Hello and greetings from someone just signed in the forge.

I've been playing rpg's since the beginning of the 90's, not as much now as I used to. I've always been a gm and my priorities have shifted from first om simulationism to narrativism I guess. Well few years I've been toying with idea of universal and very scetchy rpg that suits my needs, which are:

1) any setting, heck I love playing in different settings
2) loose character creation with different kind of approaches
3) universal resolution mechanic including ALL stuff, ie. combat and other stuff are just examples of this, combat does not need different rules

And, I've come up with DIO, well, the name is not so good anymore since it doesn't use only d10 anymore. Unfortunately it is in finnish but I've been toying with the idea of translating it to english and putting that version online. These are the main points:

Character creation
Story-base character creation and universal unlisted traits (no skills and abilities-difference) values ranging from -10 to 10 but the game is open to any number 'interval' on being used. Creations rules are for open creation (no points or hassles), point bought traits and random traits.

General mechanic
Mechanic is quite simple, take the value of the trait and add dice, take value of difficulty (set by GM) and add dice, compare. The thing is, the dice can be altered with different situation (from d2 to d20), the dice being the Luck factor, if you throw the dice away you have karma method, some d2 and d4 dices are when skill or competence rules and d10 or d12 for very random situations where luck counts. GM can alter the luck dice with situational modifiers, for example if someone takes risks to accomplish something very difficult (the propability of winning gets increased when luck increases, if difficulty is greater than your trait) etc.

General mechanic also includes possibility to modify contest to simulate anything from one roll contest to long, cinematic battle scenes, this is so that I don't need any combat rules, I can simulate submarine battle and sword fight with same rules, altough very broadly.

Experience
Experience comes with three different possibilities,
1) GM experience = gm tells when your traits change
2) experience points = you gain points which you can allocate to raise values of traits
3) learning by doing (RQ-style) = you gain points to traits what you use.

Anyone interested reading of this kind of game, is it worth translating it to english?

Best regards

Hyva:a: Petteri!

In general, we like more information. Translating bits and posting them here is always a good idea, as far as I'm concerned, because you get great feedback.

As others have said, if it's a game _you_ are excited about, then you should post it. If you're not so excited, and wonder whether anyone else would be...why would we be excited about a game that you aren't excited about?

Aidan

There are a number of other generic d(variable) systems in existence right now. Have you seen The Window? Do you have anything not yet posted which would make it stand out from games like this? Otherwise I'm seeing very little new here.

Mike

Yep, I've seen window, the ladder, fudge and number of other indie game systems, actually, this one borrows a great bit from these systems. The things I haven't seen in any system yet:

1) Luck factor, you can either determine not to roll and to decide the fact or to roll the dice and see the consequences, my system has variable luck levels that give different 'feel' to the situation.

2) Usually the generic systems in the web are very granular, I mean there are usually 4-7 values for a trait (fudge, ladder, the window for example). My system has all from -10 to +10, 21 values. From my point of view this gives more flexibility and smoother character advancement through experience.

Yes, I am very much excited of this game or more like a scetch but someday it will be a game :)

Best regards

Further more, my trait value scale (from -10 to 10) is open, and does not need any special features if it is crossed.

Say the players encounter a dinosaur or a supernaturally strong critter. How strong is this creature, as gm you can whim it's strength is about 20 or 100 and thst's that, it can be done easily. If two jedi's are battling each other they both might have lightsaber trait of +15 and the combat can be played normally without any special rules.

Some systems are closed (i.e. system has minimum and maximum possible trait values, if they are crossed the game breaks down).

Best regards

Who decides on whether or not to roll the dice? Could you give an example of resolution in general?

While the system is open-ended in terms of potential stats, it does have the problem with failure of ranges to overlap. That is, if you have a +6, and I have a -6 in some trait that we're competing with, and the GM determines that the luck factor is a d10 for me, then I can't win. Is this intentional? This will become a real problem with the dinosaur, unless I get some big stat, or the GM allows me to roll a d1000. Setting the luck variable will require a lot of coaching on the part of the text to get across in any case, I think.

I could get a finer granularity by taking one of the d10 systems out there, and multiplying everything by 10 including using a d100. The simplicity that they take on is often a design choice, not a flaw (though with the Window, and some dice pool games, I'd agree that the granularity is artificuially chunky). So I'm not sure how much we gain from your system there.

Not giving guidelines for chargen, while freeing, doesn't make your system better. It just prevents bad things from happening. It doesn't do anything to make the game a more effective tool. You can't argue that the game is better because it doesn't have something that some players want.

Mike

Ok, here is an example:

John is trying to climb over the fence, let's say 5 meters high and very hard to climb up at. While John is not really athletic, he has slightly over average physique, which gives him trait value +1 for this kind of climbing activities. GM set's the difficulty at +4, meaning that the fence is bit too much for him.

Let's say the situation is normal and John just needs to get over the fence, GM sets the luck dice to d4 (there is no stress or anything similar involved). John's player throws d4, gets result 3, that added to his trait value is 4. GM throws difficulty dice d4, gets 2, result is 6. John tries to climb over the fence but he fails, it's too much for him.

