Topic: Task Resolution: Looking for input/caveats
Started by: smc
Started on: 2/18/2004
Board: Indie Game Design
On 2/18/2004 at 3:42am, smc wrote:
Task Resolution: Looking for input/caveats
First of all, these forums are a great resource! I've been lurking for a few days and have really appreciated the weath of insight and information to be found.
On to the question at hand .... I'm looking for some thoughts on a task resolution system. I'm working on a fantasy RPG for playing with my wife, kids, friends, etc. I'd like to use D6's exclusively, for a couple of reasons:
* D6's are readily available, and newbies tend to be much more comfortable with them,
* I tend to think that our brains process the pips faster than we can by looking at numbers on a d20 or what have you.
Now, I've been struggling with a way to use an open-ended dice pool using D6's rather than some sort of bell curve roll (i.e. 3d6+modifiers). I don't really have a good reason for this, other than that I am trying to find a way to make the randomness a bit less of a factor while still allowing for the occassional random wierdness. Also, I think that rolling a fistfull of d6's, each one representing a level of skill or ability, is kind of fun.
When a player performs an attack or uses a skill, he will be rolling a varying number of dice depending on his attributes, training, etc. It will always be a minimum of 3 dice. I haven't thought through to an appropriate median/maximum yet.
The player will then take only the 3 highest dice, and add them up. If this score equals the difficulty of the task or the defense of the opponent, then he has succeded. A simple task might be someting like 5, and the most complex task would have to be 18.
What I think is good about this system is that the randomness seems less abstract and will have less of an effect as the character increases in his abilities, since he will be discarding the low rolls. Still, there is always the chance that a player with 6 dice is gonna roll a bunch of 1's and 2's.
I also think that after spending a bit of time playing, things will proceed very quickly because we won't have to think about adding up the top 3 numbers, because we've done in so many times before (i.e. we instantly know that a result of 6,5,4 is 15 and won't have to do even this simple math in our head)
One bad thing is that the scale tops out at 18, without an allowance for really, really difficult tasks (i.e. something someone with even 8 dice in the appropriate ability would have a lot of trouble with).
Are there any systems that use a mechanic of this sort? What issues should I consider? Also, are there any dice rollers online that let you run batches in order to test how the statistics pan out (i.e. I need to find out what is the average 3 highest dice for the various number of dice).
On 2/18/2004 at 4:23am, SpoDaddy wrote:
RE: Task Resolution: Looking for input/caveats
Here's a system I think will work for you: Attributes and skills are rated as a number of D6's. When you attempt a task, add your attribute and skill dice together and roll. Make sure one of the dice in every roll is a different color from the others, consider it a wild die. If it rolls a 6, reroll it and add it to the total. If it rolls a 6 again, reroll and add it to the total, etc. If it rolls a 1, subtract your highest die from the pool and then roll the wild die again. If it rolls another 1, take the next highest die away, etc. Add the 3 highest dice together. If the wild die is one of the high dice and rerolls a few 6's, add those in with the other 2 dice (in other words, with the wild die you can end up with more than 3 total dice added up). Rate attributes and skills as 1-invalid, 2-poor, 3-average, 4 good, 5 great, 6 legendary. Does that work for you?
On 2/18/2004 at 4:28am, Shreyas Sampat wrote:
RE: Task Resolution: Looking for input/caveats
Spo, I think you're suggesting something directly opposed to what smc is proposing - that is, he seems to be seeking a system with minimized handling time. (Or is it search time? I can never remember which. Anyway.)
smc, I suggest you take a look at Godlike or any of the other games that use ORE (the One-Roll Engine); while they use d10s, the system asks you to look for matches, which, in my opinion, are even faster to detect than "the three highest."
I believe Jeph has used the same "search for matches" mechanic in his game Pagoda.
On 2/18/2004 at 4:32am, SpoDaddy wrote:
RE: Task Resolution: Looking for input/caveats
The ORE system requires just as much/more handling time than the system I proposed, considering you have to roll the dice then factor in wiggle dice and hard dice, then look for matches, then look at the width of the matches, then look at the height of the matches. The ORE is designed to provide several different results on one die roll while simulating the chaos of war. I don't think it's a useful system outside of a chaotic setting, in my experience it's probabilities are too wild for more structured situations.
On 2/18/2004 at 4:34am, SpoDaddy wrote:
RE: Task Resolution: Looking for input/caveats
By the way, check out my thread about my D12 roll under mechanic I've been toying with. I think it's sort of similar to the kind of mechanic you're looking for SMC (aside from being D12's instead of D6's).
On 2/18/2004 at 4:36am, Dev wrote:
RE: Task Resolution: Looking for input/caveats
EABA uses the "best 3" mechanic vs. Task Numbers, and the handling time wasn't bad at all (but YMMV). Certainly, "best 3" *is* probably better than summing the dice in terms of speed. Of course, that's just vague hand-waving, but it's my experience.
On 2/18/2004 at 5:09am, Shreyas Sampat wrote:
RE: Task Resolution: Looking for input/caveats
smc, I have a question for you.
What goals to you want to satisfy with your game that haven't been met to your satisfaction by existing games?
On 2/18/2004 at 7:36am, smc wrote:
RE: Task Resolution: Looking for input/caveats
Shreyas Sampat wrote: smc, I have a question for you.
What goals to you want to satisfy with your game that haven't been met to your satisfaction by existing games?
