution, Distance, Focus, Magic, Melee, Missile, Presence, Spirit, Swiftness). The Crunch Stats are then combined into Functioning Stats which serve as the basic modifiers to die rolls. So, for example Aggression modifies all Attack Rolls and Caution modifies all Defence Rolls. Now combine those with Magic, Melee, and Missile and you have 6 different functioning Stats: Magic Attack (Agg+Pre), Melee Attack (Agg+Mel), Missile Attack (Agg+Mis), Magic Defence (Cau+Pre), Melee Defence (Cau+Mel), Missile Defence (Cau+Mis).

The idea here is to give the player the chance to decide through her Stat purchases how much she wants to focus on a given form of combat as well as how much weight she wants to give to offence or defence. The system also creates symmetries of a sort insofar as a Character specializing in Melee Attack will also have a decent bonus on Magic and Missile Attacks. This may sound useless if the character does not have the ability to cast magic, but she can still Aid a Magic user, and if she is good at Offence, then she will be particularly effective when helping offensive casters.

So, for example a Character with an Aggression of 5, a Caution of 3 and a Melee of 6 would have a Melee Attack Bonus of +11, but a Melee Defence Bonus of +8. This is a melee fighter, but particularly one that specializes in attacking and killing her opponents. Turn it around and you have a tank or shieldman that is going to be hard to hit and good at aiding her friends on Defence.

Brimshack wrote: ...the number of spells a character may cast in a given game session is determined by a Crunch Stat, 'Magic'.

Curse the inability to edit. Probability of success on 3d6 increases by about 9% when dropping the target from 13 to 12, and about 1.5% when dropping the target from 17 to 16, not 1.9 vs. 1.4 as I mentioned before.

Trading off time for effect is a fine tactical consideration, but it sounds to me like I would much rather play a nonwizard. I get to actually do something with my actions, instead of just waiting around, skipping my turn until I've powered up enough! Sure I make an interesting decision about the tradeoff, but then I lose the next 3 interesting decisions that a nonwizard gets to make 'cause decisions are tied to actions and I just spent my next 3.

(yes, sometimes you'll have to reevaluate due to an orc punching you in the face - is that the common case?)

This consideration is moot if spellcasting is fairly rare even for spellcasters on the battlefield. Do most wizardy folks also have a sword and spend most of their time in combat using it? That seems fine... I'm just worried about the obvious wizard build which ends up giving the player 1/5 the decisions of the other players.

Wordman wrote:
Probability of success on 3d6 increases by about 9% when dropping the target from 13 to 12, and about 1.5% when dropping the target from 17 to 16, not 1.9 vs. 1.4 as I mentioned before.

Guy,

I think you may be overstating your position, or not thinking about it the same way I am.

As I understand it, you can insta-cast at the base difficulty, or you can cast over multiple rounds, with each round adding a bonus to your chance of successfully casting it. "Cast now, or wait one more round?" is a meaningful choice. Do you risk failure, or do you risk being too late?

Also, I'm curious about something, now that I think about it...

If I'm casting for 15 inches the first round, then my target moves 10 inches toward me, can I reduce the distance to up my chances again? If he moves further away from me, can I increase the distance? Or do either of these circumstances cause me to waste the spell? Same question applied to other dial-able aspects of the spell.

Lance wrote:
I think you may be overstating your position, or not thinking about it the same way I am.

As I understand it, you can insta-cast at the base difficulty, or you can cast over multiple rounds, with each round adding a bonus to your chance of successfully casting it. "Cast now, or wait one more round?" is a meaningful choice. Do you risk failure, or do you risk being too late?

My motto is "if all computations can be handled late at night and after two beers, the mechanics is great". In other words, my consideration here would be if your mechanics for magic needs just some streamlining (a simplification of maths, addition is simpler than subtraction, subtraction than multiplication etc). I see that it aims at a great precision, it is certainly not narrative: these additional details do seem to introduce some new tactical choices for players; I miss some flavour (I mean solutions that stem from the game world), however, but that thing is probably completely setting-dependent.  