Now the situation is different, John is being chased by angry bull and John has to climb over the fence to get to safety. There is a lot of stress in the situation, so GM set's the luck dice at d8. Now John has much better chances of going over the fence, but also good chances to blow it big time (he hurries and falls from the top of the fence next to the raging bull or something).

I don't really get your point of the chargen issue. The character creation system is like this

1. You write character story

2. You pick traits from that story with gm

Free method: you assign values to the traits by 'common sense' according to the story, and with the help of the gm.

Point method: you assign values to the traits by point pool method

Random method: you assign values to the traits randomly (you can choose which value to put in what trait you wish, according to the story) and then you distribute few more points to traits.

These three methods are not necessarily used all at the same time, GM can set that in that particular genre, only random characters will do or something like that.

So what was your point with the chargen ?

Best regards

About the luck levels: in many tasks, you can determine very quickly if you can do a task without putting in greater effort, and you can go no further unless you take a chance. For example:

"You chase after him, but he's slowly outpacing you."
"Your lift yourself up the fence, but it's tough; the handles are not easy to climb, and the metal is a bit slick with water."
"Your punch is effortlessly elbow-blocked by Doctor Ninja."

So, in many cases you can forgo the luck dice. Encourage your players further to describe what kinds of maneuvers they're doing; assign trickier maneuvers higher levels of luck die.

Dev: You got it, exactly my idea of using the luck dice.

The gm set's the luck dice but not with luck :), the luck dice is determined by the situation: genre, stress level, character's maneuvers. More risky means possibility to accomplish something you normally would not, but it comes with a price. The setting of the luck dice is about as difficult for the gm as is setting the difficulty, if you are used to it.

Note also that if you have greater ability than the difficulty (you can master the situation), more luck actually decreases your possibilities of success (however increases the possibility to success big time).

I haven't really decided if I employ critical failures or successes, and how to do it, but the degree of success or failure determines how god or bad it is.


Mike: the decision about not rolling the dice is also one for the gm. The no dice -option is kind of luck level zero. Used for situations where gm doesn't want the result to be affected by randomness.

Also, if you cannot accomplish the task (Mike's example of -6 against 6 with luck dice d10), gm can decide that the dice is not rolled and result is clear (however if degree of failure is required, then the roll must be made). For success the player has to push it (the luck dice) somehow, and +6 and -6 difference is quite a big one, it's like comparing national chess champion to someone who just learned how to play chess.

Best regards

On the chargen issue, your first post was not clear. I thought that the only method was the freeform method. For the points method, how many points do you assign? Is it zero based?

How broad are traits selected? Have you thought about guidelines? For the freeform method, anything is suitable. For points or random, however, breadth becomes a concern.


Have you considered just allowing the player to select the die they roll, select the Luck level? Representing the character "going for it" to the extent represented by the dice? Given that you can only go to a d20 (really large dice would give an inordinate chance for success for underdogs), and that larger dice have a proportionally greater risk, I don't see any "winning" strategy. It's all just risk assessment. So it would make a neat gambling mechanic. I do think that underdogs will go for the big dice, but I also think that's a dramatic effect.

The player would still have to narrate something appropriate (and the GM could veto big dice on lame descriptions). But it would alleviate the GM from having to do that part himself.

I'm still ambivalent about the massive underdog having no chance, even a tiny one (even in the "normal" human range the peak can never be defeated by the worst example). But that's not to say it isn't a potentially valid design choice.

What do you do with the degree of success or failure? Are there any mechanical effects? Or is it just for description?

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Have you considered just allowing the player to select the die they roll, select the Luck level? Representing the character "going for it" to the extent represented by the dice? Given that you can only go to a d20 (really large dice would give an inordinate chance for success for underdogs), and that larger dice have a proportionally greater risk, I don't see any "winning" strategy. It's all just risk assessment. So it would make a neat gambling mechanic. I do think that underdogs will go for the big dice, but I also think that's a dramatic effect.

Walt, that's why I asked about the use of the Margin. If it's just pass/fail, you're right about what's the best strategy. My assumption was that, since we're being forced to roll to calculate it, even in cases where the pass/fail is academic, that the margin means something. If so, then underdogs may want to go with lower dice to keep some chance of success, but to limit the lower end of the failure range (heck, in some cases, players might even take an auto fail to limit damage while, say, waiting for the cavalry to arrive). While overdogs (?) may want to go risky in order to get a more impressive success.

Basically, I was assuming something like your option 2.

It occurs to me from my example, that opposing forces might try to force things to one end or the other as well as the PC. Perhaps the GM could select a die, then the player, and an "average" between the two of some sort (rounded down?) would give the resultant actual die. Neat way to get the "opposed" effect, without a different mechanic.

Petteri, have you considered having the player roll both dice, adding one and subtracting the other? Same net effect mathematically, but different psychologically.

