Topic: Group Actions - Need Game Mechanic Ideas
Started by: Sturn
Started on: 5/13/2003
Board: Indie Game Design
On 5/13/2003 at 4:57pm, Sturn wrote:
Group Actions - Need Game Mechanic Ideas
First off: I finally stumbled upon a great game design forum! Where have you been hiding all these years? I must be search engine inept. Now on to my latest problem-
Need some ideas for resolving group actions:
A game I have been slowly designing, scrapping, re-designing for years contains a standard task resolution system. In a nutshell attributes and skills provide a TN, difficulty is determined by a number of D6 (less for easy tasks) rolled against the TN.
It works well for single-character actions and even competitive actions. I have been trying to come up with solutions for using the same systems for group actions: a.i. crew sailing a ship, group pushing open a door, unit force marching at a quicker speed then normal down a road.
My system has the skill of Leadership which I would like to implement somehow to affect group actions.
My ideas and their problems so far:
1. I don't wish to use an average of attributes and skills. I don't want to have my players stop to add up and divide their appropriate skills. In some cases using an average doesn't make sense - a.i. pushing open a door.
2. I thought of using the best appropriate attribute score and best skill score from the group, then adding a bonus for the number of others in the group. This would make sense for pushing open a door. But, it would not work well for a group marching down a road. Doing the opposite and using the worst attribute score and skill would make sense for attempting a fast march, but wouldn't for many other actions.
3. I thought of using 2 or 3 different systems for group actions depending on the varying situations, but thought this would be too burdensome. I'm still waiting for the light bulb to appear above my head to inform me of one simple system.
4. Increasing or decreasing the number of difficulty dice based on the situation is my latest idea for consideration.
Any suggestions? I have scoured over my stockpile of old out of print games downstairs but haven't found a good idea to start with yet.
On 5/13/2003 at 5:02pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Group Actions - Need Game Mechanic Ideas
Hi Sturn,
Here are the foundation game systems for group-action resolution that come to my mind, anyway:
Tunnels & Trolls
Maelstrom (or its derived setting-less version, Story Engine)
Hero Wars (soon to be re-released as Hero Quest)
But also see the unusual announcement-order system in Zero, which influenced me greatly in the design of Sorcerer, which in play often creates much more of a group-resolution effect than a one-by-one resolution effect.
Best,
Ron
On 5/13/2003 at 5:16pm, Valamir wrote:
RE: Group Actions - Need Game Mechanic Ideas
The first thing that pops into my mind is to tie the group effort into the difficulty by first answering the following questions:
1) does the additional members make the task easier or harder. 4 guys trying to lift a boulder would make the job easier. 4 guys all trying to be sneaky at the same time would make the job harder.
2) is there some threshold level that is necessary before the assistance kicks in. 3 kindergarteners trying to assist 1 guy lift the boulder aren't likely to be very helpful.
Then just adjust the difficulty up or down accordingly.
Ex. Doctor performing surgery: VERY difficult task, lots of d6s to roll. BUT, he's assisted by nurses, specialists, and the like...makes the job easier and brings the roll back into the realm of doable.
If there is any doubt as to whether the assistance would be beneficial, have the assistant make a roll themselves. If they succeed they make the main task 1 die easier. If they fail they don't.
Ex. lifting the boulder takes 8 dice (or whatever). Use the strongest guy for the TN. Anybody assisting who is at least half as strong as the strongest guy makes the task a die easier.
On 5/13/2003 at 6:51pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Group Actions - Need Game Mechanic Ideas
Welcome to The Forge.
Mike
On 5/13/2003 at 10:19pm, Sturn wrote:
Thanks
Thanks for the quick replies, they have got my ticker thinking again and I have yet another page of messy notes :)