What would you say about sth like "mana pool" as a thing to spend to get better effects, a substitute for "penalty to my roll"? You can also combine these two to get an interesting hybrid (but who knows if viable?)

"a rich tactical system using a relatively small number of spells" sounds like a definition of chess, I like that approach! ;)

Guy wrote: Here, for instance, your example translates to "Probability of success on 1d20 increases by about 10% when dropping the target from 16 to 14, and about 0% when dropping the target from 24 to 22."

Actually, in a sense Guy was right. 16 to 14 is exactly 10% difference. 24 to 22 is actually a 0% change because both of them are impossible.

Brim,
 I think in a system like this, we should balance it against other forms of attack. For instance, if an archer aims for more than one action and gets attacked before firing, do they automatically miss and lose the arrow?
  Similarly, do melee attacks get a bonus to damage for exceeding their Target Number? If so, this seems to be a good balance.
  What about the limited number of spells. Will other characters be limited to what weapons they can use? That is the danger here, is that while the spell casters start out with potentially more versatility, their ability to grow is hampered more so than classes that rely on equipment for power increases. So, I feel like the artificial limits set on spell schools, etc. are working against your efforts to balance the game. I think the issue might be resolved by letting a caster cast any spell they can buy/find (just like a warrior can use any weapon they can buy/find). I don't know, I think the system youhave is pretty close on balance (better than other games).

  Also, for a wargame, this is an excellent writing style, it is concise and not open to much interpretation. For an RPG, it is a little dry, but I don't feel like these rules are really for an RPG, but for a wargame.

trick wrote:
Actually, in a sense Guy was right. 16 to 14 is exactly 10% difference. 24 to 22 is actually a 0% change because both of them are impossible.

Wordman, you seem from other threads to be sufficiently knowledgeable about dice probabilities, so the following should make sense: to translate "rolling over 11 on 1d20" to "rolling over ??? on 1d100", you shift the baseline by the difference in means to be equal, and scale the modifiers by the ratio of standard deviations to be equal. Thus: 11 = 10+1, 10-->50, 1-->5, and 50+5 = 55. So the analogous roll would be rolling over 55 on 1d100.

Similarly to find what roll on 1d20 is analogous to rolling over 16 on 3d6, you shift the baseline (rolling over 10) by the difference in means (10.5-10.5=0, no shift), and you scale the modifiers (16 = 10+6 so the modifier is 6) by the ratio of the standard deviations (sqrt(33.25) / sqrt(8.75) ~= 1.95), which makes the new roll rolling over (10+0) + (6*1.95) ~= 22 on a 1d20.

I'd like not to derail this conversation any further... it belongs in a thread like this, which we shouldn't necro... seems to not have a good place for discussion in this forum. For further discussion I guess start a thread somewhere else and put a link to it here?

I like the mechanics that make up this system.
It doesn't seem too complicated either... I'm sure once the rest of the system is explained, it would become pretty natural to utilize. =)

Guy wrote: Similarly to find what roll on 1d20 is analogous to rolling over 16 on 3d6, you shift the baseline (rolling over 10) by the difference in means (10.5-10.5=0, no shift), and you scale the modifiers (16 = 10+6 so the modifier is 6) by the ratio of the standard deviations (sqrt(33.25) / sqrt(8.75) ~= 1.95), which makes the new roll rolling over (10+0) + (6*1.95) ~= 22 on a 1d20.

I'd like not to derail this conversation any further...

Thank you guys for all the feedback, and I'm sorry about the delay on my part. I'll post some responses when I get home from work.

[center]Wordman[/center]

The Quote

Yes, the sentence you quoted is poorly worded. What I meanto say is that you get to cast 1 spell per Game Session per point of one’s Magic Stat. Whether it;’s the same spell several times or each a different spell is up to you. But your Magic Stat determines the basic number of spells in question.

Miniatures and Range

Yes, the game uses miniatures for combat, and ranges and so forth are based on actual inches.