Mike

Mike: yes I have thought of player rolling both dice, I decided it this way because:

1) In contested rolls, other person must roll the dice anyway, so the mechanic is more similar to this one (or then contested rolls would have to be made normal rolls, with other side trait value as the difficulty level).

2) This way (gm rolls the other dice) gm can hide his dice result, and so keep the difficulty and the result to himself, but the player got some hint about how good he succeeded (he sees his own dice result).

On the point of player choosing a die, that is a very good possibility, since the degree of success most definitely affects the situation, failing by one level is altogether different than failing with 5-6 levels or something. So big die is not automatically 'an underdog paradise'. In contest situations both sides would choose a die and then gm would choose something in the middle, that would be appropriate.

I am over halfway of translating the system to english, and after the weekend it is possible I get it online. However during the weekend (I have no net at home) I cannot read your great answers and suggestions :(

There are also rules for extended contests, where one round of the contest is built of normal contest roll, the result being marked as advantage points (degree of success). And gm set's the number of advantage points required for winning the whole contest. I have a little problem in this section: what to do if the contest includes several persons or sides, like 2 against 1 or 3 against 2 (this system simulates every long contest, from fights to debates, if necessary).

The breadth of the traits is another problem, and even if I limit myself to freeform character creation, the problem still occurs in experience and raising of the traits. I have been toying with an idea to set breadth to traits (value from 1 to 3) and value 2 needs double the experience to value 1 to be risen up one level, value 3 needs triple.

In point base character creation, the traits are divided to natural traits (the ones everyone has +0 if not described, like abilities and such) and obtained traits (skills and traits requiring learning and something that everyone doesn't have naturally). The first ones being zero based in points (negative traits give more points to distribute) costing trait value x 3, and the other ones costing trait value + 11 (so value -10 costs one point, -9 costs two etc.). Total amount of points is 100 in normal games.

In random method the player rolls 4d6-14 to all traits (he can shuffle them at will) and then add 10 more points to traits.

Best regards

Ok, the new working title is Chaos & Order, if you have better suggestion, feel free to inform me :)

I managed to translate it to english, it is in:
http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~jphannil/Chao.html

If you find (and you will) some errors, feel free to comment.

The two questions I have to this group are:

1) What to do with extended contest roll if there are many sides to the conflict ?

2) Do this system, in your opinion, need rules for disadvantages (by which can physical damage, exhaustion, mental stability, magic points, whatever be handled) ?

Best regards

One of the hardest things to write in a game is a description of how a resolution system gets initiated into use. You write:

The success roll is used, when gm or player wants to know if character can perform some action and the result of that action is not known beforehand.

Thank you Mike for a nice reply.

That is a thing I haven't even thought of writing, the usual thing being that I (like others) play as we are used to play and so I didn't bother to address the issue, but you are right, it should, and the decision could be made here.

In our usual games the gm says when to use dice and when not to, simple. But my playing group has always been very gm-oriented, including me. My ultimate experience of rpg is that players don't need to bother with the mechanics. That is not to say it cannot be played differently. But as I read your post I see that I haven't addressed the issue and that line you copied is wrong, the players don't initiate the resolution system in my games, or at least hasn't been doing it yet. So I am going to write it as we play it, gm tries to keep the system to himself and player tries to get 'in character'. This might be not very 'modern' as a gaming style, but that is how it has been.

Best regards

This might be not very 'modern' as a gaming style, but that is how it has been.

Where did I say that resolution system is not needed in most cases ?

I use the resolution system quite much, my use of the resolution system is based on drama, the more dramatic situation, more system is being used.

So a player is opening a door, no big deal.

Player is opening a door trying to leave silently after he escaped from ropes, ok a roll can be done.

Player is opening a door trying to leave silently while a guard is standing outside, heck yes, a roll.

Player is trying to pick a lock open when a grey giant ape is after him, most definately roll.

These examples are based on excitement, but other drama aspects can apply too. If there is a debate which affects the characters situation greatly, it can be rolled as well (however not without proper playing from the player, meaning arguments and such).

Best regards

My ultimate experience of rpg is that players don't need to bother with the mechanics.

Ok, with that comment 'players don't need to bother with the mechanics' I mean players, not the gm. In my games as a gm, I keep the system and most of the results to myself, and only describe what happens to the players. Players can participate in mechanics in two ways:

1) they roll when needed, and add their trait value

2) they have character sheets and can handle character experience

Ok, there is a third thing, if I tell player if character has hindrances like damage or tiredness that affects the traits, sometimes I tell how much is the penalty, sometimes not.

Other than this, the players get input only from my descriptions. In this way new rpgers and old rpgers are in same line, they both get same input and system itself (even if player knows how the system works) won't help. I've seen that in my games, common sense is the best rule and it creates variable results beyond any mechanical system. This is the reason I started to build this 'rules light' system, to get what I want out of it, the numbers in chaos&order should point to the direction I will take the situation in, but the numbers itself won't tell any details of the situation itself.

Cool stuff. Get that into your text. That'll excite lots of players. Many people like to play this way. If they find a game that's designed to support it, they'll be ecstatic.

