So, first post, though I am a lurker - of sorts. I've recently decided to put what I've learned into action and realized I didn't know as much as I thought.
Here's the bullet points of my concept:
* Low-impact mechanics. I think that constantly rolling dice and checking tables interferes with playing the game. I've looked at one-roll systems and haven't found much I like. The system I originally began developing involved rolling a number of d6 based on attributes against a target number and counting the 'successes' to determine the degree of failure or success. I was later told that this system was used in the new Shadowrun. I have yet to begin a new system.
* The setting is best summarized as medieval post-apocalypse. Limited resources, degraded social structures, Iron Age technology. I began with the idea of a fantasy game without the fantasy elements (I know how that sounds), and found myself generating a cataclysm to explain why people can't be wizards or whatnot.
* A specific setting and specialized rules without limiting campaign style. I wanted to make something unique and identifiable rather than a general system, but I didn't want potential GM's or players to feel like they couldn't use it in adventures about political intrigue, horror, dungeon-crawling, etc.

More specific questions:
1) Without simply using an existing system (and yes that means you can't just tell me to look at X), what are ways to simplify action checks in order to remove charts/tables and minimalize dice rolling during gameplay?
2) I'm highly inspired by Mechwarrior's lifepath system for character creation, but don't want to steal it. Are there any alternative generation systems that produce attributes, skills AND a character history? I specifically want to avoid randomized generation, as well. Characters should be the creation of their players, not of die rolls or event tables.
3) Since society has collapsed, I want to eliminate currency. Are there any games out there that have used a barter system so I can compare what I'm trying to do to what has worked before? I had entertained the idea of assigning items a 'trade value' rating, but this essentially uses typical trade systems without liquid assets. I'm not dismissing this approach, but I worry that it might create mandatory charting.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Hi,

* Low-impact mechanics. I think that constantly rolling dice and checking tables interferes with playing the game.

Thanks, Callan.

I didn't want this discussion to get too side-tracked into what my be seen as more pertinent to the 'actual play' forum, but actual play is the reason for my goal. I encourage 'diceless' play frequently with my play group, and understand its merits for RPGers in general. However, with some of our players - and by extension, I assume - some players in general, coming up with explanations for complex actions or creatively solving problems in reference to a specific skill never happens. Since I'm attempting to make a game for an audience I don't personally know, I have to account for young, inexperienced or simply 'hack-and-slash' oriented players who don't want to verbally dissect something like disabling a trap or seducing a guard. On the other side of the spectrum, it occurs to me that very simple actions like an arm wrestling contest need not simply be decided on recorded stats. That is, a character with a strength of five might be able to out-wrestle a character with a strength of six, especially since these numerical values are essentially arbitrary and not necessarily informative. This then leads to the conclusion that when somebody wants to do something without simply role-playing it, the dice roll should determine the outcome, should tell as much as possible about the process and/or outcome and should be executed quickly.

I examined various one-roll systems including the Storyteller system, FUDGE and most of FASA's old product line but wasn't very satisfied. And of course, if I simply used somebody else's system, I wouldn't be creating anything new. I wanted to focus on six-sided dice because of the ease of obtaining them (you can always steal them from a dusty box of Yahtzee), and because their probabilities are easily calculated. Since recorded statistics still have to mean something, I like the idea of die-pools based on attribute values. Most games with 'difficulty' based target numbers have multiple charts and tables to express the multitude of factors that may alter an action's difficulty, so I want avoid that practice.

So, to be a bit more concise: Rolling isn't pointless, at least not always. Rolling should be able to fully replace a semi-detailed role-playing of the situation without being a chore.

Hi SB,

Welcome to the Forge!

There's actually a few things that you should consider, first, before even getting to the design-stuff.  It's not just "ok" to look at other game systems, it's exceedingly useful- even if you don't use anything they do, it does help inform you of what you'd want to avoid, and most importantly -why- you'd want to avoid it.

Second, you shouldn't begin your design imagining that it has to cater to every type of player.  Start by catering to the type of player, the type of play, you want -this- game to support.  If it doesn't support one thing, it won't support others, so start with the easiest, narrow goal and then expand if you see fit.