Odds

I do see the effect of the bell curve, and it is deliberate. Of course that is the basic formula for the entire game, but it has two effects that I find useful:

1) It terms of Magic, it creates something with a practical effect a bit like spell levels. There is no rule that stops a player from casting spell x, y, or z, but a caster without sufficient power doesn't really have a shot. Give him a few bonus points and now he has a shot if he takes a little extra time. Give him a few more bonus points and he has it down. ...a few more and he can whip the spell off as a 1-Rounder. A more even spread would not have this effect unless the range of variation were significantly smaller.

2) In general terms it has the effect of promoting the use of Aid and affinity bonuses. A Character may find herself beyond her means. Say, her enemy has 6 points of bonus on her and even by burning extra actions (assuming a SPeed of 3), she is still left 3 down after all the calculations are done. She NEEDS help. It's only 3 points, but, that is enough to virtually guarantee she will lose the die roll (and that means she will likely hurt herself if she is foolish enough to attack).

So, combat is kind of two-tiered. There are a range of opponents most characters are basically competent to handle on their own, and then there are the big guns. You have to team up to get them, and if they team up with some of their own, then you may end up with a single die roll that is a team effort of sorts, with various bystandars working to improve the odds in various way.

I could be wrong, but I suspect the bell-curve helps to increase the significance of cooperation.

One extra twist – Two 6s = a Critical Success, which means the value of the third dice is doubled. Two 1s equal a Critical Blunder, which means the 1s are ignored and the third dice is the total die roll for the game. So, we have a definite trend towards middling rolls with the occasional outlier. That outlier occurs just enough to throw a serious curve ball in once or twice a game.

Triangular Sum

Thank your for “Triangular Sum.” I figured there was a word for the progression, but I did not know it. Now, the question is whether or not enough other people will know it to make it worth using, or if introducing the term will be worth it. I suspect the answer will be yes.

Positives

You are right, it plays pretty simply in practice. Your character's modifier on a given roll, you know, because it’s your character, it's on the sheet, and you probably remember it after a few rolls. Adding up the General Spell Modifier and the Bonus for extra Actions go pretty quickly. Aid Bonuses can be an extra complication, but the key is simply to complete each step before moving onto the next. In game, it moves very quickly.

As a side note: There are few if any bonuses for spell-buffing. The spells are there, but the ones that provide simple bonuses are not the preferred options. So, we don't run into a lot of extra complication with remembering all the buffs. That was a kill-joy factor for me in D&D 3.5. I suspect that if I were to encourage more such spell-created bonuses, the extra layer of math would cross the line. At present, I think it works, but there is not much room for additional variables.

[center]Guy and Lance on Mages and extra Bonuses[/center]

Actually, Burning Actions for Bonuses is not unique to Spell casters (though the ability to do so for more than 1 round is; others must complete an action in the same round in which it is begun). Any extra actions one has left at the time of a die roll can be spent on bonuses to the roll. Also, any die rolls are made at a penalty of -2 per previous die roll in the turn. A special ability can be used to reduce this to -1 per previous die roll on a specific type of roll (Melee, Missile, Magic, Tasks, or Spiritual Assault). Also, it’s worth remembering botched Melee Attacks can harm the attacker, at least in melee (he takes the difference minus his Athleticism score in damage), so it’s the same risk as with Magic.

In practice, players tend to use their extra actions for movement and positioning. They will take extra attacks if they are reasonably confident of hitting an enemy. But any time the odds of hitting are close, the player usually opts to spend extra actions to increase his odds on a single attack. Some characters specialize for grunt clearing. They use light weapons and take the Special Ability (Relentless ______) to decrease the penalties for Flurry Attacks. Another common tactic is to attack once at full bonus, then attack a second time using extra Actions to compensate for the standard penalty.

One thing I do find with this system is the tactical situation changes rather constantly. In 3.5 I reached a point where I could pretty well estimate the number of a given enemy a character would take out each round and the amount of damage he would take each round in turn. I remember sort of scheduling when the heal spell would be needed. Here, we generally find that even moving a character or two can change the tactical situation significantly. This has the effect of keeping the spell-casters in mid-spell focused and plotting throughout everyone else's turn, re-evaluating the prospects for completion and even how they want to fix the details of the spell. And the shear pay-off for getting the extra time in adds to the dramatic value of the option.