Mike

Ok, I put a new version online:

http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~jphannil/Chao.html

New stuff:
- defined style of play (as in great discussions with Mike Holmes suggested) and the invoking of the resolution system

- Character creation is clarified a bit, more info about natural and obtained traits and especially assigning trait values when there are none present.

- Game system has few new features, success roll result now can be boosted with group effort, if such is applicable. In contest rolls there can be multiple sides to the conflict (example: a race of some kind).

- Disability system (handles physical damage, exhaustion, mental shock, magical exhaustion, whatever ...) but the rules concerning this are at alpha state. These are not very elegant, anyone has better suggestions ?

This weekend I have a slight possibility for playtesting again, let's see what comes up from that.

Concerning the breadth of the traits I am still puzzled how to handle this elegantly.

Best regards

Somebody else comment now, damnit! ;-)

If nobody else does, I'll get back to this at some point.

Mike

Seems to me that nobody is not really that interested of my game :/ but anyway, I'll poke a little more :)

I've been thinking of changing the behaviour of extended contest so that in stead of winning side getting advantage points, all contestants could have a pool of points which are reduced and when 0 is reached the contest would end. Statistically the effect would be same but this would offer few advantages:

1) Some situations would be more intuitively modelled, for example fight scenes where these points would indicate characters 'ability to act' or something like that, when 0 points is reached, he is out of the fight.

2) Gm could set different amounts of points for contestants giving flexibility and more modelling power to the situation.

What do you think ?

Petteri,

I think you just perfectly described the Extended Conflict rules from Hero Quest. Are you familiar?

Mike

Seeing Walt Freitag's message about fudge and centered dice I came up with an idea for a centered dice system mixing fudge's with jphannil's mechanics.

A d6 is throwed along with the luck dice, the d6 will determine the direction as follows:

d6 result Effect
1-2 luck result is substracted from skill rating
3-4 luck result is nor added but substracted, but still useful for ties
5-6 luck result is added to skill rating

or

d6 result Effect
1-3 luck result is substracted
4-6 luck result is added

In this second option, when the luck dice throws its maximum value it counts as zero. A similar system with 1 and 6 meaning exploding dice would be also interesting.

So a 12 in a d12 and an 8 in a d8 would count as zero.

I just read your new version of the system. I like it. A few caveats, though...

I couldn't find either guidelines or a game mechanic that actually demonstrated how using higher luck die was in any way a potential disadvantage. I remember you mentioning how it could be used as such in an earlier post, but it's NOT THERE in the actual written rules.

The same is true for over-the-top successes.

That said, I really like the system. It seems reasonably fair and balanced, and you provided a good deal of optional rules that make sense.

Speaking of optional rules and luck dice, have you ever heard of the game Button Men? I believe it's published by CheapAss Games. Anyway, in this game, each button man has different dice it can use to make attacks. These are standard polyhedrons just like you use in C&O. Anyway, if a character uses a die to attack, and the attack is beaten by the opponent's die, then that button man loses the die. So, if I roll a d4 and get a three, and you roll a d6 and get a five, then my d4 is "killed". Of course, I could also roll a 1 on my d20 and have it get killed by a 2 on your d4, as well, so the strategy used is to save the big dice for when the player really thinks they need them. So, even if the size of the die rolled didn't influence the possible severity of success or failure, then the possiblity of losing a strong die for a period of gameplay would definitely inhibit a player from using it. This might overcomplicate your rules, but it struck me as being a great game mechanic that might fit into an RPG somewhere, somehow, someday. Maybe I'll steal it for my next project.

Thanks for the replies guys.

Mike: I haven't got the HeroQuest, but I've heard about it and read some HQ stuff here in the Forge (actually I got the AP idea from there :). The action point solution is (mathematically) equivalent to my advantage point system, it is only 'upside down' and not downside up, and it could give many options. Do you think it is plagiating if I use it ? I mean almost every game has hit points, aren't they taken straight from D & D.

failrate: Hmm, I don't quite get what you mean by using higher luck die as a disadvantage. The thing we were talking about earlier was that higher luck die doesn't necessarily mean greater possibility for the underdog (the one who has less than 50% of success). This is because high luck die can also open in the wrong direction giving the underdog a massive failure. That is the reason why I decided (as Mike suggested) to let the player choose the luck die used. There is no 'winning strategy', only gambling with chaos and order :)

Interesting mechanics you posted. From that button men example, did the system have some skills i.e. how the dices were spread for the players or something like that ?

I've been thinking of using C&O in IRC-game after I get the net, I hope it is simple and intuitive enough for the task :)

Best regards and thanks for the replies

Aghori: very interesting indeed. the mechanic you suggested would have few nice advantages, for example in contest situations both sides can use different luck die instead of gm choosing one in the middle. The results could also be more intuitive and difficulty roll wouldn't be needed separately at all, player could just toss those two dice.

In contest situations though this means 4 dice rolls per contest round, in my method only 2 are needed. I don't really know how big a drawback this would be.

What do you mean by that exploding die roll (1 and 6) ?