All of that said, yes, I would say check out a few other games, as there's a ton of "one-roll" systems, and games that avoid dice rolling, that have a lot of features you're talking about, which would be good in giving you ideas for you own game, in whatever way that would be.  James West's The Pool rpg, Inspectres, Unknown Armies.are a few that come to mind.

There's a few games I can think of that actively set up mechanics in such a way to minimize dice rolling (or card pulling). 

Polaris has a unique system for negotiating events in play, through words, and a die roll is a far possibility at the end of a failed negotiation.  Many games go using the die only once or twice a session.

Drifter's Escape only uses cards, when and only when, a player reaches a point where they can't accept what's going on, and then they "Make a Deal", which is more about bluffing and weighing costs than cards directly.  This usually only happens every few scenes over the course of a game.

Beast Hunters is tangentially related, but the game starts with a basic step to any problem- which is players try to figure out how to "roleplay out a solution" (aka, narrate a reasonable answer in actions) and the GM can just go, "Yeah, that's it" and the problem is solved.  Otherwise it goes to dice.  The unique thing here is that Beast Hunters is very much a gamist-beat down the monsters, kind of game, so explicitly putting it there has some interesting effects.

All that aside, it doesn't sound like you need charts at all.  (Go look at the Pool, for example).  It seems like your goal is pretty easily achievable, the question is details.

Chris

Thanks for all the infor, Chris.

Any ideas on a barter system?

I didn't want this discussion to get too side-tracked into what my be seen as more pertinent to the 'actual play' forum, but actual play is the reason for my goal.

However, with some of our players - and by extension, I assume - some players in general, coming up with explanations for complex actions or creatively solving problems in reference to a specific skill never happens.

I think that constantly rolling dice and checking tables interferes with playing the game.

Hi SB,

1) What are ways to simplify action checks in order to remove charts/tables and minimalize dice rolling during gameplay?

2) Are there any alternative generation systems that produce attributes, skills AND a character history? I specifically want to avoid randomized generation, as well. Characters should be the creation of their players, not of die rolls or event tables.

3) Are there any games out there that have used a barter system so I can compare what I'm trying to do to what has worked before?

Callan wrote:
The tricky thing here is what if these players like checking tables on a regular basis?

It's a bit hard to tell where your serving your own preferences and where your attempting to serve theirs? I mean, could you perhaps give a percentage estimate of how much you'll serve your own preference Vs attempting to serve theirs? Like 80%/20% or whatever set of numbers?

Also it might be worth looking at this article. The rules involve in that are essentially that going to dice would probably kill the character. Maybe you want some sort of rules where going to dice likely means something nasty, so play will bounce to a narrative level under threat of that.

Hi SB,

But because nobody is fully happy, I'm trying to find a good middle ground between gamism and narrativism.

I'll second Chris's post, in terms of anyone at the forge contributing anything.

Since I'm thinking at the game-design level rather than simply the GM level, I'd rather not dictate that style to the audience. Basically, if some people really don't want to storytell they shouldn't be punished for it.

Being able to support varying modes of play is good, but it's not as easy as saying you want to leave things open and not penalize people, as Callan noted, there's a very broad range of what you or a player might see as punishment . . .

It's probably best if you figure out what the core of play is for the project (you can always make more than one game if you find yourself with ideas that do not mesh all that well) and move on towards design with that settled. As Chris and Callan say: figuring out what types of play (perhaps by describing some game sessions that were very enjoyable) you enjoy is a good start.

As a note, nothing at all is stopping you from using the d6 with successes mechanic. You can't exactly stop someone from using a mechanic. As long as your text doesn't copy another author's, you're fine. The Shadowrun system is pretty solid IMO, and I've got one game in my design folder which uses a variant of it.

If you want to have your rules work in a general way, strip them out and use them for a variety of one-shots in different genres. Tweak until they actually support that type of play. Then integrate them into the game system you want to actually release. Release a cut-down PDF for free.  (Open Game License or not is a matter of personal preference. As I mentioned, nothing stops anyone from using your resolution system if they rewrite it.)

Lots of things I missed, I'll be brief.

