So, this is an outline of my latest tinkering. Its a system aimed at swordplay, as it happens, rather than generic resolution. Its intended to exploit HW's concept of deferred resolution plus "flat" attributes (so that combat is not too compartmentalised) in combination with some narration manipulation ala Colin the Riots idea, plus a touch of L5R's Iaijutsu mechanic. As usual, I'm looking for screamingly obvious problems I've missed.

The basics.
Use a d10 and read 0 as zero and 9 as nine. Success is defined by rolling OVER the TN. TN's can be as high as 8. 0 is a valid TN.

Characters have attributes which are rated from 1 to 8. A missing attribute, if challenged, has a default rating of 0 (surprise). Learned skills and "inherent" attributes are not distinguished.

Initiative is determined by a method to be devised later. When acting, the player nominates an ability and rolls a number of dice equal to that ability. The TN for the roll is the targets level in the same ability. So, a character selecting a Strength contest with Strength 6 rolls 6 dice against a TN equal to the targets Strength. All rolls are single like this; there are no opposed rolls.

Any die which EXCEEDS the TN is moved to a "kill pool". Exchanges are processed until one player, after a roll like that above, declares that they are "going for the kill" or "taking the kill". They then gather up all the dice in their Kill Pool and roll these against a TN set by the targets armour. 3 successes while "taking the kill" are needed to kill the target and the pool is reset to 0.

The kill pool of both parties will tend to accumulate over time; the kill pools get larger and larger as there are no mechanisms (as yet) to lower the pool. It doesn't matter what attribute or ability is rolled - all attributes add dice to the pool (caveat - see below). This is aimed at exploiting HW's fluidity of interpretation of actions.

Combat skills fill a particular niche - they can be used at any time in combat. This is mostly important when comparing combatants with non-combatants: an armed and trained warrior will make an attack with a combat skill of several dice against a TN of 0 for the untrained peasant. OTOH, the peasant has no combat skill dice and so must improvise based on strength etc. So, the trained warrior still has a motive to keep these values high so they don't get taken down like this.

Two skilled combatants would probably open their combat with combat skills in order to establish who has the advantage - once this is clear I would hope to see a wide variety of combat improvisations originating from other abilities, especially by the inferior fighter.

I also expect that there will be a tension between "getting a confidently large kill pool" and "cashing in the kill pool soonest".

Thoughts?

Edit: I'm intending to shamelessly steal Colins fact-mandating idea for the final determination of the kill attempt.

Ooohh! Keep going, Gareth. This is working.

Thought: although for now, "kill pool" makes sense, what's the angle on alternate goals during a fight? (subdue, escape, etc) - and how might it be that you end up achieving a less-desirable goal than the one you've stated?

"I didn't want to kill him, but he left me no choice."
"I wanted to kill him, but he was too good - I had to leap the balcony to escape."

Best,
Ron

I need to clarify some details of the mechanism.

Am I correct in assuming that the three successes in a kill roll must occur all in the same roll, and are not cumulative? So if you get two successes in a kill roll you've wasted your kill pool (and drained it to zero dice) with no effect?

Am I reading correctly that the kill pool roll does not take the place of a normal attack roll; it occurs as an extra roll after the attack roll in the same 'round'?

(If the three kill roll successes CAN be cumulative, and the kill roll is an extra roll that doesn't cost you your normal attack that turn, then the mathematically best strategy would be to roll all kill pool dice as soon as you get them.)

Just a few other comments...

It sounds like knowing your way around the pool odds table (chance of getting 3 successes in N rolls with T target number) would be a big advantage.

Missing a kill roll is very dangerous, at it would often allow the opponent to build up to a near-certain kill before you could build your own pool up for another decent shot. This is not necessarily a bad thing, as it adds to the speed vs. certainty tension.

This mechanism could get very interesting in multiparty combat, especially if there's a way for C to step in to prevent A from using his already accumulated kill pool against B.

- Walt

wfreitag wrote:
Am I reading correctly that the kill pool roll does not take the place of a normal attack roll; it occurs as an extra roll after the attack roll in the same 'round'?

Am I correct in assuming that the three successes in a kill roll must occur all in the same roll, and are not cumulative? So if you get two successes in a kill roll you've wasted your kill pool (and drained it to zero dice) with no effect?

It sounds like knowing your way around the pool odds table (chance of getting 3 successes in N rolls with T target number) would be a big advantage.

This mechanism could get very interesting in multiparty combat, especially if there's a way for C to step in to prevent A from using his already accumulated kill pool against B.

To suggest a solution to Ron's question. Perhaps rather than a kill pool, you accrue an 'action pool', where the combat points you accrue can be you used to perform a number of actions, including fleeing and crippling. You would then use the target number provided by whatever your appropriate action gives.

Example, maybe the knight you're fighting has enough points to give you a damn good whack next turn. But you haven't accrued enough action points to believe you will land an effective blow against a heavily armoured opponent, where the TN would be 7 or whatever, so given your lightly armoured condition you may instead choose to flee, on 3s or whatever.

This certainly isn't limited to just combat. A similar mechanic could be used for negotiation, stealth, whatever.