Best regards

jphannil wrote: Do you think it is plagiating if I use it ? I mean almost every game has hit points, aren't they taken straight from D & D.

Actually, I was telling you that there aren't any rules in the draft I read that actually addressed the effects of rolling really well or really badly. At least not as far as I could tell.

failrate: yes, because, uhm. they don't yet exist :)

Except in extended contest where the loser loses AP:s equal to the success of the winner, so if you fail miserably you could end the extended contest in one roll.

The actual effect of losing more or gaining more in normal rolls are ruled by the gm.

If disabilities occur because of a failed roll, the amount of the disability is usually the degree of failure (see the disabilities example of John falling when he is climbing the fence).

Speaking of the AP:s, I have a new version online (same address, just reload). New stuff:

1) AP:s in extended contest
2) Flow examples of extended contests, I mean they are not a rigid mechanic
3) Trait affinity (i.e. multiple traits could be used in a roll)

Best regards

So, Mike, does it look too HeroQuestian (the AP's and stuff) ?

Others ?

Best Regards

Too Hero Questian? Not at all. In fact your system has a lot of dissimmilarities. In many ways your method is closer to D&D Hit Points (as they're explained, not as the mechanics seem to indicate). Again, I only pointed HQ out in case you weren't aware of the similarities, and so you could check it our for ideas.

For example, do you intend to have a rule for "Final Actions"? Could work well with your system. Also, is there an effect to how far below zero the losing actor is driven?

Mike

Hmm, D&D hit points are only for fighting yes? AP's can be used anywhere, but I agree that they do reflect somehow.

Final actions? Meaning that the winner of the contest can do some action he wishes (when the other side hits 0 AP).

I don't know if negative AP count for anything, since the amount of AP's given and the flow of the contest (quick or slow) nail the situation quite nicely. If you have some good suggestions though, I am glad to hear them :) (in normal contest rolls the difference counts (gm rules them), and in extended it also counts, you lose more AP's).

Best regards

jphannil wrote: Hmm, D&D hit points are only for fighting yes? AP's can be used anywhere, but I agree that they do reflect somehow.

Final actions? Meaning that the winner of the contest can do some action he wishes (when the other side hits 0 AP).

I don't know if negative AP count for anything, since the amount of AP's given and the flow of the contest (quick or slow) nail the situation quite nicely. If you have some good suggestions though, I am glad to hear them :) (in normal contest rolls the difference counts (gm rules them), and in extended it also counts, you lose more AP's).

Interesting suggestion Mike, and very intuitive.

At 0 AP, character can still perform an action against the opponent of the contest, but if he loses, he gains the amount of his lose in disability of some appropriate nature. That disability also affects the trait used in this contest. The disabled character can even try once more, however losing means more disability piles up.

In fighting for example, after AP 0 character gains physical damage until damage is at level 15 and character dies. In debate or something like that the disability could be something else: morale loss, bad rep or something appropriate.

This would make extended contests very long, so this should be restricted to the most dramatic cases, for example non-important npc:s could drop in a fight at 0 AP while big boss could try to do something even after 0 AP. I would call this .... dramatic extended contest :)

What do you think ?

Best regards

Another idea came to mind, 0 AP would still be 0 AP, if reached, the contest is over, permanently. The thing is, tough guys and heroes could get AP with gaining equal disability.

Say a viking berserk warrior has 10 AP's and he is dropped to 5 AP's, the berserker's player decides that it's taken as wounds and he still has 10 AP's, but now he has 5 levels of wounded that affects fighting and such.

The nature of the drawback varies and gm can rule if something is appropriate or not.

How does that sound ?

Best regards

Might work. It's certainly self-limiting, if you assume that the disability taken has to apply to the conflict at hand. There might be some issues with the order of narration on this, OTOH. Play out a sample, and you'll see what I mean. I think that a lot of these issues are definitely at the playtest stage.

Mike

Hi again !

Of the playtest issue, I haven't got a regular group as my old gaming group has spread all around in their lives. I've been thinking of starting an irc-based playtesting but I have problems with my network at home that must be clarified first.

Back to the point, Mike, what do you mean by order of narration ? I've thought that the point when player loses AP would be the spot for him to decide, either AP loss or disability.

For example John is in a fight with a cultist and loses a round of action by degree of 5, this indicating he is going to lose a 5 AP. John's player could decide he takes 5 point worth of physical damage disability instead of losing 5 AP's, but he could not decide to take 3 points of damage and 2 points of AP loss. This would clarify this rule a bit and avoids micro-tinkering, why micro-tinker if the game system is as broad as C&O is.

I've been thinking of dividing traits to 3 different 'breadth' levels, 1 = profession or wide, 2 = selection of few skills and abilities and 3 = hobby or a single skill. These would then correlate somehow in the experience system (professions and broad things are harder to raise through experience). In point based character creation, these would also be more expensive.

How does that sound?

