In Orx, you have three stats (Nasty, Brute, and Grok) each rated in sides of dice (ie: d4, d6, d8...etc). During a contest you choose to roll one stat -- you can roll any stat you like, no restrictions. However, there is currently no reason to choose to roll anything but your highest stat.

I want to change this.

As Orx is decidedly Gamist, the question arises: is having three stats, with no real reason to use any but the highest, counterproductive?

I've been thinking of scratching the idea and going to a one-stat system; however, two problems present themselves:

First, characters will have a smaller buffer zone protecting them from the GM's Fate rolls than they do now, as they will not be able to switch between stats to flatten out the damage over time. It will be a straight, quick drop punctuated by a few successes that will momentarily level-out the losses.

Second, I really like the idea of being able to use any stat for any roll because it encourages creative narratives describing solutions to circumstances, without as often defaulting to the standard "obvious" results. That is, if you have to incorporate your social trait into the success of your duel, you probably won't be describing your character's horrible strength and how he breaks his opponent's back with a patented orcish power-slam.

Currently, the only penalty to rolling your highest stat is that losing the roll reduces the stat. That's a rather weak penalty even if you want to keep it high "for later" as rolling a lower stat brings you that much closer to being zeroed in that stat.

Hence, I'd like to stay away from a punishment mechanic that removes player choice in stat, as such already exists in the system in the concept of zeroed stats being non-usable and lowered stats being less likely to be chosen. Instead, I'm trying to think of a benefit that could be provided to players who use a lower stat for resolution without being too seductive.

Currently, you can boost a stat by one die-size for your next roll by successfully adding a complication to another player's conflict; of course, the question in this case is why wouldn't you boost your highest stat to make it even more optimal?

Of course, another solution (as it were) is to leave it as is: leaving the choice of stat simply as Color without any overt mechanical effect, and just let regular old stat loss do the talking in regards to variations of stat choice (as your highest stat loses size, one of your lower stats will temporarily become the highest stat and thus the optimal choice).

Opinions?
Any obvious ideas I've overlooked?

A simple mechanical limit isn't the same as punishment. That is, if you were to rule that you couldn't use stat X a second time until both stat Y and stat Z were used, then the player would have to strategize which stat to use by predicting whether this was going to be the difficult conflict, or later ones were going to be worse. Adds a whole new dimension to the tactics, and ensures that the player will have to use all his stats in narration. Including the bad ones, which should lead to the sort of feel I think you're going for. Allow the players to break out of the cycle and use the stat they like by adding Fate dice to the GM's pool or something to shake things up.

That said, I'm sure you could figure out a way to reward using lesser abilities if that seems more appealing. For example, you could allow a player to add Metagame dice to a pool based on the number of steps that the employed stat is below their max. Thus, if I have D10 in my highest stat, and use a d4, that's 3 steps lower, resulting in me getting a d8 for my pool (one step gets a d4, two gets d6, etc). These could be used on a one time basis for re-rolls. Or somesuch (forgive me if that makes no sense, I'm not sure if I remeber the mechanics correctly).

I'm sure there's some incentive that you can give that should balance out, and still leave the power in the player's hands.

But consider the first idea, too. Has some interesting effects, IMO.

Mike

greyorm wrote: As Orx is decidedly Gamist, the question arises: is having three stats, with no real reason to use any but the highest, counterproductive?

I like Mike's idea, its simple to implement and I think would provide a degree of planning ahead regarding rolls.

I'm thinking of another possibilities that likely would take a little more work to implement

What if any time a stat was used successfully, the orc got a point in that stat representing his "reputation" in that area. Use Brute alot, get a reputation for being Brutish.

That's all well and good until your reptuation gets bigger than your die size. At that point, you're too big for your britches and fate basically says..."oh, you think your Nasty 'eh?...well let me tell you, you're not THAT nasty...THIS is nasty".

So if a player does nothing but use the same high stat over and over it he will eventually build up a huge reputation...of the "writing checks that your body can't handle variety"...and this will be bad.