If a caster manages to get two or three rounds into a spell, they are usually too busy cackling with glee to complain. …At least that has been my experience so far.

Honestly, any spell that gets that takes a few rounds has the potentially to turn the tide of battle in itself. I have seen near TPKs turned into probable victories with a single healing spell and conversely offensive spells with sufficient prep time can take the fight out of an entire encounter. The benefit of being the guy who does that seems to outweigh the con of casting for a long time.

Side Note: Where I do have problems with Magic is in the existence of a definite sweet spot for spell-casting. Given enough time spell-casters tend to become over-powered. That isn't unusual for traditional rpg games; I remember it from 1st edition too, but this system really tends to re-enforce that. I've tried to compensate for this by numerous small tweaks and by adding Special Abilities that players can take to counteract spell casters, but the biggest problem this system has given me has been trying to balance it with other characters and keep that balance in play for as many game sessions as possible.

[center]Lance on Moving Enemies[/center]

When a caster begins a spell, her player simply declares the spell and says she is still casting at the end of the round; “Still powering up” is a common phrase. All further details are determined on the Action that the spell is completed. This also has the effect (noted above) of giving spell casters something to do as others play. You can see healers gritting their teeth as allies move apart of breathing a sigh of relief as allies come close. Conversely, you might see an offensive caster watching with great interest as the enemy horde shifts around the field and the caster tries to assess where he will land the spell and how much he wants to pump the key multiplied effect.

[center]Ashirgo[/center]

Overall Level of Complication

Thinking about it, I may just have a 1 beer game. It does have a lot of computations, but I can’t think of anything that doesn’t add to the overall system. When I suggest getting rid of this or that, my players shriek and howl. At present, I really think this is sort of where my original concepts lead. I won’t be looking to complicate things more, but I don’t see much to get rid of. So, honestly, I think I've just created a 1-beer game, so to speak.

Flavor

I think I can describe in-game features of any of these, though some of the Aiding bonuses are probably best treated as psychological or magical. (Actually, one melee fighter aiding another in combat is pretty easy. Where it gets difficult is explaining how one character might effectively double the bonus of an archer on a given shot. For that one, I need to appeal to something ineffable). 

My plan is to insert side-boxes into the text, each of which will explain what a given mechanism means in-game. So, the rules will describe the system much as done above (and yes, that is what comes first), but there will be small sections that might for example describe what it means when a character is burning actions for bonuses, or conversely why a character takes a penalty on a flurry attack.

Mana Pool and Game Allotments

If that is a replacement for the General Spell Modifier as a penalty, that’s interesting. It may be a bit much to overhaul at this point. I.e. translating the penalties for x, y, and z into bonuses for the opposites.

I do have something independent of that, which can be converted into bonuses. To understand this, I have to explain the Allotments. Every Character has a series of options that can be performed a limited number of times per game. The number of times is always based on a Crunch-Stat. There are:

Persuasion Effects (Allotment = Presence) These are Intimidate rolls, Rally, or Aid to another character.

Affinity Bonuses (Allotment = Focus): This is a +3 Bonus to Aid that relies on having something in common with the character aided.

Opposition Bonuses (Allotment = Aggression): This is a Lethality Bonus of +5 to damage a character that has a Trait Opposite your own.

Desperation Bonuses (Allotment = Spirit): These are bonuses you can take if you are worried you are definitely going to lose a defence roll. Taking a Desperation Bonus means as a side effect that you will not harm the attacker if she botches her attack.

Spirit Reserve (Allotment = Spirit): This is a Reserve Pool that can be applied to all other Allotments. If you run out of magic, you can dip into your Spirit Reserve, but that means you won’t be using these points for Desperation, Persuasion Effects, etc.