Best regards

Given the example, it sounds fine to me. Have you considered making it the player's job to describe what a result the causes a Disability looks like? That is, not only does he choose the Disability, but he gets to narrate what getting it looks like. Just a thought.

jphannil wrote: I've been thinking of dividing traits to 3 different 'breadth' levels, 1 = profession or wide, 2 = selection of few skills and abilities and 3 = hobby or a single skill. These would then correlate somehow in the experience system (professions and broad things are harder to raise through experience). In point based character creation, these would also be more expensive.

Jep, I'm familiar with the gurps problem, I actually dislike the system just because of that.

If you remember I have only traits which are not defaulting to each other in any way. I don't have the stat/skill differentiation, but if I had, it's difficult not to fall to the 'gurps problem'. What are the drawbacks of not having a stat/skill system, especially so because so many games are stat/skill -based nowadays ?

Of the drawback issue, I have to think about that, I've given quite much player control allready with the ability to choose a luck die.

Best regards

It's a matter of defaulting, not stat/skill per se.

Consider, one player has Warrior skill with a few levels, and another has Sword skill. They're both trying to hack at something with swords. Does the warrior get to use his Warrior skill? Now, lets say that the Warrior character picks up sword skill to one less level than warrior? Now how good is he?

Mike

For current rules, this would fall under the trait affinity rules.

Say the guy with warrior-trait of +2 and a sword trait of +0 is hacking with an axe, his warrior trait would come into play, so he would have +2. If the same guy picks up a sword and uses it the trait affinity gives him the trait of +3 (the best trait used, and +1 for every other trait that's value is at least the highest trait -5).

Can you see a problem with this, related to the trait breadth rule (or otherwise) ? If so I am very eager to hear it and suggested corrections.

Best regards

OK, I just reread that part about affinities. There are some potential problems there. For one, what's to stop a player from listing a hundred +0 Affinities? Using the point based method, that's free. I assume that if the trait isn't listed that it can't be used? Or are default +0 traits usable as well. Because if either of these things is true, players will always be able to find four traits to augment with.

Interestingly, that assumes that the highest Trait isn't greater than 5 (or the +0s can't be used at all). Which gives you a strong reason to cap off abilities at that level if, again, you can have all the +0 affinity traits you want.

Anyhow, a similar problem to my original problem still persists. Let's say that I've got a character who has Warrior +2, and Sword +2. Can you think of a time when Sword will be applicable, but Warrior won't? There might be cases, but I think it'll be very rare. Basically Sword "defaults" to Warrior in this case. What this means is that the additional points of Sword are, well, pointless. I can always use Warrior as the pertinent skill in the example, and either way I only get +3, the same as if I only had Sword +0.

As long as there's a skill that defaults to another, that is, skills that always can be used with others, you'll need to have more of the "sub-skill" than the default skill in order to make any difference.

In any case, the value of Warrior, even if we say that there are sub-skills that can't use it as the primary Trait for a roll, is equal to it's own value as an Ability, which is already wide, plus the value of one level of every skill that it can be an afinity for. So, lesse, for Warrior I think that I can come up with about 20 or so skills that it covers at least. Which means that Broad skills should cost about 25 times as much as narrrow skills. Which means that, either they won't get purchased at all if that's too much of the character's points, or that's all that will get purchased if they're cheap.

It's the same problem as in the Rant. The player will have a winning strategy based on how many of his Traits they see as defaulting to the broader traits and depending on cost. Which means that you won't get a distribution of each, you'll get all or nothing, wide or narrow.

The essay lists the potential fixes. Hero Quest's fix is to say that all characters get a set number of broad Traits (the Keywords) and then can purchase other Traits. That's the way I've been leaning of late. FATE does the same thing.

Mike

I would say I limit the affinity for traits mentioned in the character trait list, otherwise every player can come up with a dozen of useful affinity traits for every occasion.

If I divide traits to Broad (B), Average (A) and Narrow (N), and assess that in character creation, every character has x B:s, y A:s and z N:s, would that solve the problem ?

Then in experience system B-traits are harder to raise than A or N and so forth.

Would that be enough ?

Further more, only natural trait +0 is free, obtained trait +0 costs points. The amount of traits is also fixed from 5 to 15 so only important ones can be picked. Also the traits must be in the story so the abuse of the +0 traits is quite minimal, I think.

Natural traits are traits which every person of the culture the character is representing can posses with average quality without training or special experience. During gameplay, if natural trait is called for, everyone is assumed to have +0 value in such a trait if it is not mentioned in his trait lists or story.

Nope, default traits +0 do not count against the limit of 15. They are put together during play if a trait is needed and there are none present. I'll write clarification to the affinity (so that unnamed traits cannot be used in affinity).

I've thought of the following:

In chargen, character can have a maximum of 5 Broad, 5 Average and 5 Narrow traits, less can be chosen at will, but at least 5 total traits must be chosen. I haven't yet thought how to differentiate the costs of the traits in point based chargen.

In experience, I haven't yet really thought of the rates. The starting point for me was that Average traits cost double as much as Narrow and Broad cost triple. However that could mean that I must change the experience system somehow, it feels kind of clunky. At least I must make tables so I can see the relative costs of different trait breadths.