The bridging the gap concept is less personal than you think. Some people are objective-oriented and this makes them bad at playing a role. A character might have traits marking them as outgoing, honorable and easily excitable but in the hands of an objective-oriented player that character becomes quiet, potentially dishonorable and only excited at the moment of victory. That sort of player shouldn't be excluded.

The punishment idea comes from the article linked above about diceless play. If that character were forced to go to dice, they would probably die. A system should not be designed that way. Some players simply do not want to talk everything out and if going to dice means that their character dies, they are put into a position with two bad choices. This is not a positive design element, and I would like to avoid it.

Character failure needs to have real consequences to distinguish it from a state of not-success. The particular consequence, however, should not be determined by the game designer but by the GM.

I'm not concerned with potential IP theft, I'm concerned with somebody reading my rulebook saying, "Oh, he got this idea from X."

The core gameplay of a game is determined less by the designer and more by the GM, I feel. Elements like suspense, mystery, political intrigue, military missions, dungeon-crawling, etc. are written by the GM and should not be pre-determined by the game-designer. Hard-and-fast genre elements like magic, cyber-technology, faster-than-light travel, etc. are not used in my particular project because I wanted something different, not to dictate a style of play. The proposed gameworld borrows elements of post-apocalyptic and alternate history games to create a sense of realism and desperation. Characters don't just decide one day, "Hey, I'm going to go on an adventure." Everybody's looking for something. Everyone needs things. Everyone has to work to achieve those goals.

Hi SB,

Character failure needs to have real consequences to distinguish it from a state of not-success. The particular consequence, however, should not be determined by the game designer but by the GM.

Chris_Chinn wrote:
Stake setting, is actually a formalized set of rules for a group to do just that.  Particularly in showing a group how to make less rolls, more meaningful rolls and also avoid stuff like having the GM test a character 20 times to just sneak into a castle.

1) What do player characters DO in the setting?  Is there a goal or direction, or a step the players take during character creation or play to help people figure out goals and directions?

2) What choices do players make in play?  What things are "givens" and what things will the players have to struggle with (regardless of whether it's "tough" for the characters)?

SortableBadger wrote:
I'm not concerned with potential IP theft, I'm concerned with somebody reading my rulebook saying, "Oh, he got this idea from X."

Hi SB,

The game is designed to generate player choices at almost every turn.
(snip)
Story-relevant choices however are determined by the GM not the game designer.

It sounds to me that you like a simmy style of play, but you dont like the volume of mechanics that is often required to model a simmy world.

Without illegally referencing other games :)  I reckon it comes down to raising the level of abstraction.  More abstraction in your model = less mechanics.

One major abstraction that I personally like is to do away with individual skills and attributes altogether and replace them with a general kind of aptitude.

i.e. On a scale from 0-5, a character has pirate 4, nobleman 3 and  vagabond 2    So he is pretty good at all things piratey, OK at all things noblemanish and has some proficiency in things relating to vagabondage.

You might think thats way too abstract for your game, so dial it in somewhere between.  when reviewing your rules, you should be constantly asking yourself - is the cost of modelling THIS greater than the benefit?  If so, maybe just cut that part of the model.  But if there is something that you really want to model, but seems bloated, you obviously have to think about abstracting it so you can replace the bloat with something lean. 

Quickly, some specific points. Matthew, your last post is on the one hand very depressing and on the other even more depressing. A whole industry built around recycling old ideas will eventually die. If the way to single yourself out publicly/commercially is based around artwork, layout, etc. then homebrewers don't seem to have much of a fighting chance. And yes, I read the article here about just that sort of attempt. It doesn't change my mind.

Chris, Players and GMs exist at different levels in terms of storylines and decision-making. Game designers are even more distant. I, as game-designer, should not be dictating what the story is in any particular GM's adventure. I certainly shouldn't be determining whether or not a particular player trades his claim to the family farm for a chainmail hood. The game is designed to generate player decisions by utilizing mechanics that limit the scope of player growth and force conflict in what would otherwise be mundane situations. The specific nature of those conflicts and growth choices - and certainly the actual decision made - is not mine to make. GMs write the story of the adventure. So, if the story is about uniting the clans politically to peacefully form a new republic, the player has choices to make but what options are available (because they're integral to the story) are the GM's decision. Even the most freeform, sandbox-ish style of RPG has to have critical junctures where a specific choice is made. Otherwise, there is no actual story, probably no conflict and therefore no actual role-playing game.