So, there is a pool of points that can be used to invoke powers and skew rolls. Where it is most relevant is in the relationships between different Traits. Characters get traits for a variety of things. I’ll just mention two:

Traits

Natural Characteristics, for example elves are ‘fair’, ‘enigmatic’ and ‘wise’ whereas dwarves are ‘stalwart’ and ‘plain’. Note that ‘Plain’ and ‘Enigmatic’ are opposed. So, a Dwarf could take an Affinity Bonus to Aid another Dwarf, or an elf could do the same with one of her own. If either a Dwarf or an Elf attacked the other, they could take a hell of a Lethality Bonus on the attack.

Moral Values: A Character with Compassion could help another such character very easily, as could one cruel character help another one with the same value, but if a Compassionate Character went to war with a Cruel Character, they could do great damage to each other very quickly.

So, if you think about it, each character has something like a set of spiritual resources she can use to bump rolls, but the options there are skewed. On her own she can boost her defences with desperation bonuses and/or cast spells. If attacking opponents to which she is naturally opposed, she can crank the damage. But if she wants to boost bonuses in any other way, she will have to do it by helping others (or by getting help from them).

[center]Dindenver[/center]

Balance Versus Other Aspects of Combat

A player can always burn unused actions on a single die roll. The difference is that only casting can go for 1 round (though there is a Special Ability, called Patience that enables people to go 1 extra round on other rolls, ...but that is a specific character ability, not so much the general system).

Where the balance tends to break down is in high level casters. The reason is this; just about every other functioning stat is improved by 2 Crunch Stats. So, a Character can boost her Magic Defence by pouring points into Caution and Magic, but the modifier on an Offensive spell can be boosted by using 3 variables; Magic + Aggression + Speed (which boosts the number of Actions available). The latter pay-off is not always there, and at low-levels of power it isn't that significant. But give characters a dozen games or so, and it starts to matter a great deal. ...this is one of the main reasons, we added Desperation Bonuses to the Game Allotments. It gives characters a chance to better resist negative spell effects by spending a limited resource. The desperation bonuses helped to restore balance a great deal wen we added them, but the Magic System is in principle on a different course than the other aspects of the system.

Damage

Base Damage is the difference in the die rolls. This is subject to modifiers such as Lethality or Puny Strike versus Invulnerability versis Vulnerability. Some examples:

A Great Axe provides +5 Lethality on a successful Strike. Charge adds +2 Lethality. The Minor Special Ability 'Charge Specialist' adds +3 more (+6 if taken as a Major Ability).

A Pixie has a Puny Strike Penalty of -2. If he hits something,he automatically subtracts 2 from the damage, because he is wimpy. This will not reduce damage below 1, however, so a hit is a hit, even if it is not an impressive hot.

Armor grants Invulnerability Bonuses reducing damage from a successful strike (but not below 1).

Vulnerability: Elves add 2 to the physical damage taken on any successful attack. Orcs add 2 to the Mental Damage taken on any successful attack.

So, anyway, yes burning actions in melee, magic, or missile (or Intimidate and Spiritual assault for that matter, ...Spiritual Assault is a bit like psionics) will not only increase the odds of success but add to the damage enemy takes.

Writing Style

Writing Style may be my biggest problem at present. This actually started as a skirmish game, but we turned it into an RPG with the hope of having combat work the same in each, but with extra role playing elements added to the RPG.My thinking at present is that the dry style will help to keep the details in order. Given the level of detail, I think I need to keep it crisp and to the point in the actual rules. What I am trying to do now is develop more examples to illustrate the rules, but also include enough narrative detail in the examples to give them a little more flavor. I will also be added narratives describing the game-rules from a native point of view so to speak. My goal here is to add just enough flavor in side-bars to generate extra interest in the role-laying angles while keeping the basic rule-set pretty direct.

MacLeod wrote:
I like the mechanics that make up this system.
It doesn't seem too complicated either... I'm sure once the rest of the system is explained, it would become pretty natural to utilize. =)

Lots of information here... Lots of potential for a really great game, too! I've been frothing at the mouth for a new tactical/strategic/skirmish based RPG that doesn't bite the bag, so I'm extremely interested to see how this whole thing turns out. =D
How close is this one to completion?

"How close is this one to completion?"