Best regards

Are the points divided up between the categories as well for these? Because if the point generation system uses only a single pool, the problem pops up again. What I'd do is just break up the pool into three parts, and then allow them to buy as many or few Traits of each sort as they like.

This is, of course, problematic for ongoing advancement.

Have you considered only two tiers? I say that because its much easier to handle. Basically in creating Traits, there's only one "line" that the players and GM's have to understand. When you have two lines differentiating you tend to get these problems of comparison. Not something that can't be overcome, but the question is what's gained by the third level of discrimination?

Anyhow, if you only have two levels, then you can just declare that the broad ones don't advance at all in the course of play, or only during "strategic play" or the like. Basically, dividing up the points again into two pools. Because any ratio like the one you're describing is problematic. Why pay the single cost for Sword, Dodge, Marching, and Toughness, when Military is cheaper (going with x3) and covers them all and more?

Mike

Hmm, good suggestions, I'll have to think about these for applying.

The two-level model sounds good because it's quite like a stat/skill system after all, and the difficulty of deciding if something is of level average or broad goes away. It's intuitively quite easy to declare if a trait is narrow or broad, but average was quite difficult.

How about this, two cathegories, during character creation points spread even with these (50 and 50 for example), they can be risen normally with same costs (natural and obtained trait difference counts as usual).

In play when you gain 10 XP you gain one point of Broad XP which can be used in broad trait experience. Broad XP can be only used to broad traits and normal XP to narrow traits.

However what to do with the RuneQuestian style experience (raising the traits through using them), I love this way of dealing with experience and had to add it to the game as well :)

Best regards

jphannil wrote: However what to do with the RuneQuestian style experience (raising the traits through using them), I love this way of dealing with experience and had to add it to the game as well :)

Yep, by RuneQuestian I don't mean I would fall to the same pitfalls RQ did. The thing that fascinated me is the idea that game system mechanics work so that you learn what you do.

If you read through Chaos & Order, you will see there are different methods to distribute 'marked experience points', one is that RQ-style so that you gain one per adventure. There are, however, other solutions as well, you get points for dramatic successes for example, this changes the whole approach to this and removes the problems you mentioned. Other way is so that you gain xp by dramatic failures, that changes the atmosphere also (note that these different methods are just suggestions, things that could be used in different settings and for different 'level' of characters)

Of the issua with RQ:s deadliness and randomness in experience, yep that's how it is. However I haven't copied that part of RQ, in my RQish experience system there is nothing random at all (at the moment).

Best regards

If you're going to use a "Use increases ability" system, then what are the EXP all about? I'd just drop them, and say that a character can only advance via the in-game method. If you want to reward a player by giving them some advancement out of game, just announce that you're doing so, and give them the level in the skill with some retroactive explanation. That's much more immediately gratifying, and simpler.

Also, if you want to have a simutaneous advancement system, then say that a player can, at any time, trade in three points of narrow skills to increase a broad skill that they all "default" to by one point. There's an exchange rate there, but I don't know if it'll have any problems (I'd have to think about it more).

Mike

The problem is, there is no 'defaulting' for narrow traits to broader traits. They are combined in affinity when the situation occurs and after that there is no connection. Or did I somehow misunderstood your point ?

Any good 'use increases ability' methods to suggest with broad and narrow traits ?

Best regards

That's why I put 'default' in quotes. How about "make sense as part of". So I've got a character with:

Warrior (broad) 1
Sword 2
Shield 2
Alertness 2

I can reduce the latter three to level one in order to make Warrior level 2 (note, to clarify, I can't take more than one level from any ability, it has to be one from each of three). What this means is that instead of using Sword augmented by Warrior in a fight, the character will switch over to using warrior augmented by sword. Same effect, but, since warrior includes things outside of the three things mentioned, it's advantageous. In fact, I'd make this the result of a reward, only, and not completely at the player's option. Else I think you'd soon see all skills collapse into broad skills.

Mike

Yes, in your example I can see that thing happening, broad traits getting higher and narrow traits reduced.

But what about, in chargen, if I have 50 points to broad traits and 50 points to narrow traits, cost of the traits is the same (the ratio could be modified even if the setting requires it), then I throw the xp out of the window.

Now every trait gathers experience ticks, broad and narrow alike. The ticks can be gathered in different ways (depending on setting, as I describe them in the experience chapter). When used in affinity, all affined traits get experience ticks, but the main trait used gains perhaps more.

Now, the narrow traits get raised up when trait value + 10 ticks have been gathered, broad traits need trait value + 20 ticks. How's that ?

There are two problems:

1) lots of bookkeeping (but it may be unavoidable in learning by doing experience systems)

2) If gm wants to reward player with good roleplaying, he has to come up with something else than xp, free ticks perhaps?

Of course gm can decide if some of characters traits raise or not, even without ticks.

How's this ?