So how bad...not sure. Perhaps an automatic Complication for using this stat for as long as the reputation remains too high. Perhaps a -modifier to GM Fate rolls. Whatever works.

To reduce reputation: Fail twice iwith the stat in question, or attempting at least 1 roll with each of the other two stats (succeed or fail).

On the character sheet you could have 5 boxes for each stat...1 big box with 2 small boxes above and below. In the big box you put hash marks every time you use that stat successfully. Mark off one little box above each time you fail with that stat. Reduce Rep by 1 when both are filled. The boxes below are noted with the initial of the other two stats (A G and N below the Brute box). Each time a stat is used the corresponding boxes under the other stats are marked...unless already marked. When both boxes under a stat are filled lose a point of reputation.


Like I said, a little more involved, but it accomplishes something similar to Mike's idea without complete fiat.

Mike Holmes wrote: you couldn't use stat X a second time until both stat Y and stat Z were used, then the player would have to strategize which stat to use by predicting whether this was going to be the difficult conflict, or later ones were going to be worse...

add Metagame dice to a pool based on the number of steps that the employed stat is below their max...These could be used on a one time basis for re-rolls.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: Rolling on your highest stats can give you the option of raising that stat by taking a point from one of the other two...

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: I would have a minimum for the three stats, d4 in your case or d2 if you prefer. In a case when the lowest stat is as low as it will go and a roll is failed, incurring a penalty, then the penalty comes off of the highest stats.

Valamir wrote: any time a stat was used successfully, the orc got a point in that stat representing his "reputation"

You know, that reminds me of Demonspahn's "Aware".

In his game you had Instinct and Reasoning representing different ways for the suddenly-brought-to-awareness animals to solve problems.

They happened to use different rolling techniques, with one (Instinct) providing less variation, but more reliable results (basically nD2) and one more randomness but higher max (1D6+rating).

In addition "Reasoning" made you more and more quirky, which then was the downside to using it.

Aware is still in testing, but in play this mechanic seemed to work. Aware isn't a gamist game though.

Drawbacks for using stats (as suggested by Ralph) seems to echo Aware's mechanic. You could make rolling high would not only yield successes but also quirks or "reputation traits". You could include this in the rolling mechanism and make chances higher the higher the trait or something.

The method in Aware to actually use different types of die rolls for the traits introduced a strategic angle to the whole thing that also might be useful in some way for Orx.

Hi Raven,

Here's an idea: the lower the attribute, when you succeed with it, the higher/more effective the result is.

That's totally non-traditional, non-intuitive, has nothing to do with "representing skill levels," and seems to me to be fun.

The worse you are at it, the better you do when it does actually work.

Best,
Ron

I'll second Ron's idea; orx as a species seem to survive by 'idiot luck', and that idea gets that across nicely. ;-)

greyorm wrote: Thanks for the contributing, Jack! I like the suggestion, but spending Fate points already allow you to buy your stats up to higher levels -- unless I'm misunderstanding? Is this only a temporary raise? How does it look over the long run? I'm leery of changing too much of the core system, but I'll keep this one in mind, I just want to make sure I understand it completely.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: One side note, since Grok is the only stat given an orc name, you might want to mention in the stat description that it is cleverness but the orcs simply call it Grok because cleverness has too many sylababables.

Heya,

Sorry about the delay in responses, I was away for the weekend stuff with parents and family and such and just arrived back at home late last night.

Over the weekend I gave serious thought to Ron's suggestion of degrees of success, because Spooky is right: it does fit the idiot-luck idea of a standard Orx game perfectly. The problem, of course, is as Jack described: Orx doesn't have degrees of success, you either succeed or fail.

So I thought about how I could add a degrees of success to Orx, and how they would fit in the game. Though the few ideas I came up with ultimately didn't work, a few hinged on my throwing out the idea of Scenes as written which did get me thinking about the way Scenes and Conflicts were set up, and how I'd written things.