The more options, the longer to complete it :)

I am glad you provide so much information about your system, it is pretty inspiring. The system of Game Allotments sounds like a good gamist approach to many "deep" things in game; it may translate into a more immersive system which supports crunchy resolutions at the same time, if done with lots of love :)

Unfortunately, I cannot comment much on it right now, I do not really feel like suggesting any new things, since I would certainly give some solutions from my own project.... And it would be strange to have many systems with the same specific solutions, do not you think? :)

MacLeod:

Actually, the game itself is done, and I'm happy to share it. By 'done' I mean that I have a complete set of rules that works for me and my group. I even have a couple hundred pages of monster write-ups and the first 12 gods of a pantheon. The setting is less than one page in. So, that's essentially an idea at this point. The current design is two books, one Game Handbook and one with monsters and other challenges (The Menagerie of Miseries). I am moving some of the stuff out of the monster book this weekend so as to make the Handbook stand alone. I can't publish two at a time, so I need one book to work on its own for awhile.

What drew me to this forum recently was cold feet and lack of outside input. There are no huge gaps in the game that I am aware of, but we are still tweaking to get things in order. I knew we had something that played well in our own group, but I also knew the text was falling flat when others read it. So, I have been looking to modify the presentation and get outside input to help me get it into publishable mode.

All the texts are in basic writing format right now, and all the illustrative examples are in a separate file of their own (with notes for how and where to plug them in). This thread showed me the importance of getting them together in the same text. Art exists, but it won't be put in until layout. Since coming to this forum I've added a demo module, 'The Wyrdling Wood', and an Introduction in the main game describing a quick exchange in a fight. (Since demos have consistently gone better than cold readings for this game, I decided to try an replicate a demo in the introduction. Got that idea here; haven't seen it play out yet.)

The plan at present is to spend the next month or so editing, then put the Game Handbook into layout. Might change the name; might leave it. I'm toying with "Worlds of Grief" as a minor change with similar flavor. ...and the prospect of chapters like "Giving the Players Grief" is fun. If I can get a hard copy of the Game Handbook done and released, then I'll put monsters, animals, and PCs online (we could do 1 a day for a year from the current batch if we do them as text alone with no bells and whistles) until I can release a full book of monsters.

The setting will be called 'The Stone Philosophic' and its intent will be to encourage epic journey into different parts of the world. Just imagine Mideaval (sp?) Europe with magic exploring and colonizing the rest of the world a couple centuries early (because magic makes it possible and they have an in-game incentive - the search for ingredients for the Stone Philosophic). Now they meet people from other parts of the world (along with their monsters). So anyway, the plan there is to develop small modules for different parts of the world until we have another for a 3rd book serving as a setting. Each demo will be premised on the notion that characters arrive (probably by ship) and play out a few sessions in the region before moving on. If players would rather work as natives that will be possible too, then the trigger for the plot will be the arrival of strangers. I think one of the reasons odd settings like Africa and North America tend to fall flat in traditional fantasy is that people run out of ideas. It's fun for a game or three, but then people harken back to fantasy standards. So, the idea here is to invite players to dabble their feet in such settings for as long as they like and move on if and when they want. I also want to heavily explore questions of contact and potential exploitation/resistance, and to mythologize it as well. Anyway, it's the prospect of getting to all these places that makes it "Worlds of Hurt" in the plural.

Hm... you really didn't ask for the total plan did you? All this is subject to revision of course, but it reflects the direction I'm heading.

Anyway, a complete version of the game does exist with no bells or whistles, and I am moving to the editing stage right now. I have few resources, so the pace of movement is uncertain, but foreword momentum is assured.

While I didn't ask for the whole plan, I'm glad you divulged as much. =) It sounds like you have a pretty solid grasp of the situation at hand... I've been given an undeserved fear of indie RPG makers not coming through for me (I can be selfish) but I feel some healthy confidence radiating from this project. =D

During your editing stages, do you intend to throw any more previews up for feedback here on the Forge? I'm no perpetual spring of super creativity and amazing but I sure wouldn't mind helping out in some way. That, and I wouldn't mind having a way of tracking the game's progress.

Hi McCleod,

Check your PM Box.