Sounds OK in mechanical terms, but now I agree with Andrew. What's to stop players in this sort of a system from trying to vary their skill use to get ticks in more places, and other behavior like that? The worst is the "practice picking" phenomenon, where the character locks and opens his own door repeatedly to get ticks. Yes there are all sorts of caveats and such that you can put in the game to try and prevent this. But the point is that the mechanic puts the focus on these sorts of improvements. If you don't want that to be a player consideration, then you need a system that doesn't reward them for thinking about it.

Mike

I would say thinking of a good way to distribute ticks is the key to minimizing such activities, for example:

If ticks are adventure-based, then short adventures and different skill combinations are immediately favoured, but if ticks are granted for difficult tasks accomplished, for example one tick per success when difficulty is greater than your trait (i.e. you get 2 ticks for accomplishing a task where your trait is +2 and the difficulty is 4). There are lots of alterations to this, but you get my idea (this also reduces the player tendency to open own door -experience, since the door is hardly more difficult than you can handle).

Other way would be to reward ticks for major fumbles as well, failure will give you ticks as many as your trait is higher than the difficulty.

Combining these two methods you would get a system which will reward for extraordinary successes or failures during adventures, but note that the amount of ticks can change, so there is no point in trying to 'hunt a single tick' to get the experience up as in runequest.

jphannil wrote: If ticks are adventure-based, then short adventures and different skill combinations are immediately favoured, but if ticks are granted for difficult tasks accomplished, for example one tick per success when difficulty is greater than your trait (i.e. you get 2 ticks for accomplishing a task where your trait is +2 and the difficulty is 4). There are lots of alterations to this, but you get my idea (this also reduces the player tendency to open own door -experience, since the door is hardly more difficult than you can handle).

Other way would be to reward ticks for major fumbles as well, failure will give you ticks as many as your trait is higher than the difficulty.

Wow, I like that idea (of one +1 trait per session), I like it a lot. Because it does the thing I want it to do but it is much much more simple in bookkeeping-wise and very elegant.

The amount of points to be spread in session and the way they can be spent could be modified to fit in particular genre. For example one point per two sessions and application only in succeeding only in more difficult tasks than your trait would emphasize perilous and slow advancement (I would possibly use it in a lord of the rings game). 5 points per session and application when trait is used would be a supers-game style.

The thing I want to see is not a single goal (like peril or other stuff) but rather a possibility to change the goal of the game with changing something (this is a generic game and therefore I want it to support many kinds of approaches), which I think this suggestion of yours will make possible.

Player may also want to add the +1 to trait BEFORE the trait is used. That might suit for some genres.

Hope you won't charge anything for this :)


There is one problem, however. That is how to handle the narrow and broad traits with this system. My first take would be that 3 raises worth of narrow traits gives one raise of broad traits.


Best regards

jphannil wrote: 5 points per session and application when trait is used would be a supers-game style.

The thing I want to see is not a single goal (like peril or other stuff) but rather a possibility to change the goal of the game with changing something (this is a generic game and therefore I want it to support many kinds of approaches), which I think this suggestion of yours will make possible.

Player may also want to add the +1 to trait BEFORE the trait is used. That might suit for some genres.

There is one problem, however. That is how to handle the narrow and broad traits with this system. My first take would be that 3 raises worth of narrow traits gives one raise of broad traits.

Hmm. I'm not sure I see what you're saying. If you're saying that it doesn't particularly support anything (and hence doesn't get in the way of anything), I'd agree. But that's not so much a positive as lack of a negative. Which may be the best you can hope for in this case, I guess... a

The new version is in the web (same address). The new features are:

1) Added notification that not defined traits cannot be used in affinity.

2) There is now only 'bump' method in experience.

What's left? Are you looking to publish? Have you talked to Luke (Abzu)? :-)

Mike

I haven't yet thinked at all about publishing. I may have all the system-wise aspects handled, but the thing I need is playtesting, playtesting and then some more playtesting. In addition to that I need to refine the text, the one I have is really not anywhere near publishing material.

After these I could think of such a thing, however I know nothing of publishing stuff so I need to catch up on that subject before I can think more of that.

Yep, playtesting, definitely, and, of course it'll need editing and such. But looking forward to what you can do here (for playtesting you might want to try Indie Netgaming; see the sig), publishing is the next step. My point above was that if you get the playtesting out of the way quickly, that you might be able to get the game into Luke's publication. For which Rich does the editing - could be a good way to go for a game like this.

If not, then check out the Publishing forum and start thinking about other formats.

Mike

Is there a thread of that publishing/editing stuff somewhere ?

There's a whole forum full of stuff further down on the main index of fora. If you want to look into Luke's project, check this thread from Publishing:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8562

Mike

I've talked with Abzu and he says that the system is promising. However he also emphasizes good playtesting, and as I agree, I will be starting a series of IRC-based games for testing and fun :). It's going to start in the beginning of next year.

As I see it, before playtesting is on it's way this topic can be closed. I'll address to this further when playtesting has brought some results and modifications.

I would like to thank Mike for your excellent advice, without you the system wouldn't be so nice as it is now imho. Nice christmas time for all and happy new year.

(I'll be reporting the progress on actual play when something happens)

Best regards