I am trying to enforce story-driven gameplay despite the fact that stefoid is right and I am making (despite my best efforts) a simulationist game. Group composition could be troublesome, and I was going to iron out the details of my OP before tackling that bug. Somewhat ironically, the way around this may be using a character goal statement. If a warrior charged with defending his village just left one day to go off an adventure that would be a pretty big deal. But, if it's because his wife and daughter were taken as slaves by an invading tribe, that might explain both the reason for his being outside of the village and the reason why he's teamed up with the motley crew that is the rest of the play-group. So, I like the idea, I will give it more thought and try to iron out a way to make it work without seeming too out of place in the character generation process.

Stefoid, I have been thinking the past two days or so that I should reframe my post here with some insights gained not only by the other posters here but also through re-reading Ron's articles on the whole GNS thing. I don't want to get into a discussion like, "I want to make a sim-nar hybrid with features to keep gamists happy on their leash," mostly because - if you can take a metaphor - I wouldn't write a novel on the basis of literary theory. Ron's article about Simulationist play specifically mentions rules-lite/character driven games as a derivative of 'high-concept' games which seem to aim at providing a specific backdrop to play in rather than, say, directly determining conflicts and such. Since the labels of gamist, narrativist, and simulationist are just as appropriate when applied to players as they are to games, I would like to try to avoid catering to one and not the others. I see little benefit in limiting the potential player base. However, it seems that the more I want to allow disparate and potentially incompatible playstyles the more I thrust myself into this exact category of High Concept Simulation. I am looking to build around covert mechanics (for what I perceived as narrativist motivations) but I don't want those mechanics to be abstracted to the point of arbitrariness (for openly gamist reasons). The actual list of skills and traits has not been written yet, so at least in that case I can take your suggestion without re-writing. As far as the conflict resolution mechanic and trade go, I think I actually did what you suggested. I should start dialing it in on character generation soon.

Thanks to all of you for your insight and contribution to the development of my game. I hope to have a workable rule-set by the end of the month, or at least early December. When the time comes, I will gladly move to playtesting.

SortableBadger wrote:
Quickly, some specific points. Matthew, your last post is on the one hand very depressing and on the other even more depressing. A whole industry built around recycling old ideas will eventually die. If the way to single yourself out publicly/commercially is based around artwork, layout, etc. then homebrewers don't seem to have much of a fighting chance. And yes, I read the article here about just that sort of attempt. It doesn't change my mind.

Hi SB,

Game designers are even more distant. I, as game-designer, should not be dictating what the story is in any particular GM's adventure. I certainly shouldn't be determining whether or not a particular player trades his claim to the family farm for a chainmail hood.

Matthew, your input is appreciated and I wish you luck as well.

Chris, I agree, When you asked about the discrepancy between the comments you quoted I thought you were trying to say that I intended the GM to make choices for the player so I felt the need to elaborate on my position of the relation between designer, GM and player.

My next mechanical step involves combat, specifically weapon and armor interactions. I'm going from a baseline that 'necessity is the mother of invention' to build a system where certain armor types work best against, say, slashing weapons and others against, say, bludgeoning weapons. I'm running into difficulties keeping this system covert enough to fit the design constraint of "minimizing tables." I thought about using equipment traits as a shorthand way of utilizing the mechanics without referencing the rules every time combat happens, such that armors tagged 'plate' resist slashing and weapons tagged 'piercing' go right through anything less tough than thick leather. The specific problem is how to manage the functionality of these equipment pieces outside of their 'extremes.' Using the examples above, what does a piercing weapon do to heavier armors? Further, how can I represent the variety of equipment players would expect without adding lengthy lists/charts/etc.?

Historically speaking an arrow or bolt from a crossbow will bounce off of a full plate suit unless it hits a joint, which is why joints were then made with protrusions to ward off piercing attacks. Killing people in full plate was a brute force idea. Poleaxe. Big fucking hammer. That kind of deal.

