So I had an idea for a game mechanic the other day, and so I decided to embrace the spirit of those 24 hour design contests, ans see how far I could get in a full day.

I was actually pretty surprised at the result. It's not all art-ed up or prettified, but I think I got some solid work done.

Anyways, the game itself is something that I have ended up liking a lot and I think I'm going to try to run with it and see if I can make something worthwhile out of it.

Here's a link to what I ended up with: Google Docs Link

The basic idea is a game where there is a variable controlled by the players when resolving rolls. Sort of like a risk vs reward or gambling thing.

I decided I could do this by having a group of dice available for a player to choose from (d4, d6, d8, d10, d12 and d20). Tasks are resolved in a fairly standard format, where skill and bonuses are added to roll results and then compared to a difficulty score. The twist is that the player can choose any one of the dice to employ when making a roll. If the roll is in the bottom half of the die's range (even if the roll is an overall success), the number on the die is added to a score that eventually leads to bad stuff.

The setting I decided on was (as you can guess by the name) robots exploring the moon. The concept is that robots are being sent into a world that has been discovered in caverns that crisscross throughout the moon to make the way safe for humans (previous human teams sent to explore have all been lost). Since direct monitoring and communication is impossible, the robots are all fitted with a device that monitors their actions. Any activities (rolls) that the device deems to be less than optimal is interpreted as a malfunction.

Once the score that tracks low rolls (which also serves to track damage) reaches a set limit, the device kicks in, commandeering the robot's functions and rocketing it back to mission HQ, where its brain is debugged and uploaded into another robot body and sent back out.

This way, the robots end up with a sort of immortality, but are removed from play for short periods when they max out their score. While waiting for a replacement robot to arrive, the player gets to control a sort of flimsy temporary replacement droid, so he'll have something to do.

I'd like to know what people think of an idea like this, and more specifically, how I'm applying it. The game is only about 30 hours old at this point, though, so I'm sure a lot of the numbers are wonky. Any suggestions or comments are welcome.

Also, there are some things that haven't made it into the rules yet. One is a bank of personality quirks that are assigned to robots when they are debugged and uploaded into new bodies. This way each new robot body gets a little bit more batty.

It's an interesting concept, but there is a lot here I don't understand. For instance, what is the advantage of choosing a lower die type when a FAIL rating happens 50% of the time regardless of die type? I had to read the rules a few times to figure out that players could choose any die when they are required to roll. Also, I found character creation a little confusing; I think part of the problem is that you discuss character creation in the middle of the book. Character creation should be outlined in the very beginning of the book, just after describing the main game mechanic.

I think this has the possibility of being an interesting game, but more time definitely needs to be spend tightening up the concept and the layout of information to make it easier to understand.

Thanks for the critique. I agree that the rules as they are currently written are a bit vague. I'm going to add some examples of play soon, along with more specific rules. The robot creation should be moved to the front, you're right.

I think the FAIL score is a bit misleading when mentioned in the text. I probably should come up with another term for it. Here's how it works:

Dice that roll on the low end of their range are not automatic failures. They can be successes and still have the die result increase the FAIL score due to a low roll. There are no automatic failures in this game.

If a player rolls a d4 and gets a 2, then 2 is added to the Fail score. If the player rolls a d20 and gets a 10, 10 is added.

The idea is that when selecting a larger die, higher values are possible, but the player risks higher possible FAIL score increases.

It's not a 50% chance of failure; just a 50% chance of increasing the FAIL score. If a player's starting skill + bonuses equal 7, and the difficulty of a task is 10, then the player could choose a d4 and have a 50/50 chance of success. Selecting a higher die value would increase those chances, because even on a d20, a roll of 3 or higher would be a success.

As skills and bonuses start stacking up, players are able to choose smaller and smaller die values to achieve the same results, allowing them to play it safe. There will always be reasons to be tempted by higher die values, though. In combat, for example, attack and defense rolls add damage to successful attacks equal to the amount by which the difficulty is exceeded.

I plan on adding several Lunar Artifacts that have special features that are only activated when a die is rolled in certain ranges, like 8-10,12-20 or 15-20. This will mean that a player has to choose one of the larger die values to have any chance of activating the effect, also risking some higher FAIL increases.

Err wrote:
Thanks for the critique.

If a player rolls a d4 and gets a 2, then 2 is added to the Fail score. If the player rolls a d20 and gets a 10, 10 is added.

Hi, I skimmed through it. I find it's cute and I like mechanics where players have to assess risk vs success. I don't have really much to say about it but one suggestion and one question:

Fail Score should be called something like Defect Rate. That's the term usually coined by QC professionals, I think it would suit well what you mean.

What is the mood you'd like to inspire in a Robot adventure? I hoped that this answer would be answered by a mission example, but it is precisely the missing part... I like the potential for the gap between a mild fantasy described in the Creatures and Environments sections and the natural clumsiness of robots. Is it me, or that's very 70s?

Bossy wrote:
Hi, I skimmed through it. I find it's cute and I like mechanics where players have to assess risk vs success. I don't have really much to say about it but one suggestion and one question:

Fail Score should be called something like Defect Rate. That's the term usually coined by QC professionals, I think it would suit well what you mean.

What is the mood you'd like to inspire in a Robot adventure? I hoped that this answer would be answered by a mission example, but it is precisely the missing part... I like the potential for the gap between a mild fantasy described in the Creatures and Environments sections and the natural clumsiness of robots. Is it me, or that's very 70s?