Jeremy

contracycle wrote: I'm intending to shamelessly steal Colins fact-mandating idea for the final determination of the kill attempt.

You've read Paul Elliot's Zenobia, haven't you, Gareth? Very similar to what you're proposing, though possibly a bit more elegant (IMO).

Mike

Great mechanic.

How do different weapon types factor in?
Perhaps you're looking for a very nar-friendly system, and all weapons (and bare hands) are created equal. Otherwise, it feels like a problem.

problem example:
Percy, using "Pugilism 4" vs. Knute, using "Knife-fighting 4." Knute needs to have an advantage somehow.

The solution that springs to mind is granting each class of weapon one to three "lethality dice," using the difference between weapon lethality as a bonus to the kill pool.

revised example:
Fists: no lethality dice. Club, knife: one. Axe, sword: two. [Game world appropriate fancy axe or sword]: 3.
Percy puts his successes into his kill pool each round, no fuss.
Knute gets a bonus die each time he does so.
When Knute fights Alex the axe-weilder, Knute gets no bonuses, Alex gets one.

Or, for greater lethality, Knute gets one, Alex gets two; playing with sharp objects leads to hurt in a hurry. Depends again on what you want combat to feel like.

-----

I see as a great feature that combats could well be misses and death. But for this to be the exclusive range of results feels a little too gunslingers-at-high-noon to me.
P'haps a wounding mechanic with the kill pool such that 3 successes = death, 2 = -2 penalty to all rolls, 1 = -1 penalty to all rolls.
Or -2 and -1 dice... I'll let the stats folks take over here.

-Matt

There's a lot going on here; I'm going to attempt to accumulate the points that caught my attention, and suggest a possible mix.

Gareth wrote: Any die which EXCEEDS the TN is moved to a "kill pool". Exchanges are processed until one player, after a roll like that above, declares that they are "going for the kill" or "taking the kill". They then gather up all the dice in their Kill Pool and roll these against a TN set by the targets armour. 3 successes awhile "taking the kill" are needed to kill the target and the pool is reset to 0.

Ron wrote: Thought: although for now, "kill pool" makes sense, what's the angle on alternate goals during a fight? (subdue, escape, etc) - and how might it be that you end up achieving a less-desirable goal than the one you've stated?

"I didn't want to kill him, but he left me no choice."
"I wanted to kill him, but he was too good - I had to leap the balcony to escape."

Matt wrote: How do different weapon types factor in?

Hi Gareth,

Looks to me like you're ready to rip off a couple of fantasy maps from old RPGs, sit down with some relaxed friends, and try playing this thing. I'm eager to see how you think it flies.

Best,
Ron

Ha! I haven't even tackled a magic system yet ;)

I've had a thought about final thresholds of success. One way to pitch it is that in the contest of ability dice vs. ability TN, you are literally defeating that aspect of their character, and hence in order to KILL them you need to match (or exceed) that same number in terms of succesful kill pool dice.

This means the same numbers are used througout the whole process of a single roll. Say you are attacking with Wits 8 - you are tricking your opponent in order to defeat them. You are matched against their Wits 4 - you describe your cunning move (I'm provisionally granting full directorial control to the active party for the roll - they narrate the action of the duel, knowing themselves whether they intend to take the kill or just build up the pool, but I digress) and roll 8d10 against TN >4. Let us assume this smart fellow had a few dice in the kill pool already and ends with say 9 dice in the pool; if they then take the shot, they roll against at TN from armour, say >6 and need 4 (or more) successes, from the victims Wits again, to actually kill them. Anything less is interpreted as a partial result or wound with details nominated by the active party; the "recieving" party then takes narration for the denoument. In this case the descriptions would involve the victim falling for a feint, or being pushed backwards into an object and tripped, or perhaps getting in too close and taking a basket hilt in the face, and this will also serve to frame the interpretation of partial results.

This leaves an actual wound mechanic totally distinct from the resolution per se, and only applicable if necessary. I'm inclined to think its not necessary. For one thing, a wound mechanic for gamist purposes is there to represent the limits to action because of the injury. However, if you just reinforce their injured status with colour and get the player to tell you how, despite their grievous injury, they manage to pull of this stunt. All the GM has to do, to be "fair", is nag the player to incorporate their pain and suffering into their descriptions. That would be all I need, anyway. For partial injuries, the victim should have to discount the level of success by the amount of prior injuries, if they were not fatal. So a character who lost the Will exchange above, but lived, the flamboyant attacker having only achieved 2 successes, if they are later defeated on their Strength 6, then 2 of those are discounted and the attacker need only achieve 4 successes (still at TN >6 though)

Lastly, I'm inclined to think that the GM should be encouraged to reward some bonus dice liberally, that ability levels are seen as a base on top of which interpretive dice are added depending on the GM's assesment of plausibility , or style, or whatever: just to be liberal and throw out favours; I'd be inclined to dish out at least one bonus die per fight/opponent, basically. This is for reinforcement of colour; denying these bonusses with graphic descriptions of why can also be used to keep players injuries in mind, should be they be prone to acquiring amnesia.