Historic accuracy makes for some pretty brutal play, and a re-invention of the fantasy paradigms we all know and love (to hate . . .) So really this is a question of "how close to real do you want it" and what you're willing to give up getting there.

I'd assume you've looked at RoleMaster already, but in case you haven't, go take a look. Yes, it's chart heavy so not a real option for your design goals, but there are insights to be gleaned from Arms Law regarding at the very least ONE way of looking at such things.

The Arms Law thing looks like it might be a good place to start looking when I want the proper tags. As a point of interest, metal armor of any kind will be rare. This isn't a knights-on-a-quest type of game.

Since the roll mechanic is success-based, and the idea is to simplify the mechanical end of the game, I was going to use the number of successes in a combat roll to determine the severity of the wound. Our play group is, in fact, fond of wound-based damage simulation rather than health points; the brutality of the combat should also help achieve the aesthetic desired. Let me use an example to illustrate the issue.

I seem to recall seeing on television a demonstration of a flanged mace striking a steel cuirass and leaving a hole almost identical to a bullet hole. So, the issue I had with determining weapon/armor interactions was along the lines of deciding whether mace-like weapons should be tagged as 'crushing' or somesuch and desireable against plate or if a weapon with a small point of impact should be labled 'piercing' or whatever and desireable against plate. To generalize, is it the weapon type or the physics of the specific weapon?

On the other hand, the hardness of the material must also be considered. Although a wooden club could simply be massive enough to crush plate armor, you would also probably break the club in the process. So, I wanted the material of the weapon to be important as well. This adds complexity, and all of the pros and cons of that decision. However, suspension of disbelief might suffer if I allow stone knives to cut through metal. The decision I made on this issue is that all weapons are recorded with their material such that nobody has a, "broadsword," but may have a, "bronze broadsword," or similar. The material is then rated (I suppose some charting wouldn't be so bad) and the difference between weapon material and armor material affects wound potential. It may be the case that no wooden weapon can damage a character in steel plate armor, but I want the "why" to have an internal explanation rather than leaving it to the player/GM to decide whether or not they like it.

I think the depth of the system is a very personal thing. Limited damage types, by weapon classes, or individual weapon stats are all completely valid approaches.

I've got the same question running about in my head working on my new system, so I know it's a hard decision.

Mathew wrote:
Historically speaking an arrow or bolt from a crossbow will bounce off of a full plate suit unless it hits a joint, which is why joints were then made with protrusions to ward off piercing attacks. Killing people in full plate was a brute force idea. Poleaxe. Big fucking hammer. That kind of deal.

Historic accuracy makes for some pretty brutal play, and a re-invention of the fantasy paradigms we all know and love (to hate . . .) So really this is a question of "how close to real do you want it" and what you're willing to give up getting there.

I'd assume you've looked at RoleMaster already, but in case you haven't, go take a look. Yes, it's chart heavy so not a real option for your design goals, but there are insights to be gleaned from Arms Law regarding at the very least ONE way of looking at such things.

Arms race. Later crossbows could penetrate lighter suits of plate which were being phased out for better suits all the time. The reason you see the discs and such on late model plate is to combat the one big thing that was the downfall of plate: the joints.

Fact is, missile weapons vs. knights were effective mostly because they were mobility kills. Horses would die, bringing the riders down, injuring them or at the very least making it almost impossible for them to fight further. This is one reason that barding was developed along the same lines as personal armor. Plate barding would allow a horse to avoid many of the kill shots, allowing the mounted combatants to reach the enemy lines and destroy the infantry/archers.

In game terms, it's very difficult to balance certain types of arms and armor, because they span a period of hundreds of years. I mean really, a sling was a devastating weapon at the beginning of warfare. Far more dangerous than it was by the time personal protection involved helmets and padded armor covering the whole body. A short horseman's bow was powerful in it's element, but was no match for a longbow's range and power. Double-mail (kingsmail) was the pinnacle of protection for a while, but it too was no match for the protection afforded by a suit of full plate . . . which of course became far less attractive when gunpowder became more prevalent!

General idea is that certain weapons are pretty much ineffectual against certain types of armor. Full plate needs a can-opener to really be threatened. Not to say lucky shots can't happen as they can. :)