I realized the current text is incoherent in a number of places, so in and effort to make certain everyone is one the same page with me, here's a more coherent (I hope) explanation of the way Orx should play:

The best way to describe it is: If Orx were a play, the dice would form the script to be followed by the players.

Unlike traditional games, you do not declare a task or an action before you roll. Win or lose, the dice tell you what happened so that you can narrate the event, and you don't know what's happening until you describe it, according to the dice.

The dice provide definition for the forthcoming narrative -- all you know after a standard roll is that you're engaging in a specific type of conflict and you've either succeeded or failed at it -- the actual details are left undefined until the narration.

For example, a Nasty roll is a Social roll, so all a player rolling a Nasty die knows is that some sort of social event/conflict has occurred; it is now up to the player to describe what that event was, its outcome, and how that outcome came to be. For example, was it a terse word with the guards at the gate? A discussion of which fork in the trail to take? Did the guardsman's surly attitude put the character off for the rest of the day? Did the character feel ignored and belittled by the others even though they chose the branch of the trail he demanded?

The details of the narrative can be further restricted by the use of Descriptors and Complications, as well as the GM's opposing die (which can set the specifics of the situation/event that must be overcome, such as a dragon's breath, a sturdy oak door, or a puzzle) -- each is an element that must be included in the narrative after the roll.

As well, others involved can interject into and add to this narrative, as long as their actions do not affect the end result or the established elements -- in most cases, they will have to have rolled as well, so their chosen elements must also be utilized.

I'm trying to clarify this because it is an important, if not the central aspect of play: I specifically state in the text that you cannot speak or act in character until you roll the dice. I know this tripped up my playtesters (and even myself) repeatedly because the way in which play was handled was so ill-defined, and so some IC chatter was done without rolls.

This is why rolls in Orx are conflict rolls, not task rolls: you could narrate a long exchange of blows with an enemy ending with either your defeat or victory as the events of the roll. Or in the case of the Nasty roll above, you could narrate the growling, gnashing conversation between the members of the orcish warband as they vie for dominance in who leads and where they go next.

Also, one of my guides for the design is that Orx should be fully playable without any sort of narration occurring at all, as just a dice game.

The simplest way to play Orx: the GM gets X number of dice per "turn" by which to befoul the players and drive them towards zero. He keeps this die secret until the players have chosen and rolled their own dice, added Descriptor dice and Complications to reduce chances for another.

Anyone can use/borrow a Fate die (or dice) to roll again. Dice are marked down or increased (for the next roll). Fate checks are rolled if necessary (if an orc zeroes).

And it continues in like fashion until the GM is out of dice for that turn, and then for each turn afterwards, until the players have been put out of the game by the GM.

Here's an idea, so as to not wonk anything out of alignment:

If a player uses his second lowest (ie. middle) die in a contest, and succeeds, he gets a Fate die to use for a future conflict. If he uses his lowest die to roll, and succeeds, he gets two. These Fate dice do not put the orc in debt, or give the GM access to Fate dice, or whatever nasty side effect fate dice have. (I forget. Sorry!!) Basically, he gets some "hazard pay bonuses" for leading with his weaknesses instead of his strengths.

Thanks for the suggestions, everyone!

This discussion has helped clarify my thinking process quite a bit in regards to what to do with the stats and how I want it to interact overall with play, so I've made my decision at this point -- I will be playtesting a few of these ideas to see what each feels like and results in in actual play.

As it stands, I will be playtesting both alternating stat usage and banking bonus dice for using lower stats since I think these can most easily be implemented without creating too much complexity.

In the meanwhile, I will be moving on to other items in the game text that arose as needful of my attention. When all that is done, I plan to report in Actual Play as to how each worked out; for those interested, I will be announcing playtests on the Indie Netgaming group.

I enjoyed everyone's ideas, however, and I'm seriously considering some of them for use in Ninja Kitty, Samurai Dog, but more on that when Orx is finished.

PS:

Mike Holmes wrote: If I'm not mistaken, Grok was invented by Heinlein in "Stranger in a Strange Land" as a martian word meaning something like "to know something by being one with the universe, and therefore with the object in question".