Topic: mechanic idea: too clunky?
Started by: Matt Wilson
Started on: 9/24/2002
Board: RPG Theory
On 9/24/2002 at 11:09pm, Matt Wilson wrote:
mechanic idea: too clunky?
Characters have traits, which are something like attributes + skills mixed together -- nod to WEG's Star Wars.
Each trait is ranked from 1-5. Roll that many d20s and take the highest. Compare to an opposing roll.
Characters also have what I'm calling "tags," which are made-up descriptors kind of like the "cover" in Sorcerer. Everyone gets an archetype tag, like "smuggler" or "hotshot pilot," and some more specialized tags that either stack onto the archetype tags or cover new areas that wouldn't make sense with the archetype. Every tag you can muster for the occasion adds 1 to the total of your highest die.
Example: The smuggler archetype, assuming you're thinking of a Han Solo character, might add a boost to piloting your personal ship, firing a blaster, locating smuggling contacts and so on. The hotshot pilot, in contrast, would get a boost to flying any ship, and maybe some other perks as defined by the player's concept.
Extra tags that either might get are: good swimmer, sexy beyond belief, natural leader, and so on. There's some cooperation required between "that guy" and players, to keep the you-know-who's from taking the "neurosurgeon engineer karate pilot" archetype. There will be guidelines included.
Determining levels of success is the kind of clunky part. There's room for some serious difference between your highest die and mine, and I'd rather keep things in small numbers.
I thought of doing it this way:
Difference/successes
1/1
2-3/2
4-7/3
8-15/4
16+/5
I thought the 1/2/4/8/16 thing would be fairly easy math to keep the handling time down. And it makes a nice difficulty curve. 1 success isn't too hard. 5 is pretty unlikely.
On 9/24/2002 at 11:49pm, Andrew Martin wrote:
Re: mechanic idea: too clunky?
I've separated your post into the two pieces that make sense. Also, I've deleted one sentence that didn't fit and edited another sentence.
itsmrwilson wrote: Characters have traits, which are something like attributes + skills mixed together.
Each trait is ranked from 1-5. Roll that many d20s and take the highest. Compare to an opposing roll.
Determining levels of success is the kind of clunky part. There's room for some serious difference between your highest die and mine, and I'd rather keep things in small numbers.
I thought of doing it this way:
Difference/successes
1/1
2-3/2
4-7/3
8-15/4
16+/5
I thought the 1/2/4/8/16 thing would be fairly easy math to keep the handling time down. And it makes a nice difficulty curve. 1 success isn't too hard. 5 is pretty unlikely.
itsmrwilson wrote:
Characters also have what I'm calling "tags," which are made-up descriptors kind of like the "cover" in Sorcerer. Everyone gets an archetype tag, like "smuggler" or "hotshot pilot," and some more specialized tags that either stack onto the archetype tags or cover new areas that wouldn't make sense with the archetype.
Example: The smuggler archetype, assuming you're thinking of a Han Solo character, might add a boost to piloting your personal ship, firing a blaster, locating smuggling contacts and so on. The hotshot pilot, in contrast, would get a boost to flying any ship, and maybe some other perks as defined by the player's concept.
Extra tags that either might get are: good swimmer, sexy beyond belief, natural leader, and so on. There's some cooperation required between "that guy" and players, to keep the you-know-who's from taking the "neurosurgeon engineer karate pilot" archetype. There will be guidelines included.
Which one of the two game systems would you and your players want to play?
On 9/25/2002 at 12:41am, Henry Fitch wrote:
RE: mechanic idea: too clunky?
So... why is it he can't have both?
On 9/25/2002 at 1:00am, Andrew Martin wrote:
RE: mechanic idea: too clunky?
Henry Fitch wrote: So... why is it he can't have both?
One of the two systems seems to be a better fit for playing Star Wars. The other system doesn't seem to fit. So why not get rid of the part that doesn't fit and work on the part that does fit? That way, one is far more likely to get a good result.
On 9/25/2002 at 3:34am, Jeffrey Miller wrote:
RE: mechanic idea: too clunky?
Andrew Martin wrote:Henry Fitch wrote: So... why is it he can't have both?
One of the two systems seems to be a better fit for playing Star Wars. The other system doesn't seem to fit. So why not get rid of the part that doesn't fit and work on the part that does fit? That way, one is far more likely to get a good result.
Instead of leaving the wisdom of your observation as an exercise to the reader, how about sharing your insight? ^_^
On 9/25/2002 at 4:48am, Matt Wilson wrote:
RE: mechanic idea: too clunky?
Andrew Martin wrote:Henry Fitch wrote: So... why is it he can't have both?
One of the two systems seems to be a better fit for playing Star Wars. The other system doesn't seem to fit. So why not get rid of the part that doesn't fit and work on the part that does fit? That way, one is far more likely to get a good result.
1. They're not two systems. It's one system with a couple parts to it.
2. It's not for Star Wars. The Han Solo reference was... a reference. And the nod to WEG was... a nod.
Anyway, I think I'm bagging the +1 for each tag (Jeff, you convinced me) and having each tag add a die.
Instead of d20s, it's d6s, with the difference between highest and lowest die translating to successes. In case of a tie, move to the next highest die, and so on.
On 9/25/2002 at 5:22am, Andrew Martin wrote:
RE: mechanic idea: too clunky?
eogan wrote: Instead of leaving the wisdom of your observation as an exercise to the reader, how about sharing your insight? ^_^
#1 is like WW Storyteller system. #2 is a descriptor based game system, like my Accord system, Sergio M_____'s The Travels of Mendes Pinto (RPG.net) and Charles Ryan's Description-Based RPG system (no longer available on the net). I'm sure there are others.
But, I don't think the original poster is interested in a RPG about Star Wars now. Without a better idea of what "irsmrwilson" is aiming for, all I can do is take the negative view and point out seemingly obvious holes and mismatches in the presented information. :( It's difficult to be constructive when the goal or destination isn't in view.
On 9/25/2002 at 5:58am, Jeffrey Miller wrote:
RE: mechanic idea: too clunky?
itsmrwilson wrote:
Anyway, I think I'm bagging the +1 for each tag (Jeff, you convinced me) and having each tag add a die.
Instead of d20s, it's d6s, with the difference between highest and lowest die translating to successes. In case of a tie, move to the next highest die, and so on.
Now if I can only convince you to use d12.. ;)