An interesting question. I haven't considered every RPG out there I am sure, but the ones I've looked at just didn't have the particular "feel" I am looking for.
The game I am working on will use cards as one of the primary mechanics--not playing cards, but individual custom printed cards to track skills, equipment, combat manuevers, and spells. I like this idea because I am trying to create a game for people who are new to the hobby, and this gives it a tangible and game-centric aspect that I think they will respond to.
These cards will also be used to track combat positioning. When a combat encounter begins, the characters and opponents will be assembled into opposing columns (in terms of layout, not dissimiliar from solitaire games). Each column is a melee where any characters or NPC's may attack any other--they are assumed to be fairly close to each other. Characters can use manuever actions to move from one column to another. Other characters might be held in reserve or be in the back ranks (for missile fire), but they may end up being drawn into the melee depending on the physical space and the actions of the opponents. So ... hopefully ... we end up with something that is much more abstracted than using figures and hexes, but still has some interesting strategy.
Cards will also be used to initaite actions in combat. Each character has a manuever score, and may play a number of cards with a point cost equal to that score. As the play proceeds, a character can use these cards in response to attacks, etc. For example, if Joe is attacked by an Orc, he might play a dodge card and an attack card. His defense value against the attack will be increased by the dodge, and he will get to counterattack because of the attack card. The benefit of this system for me is that it is less rigid and the cards could be extensible to all kinds of special manuevers.
Cards are also used to define a character's equipment, with all of the stats and such right on the card ... and the spell system uses cards to define the components of a spell so that a character can create spells "on the fly" by combining different effects.
I'm considering whether cards will come into play for actual storytelling, but I think there is some potential to use things like setting cards, encounter cards, challenge cards, etc. Perhaps, down the road, it might even support a GM-less game (though with more of a board game feel than a true RPG, of course).
I also want a system that puts the focus on the players, and abstracts all of the NPC's. For example, a player will have lots of manuevers and modifiers to consider in an attack, but an NPC has a simple attack and defense rating that the player rolls against (along with some special abilities as appropriate). I want the system to be a bit more cinematic in that lesser grunts will typically go down with a single hit, and I want to avoid a traditional hit point system for the PC's. I want combat that somehow achieves a good balance of abstraction and tactics.
So, at this stage I've just got some ideas in my head of what I envision, but the mechanics of it all are my biggest hurdle. For the moment, I want a good, quick skill resolution system, and I need to work out damage/injuries/armor. Bottom line, though (to get back to your original question), is that I think it's a fun intellectual exercise to design your own games. There's probably a few out there that would fit the bill for me, but it's enjoyable to work on this stuff, even if it never comes to fruition.
Sorry for rambling...
On 2/18/2004 at 7:39am, smc wrote:
RE: Task Resolution: Looking for input/caveats
SpoDaddy wrote: Here's a system I think will work for you
THat seems like a good option. I have been relucating to go down the path of the "wild die" simply because I think that things loose a bit of their psuedo-real-time intensity if you are rolling a long series of dice, but having just one die marked as this would alleviate much of that, and still provide some opportunity for opening up the top end of the difficulty scale.
Thanks for your input. I will give it some thought.
On 2/18/2004 at 7:54am, smc wrote:
RE: Task Resolution: Looking for input/caveats
Dev wrote: EABA uses the "best 3" mechanic vs. Task Numbers, and the handling time wasn't bad at all (but YMMV). Certainly, "best 3" *is* probably better than summing the dice in terms of speed. Of course, that's just vague hand-waving, but it's my experience.
Ahhh ... I haven't heard of EABA. So much for my completely original system .... just goes to show there are no new ideas.
It looks like the PDF is pretty cheap, so I'll probably give it a download and see if there are some other concepts worth stealing. Thanks for the heads up.
On 2/19/2004 at 12:03am, Andrew Martin wrote:
RE: Task Resolution: Looking for input/caveats
smc wrote: So much for my completely original system .... just goes to show there are no new ideas.
There's plenty of new ideas; people usually don't bother to take the time to go looking for them on the outskirts of the forest of ideas. And that's usually because they don't learn to see the forest because there's all the trees in the way... :)
On 2/20/2004 at 4:00pm, Alex Johnson wrote:
RE: Task Resolution: Looking for input/caveats
smc, that description you have of card based gaming was interesting. I'd like to know more. Have you done much with the design yet or are you still at the beginning with some vague ideas of how things will work?
On an aside, while it was a collectible game, which ruined it for me, have you ever played DragonStorm? It is super simple, very fast, and I had lots of fun with it. It is card plus dice based. My only complaints were that it took a Magic the Gathering approach by adding new powerful cards that make it arms race, and that it was collectible and random in nature so you couldn't buy what you wanted, you had to spend money and pray. But taking the basic rules and a starter deck, it should be easy to devise and print your own cards.
On 2/20/2004 at 6:12pm, Valamir wrote:
RE: Task Resolution: Looking for input/caveats
Hey SMC. I like you're card idea alot.
I recommend checking out the CCG Dixie by Columbia Games. It has the same goals as you, to get a wargamey tactical combat feel but quicker and more abstract than counters and hexes.
Units line up on opposite sides and can shoot and melee with the unit opposite them. Its designed for armies on armies on armies but I bet there is a good bit there that that would conceptually apply to a man on man scale too.
On 2/20/2004 at 6:23pm, smc wrote:
RE: Task Resolution: Looking for input/caveats
Alex Johnson wrote: smc, that description you have of card based gaming was interesting. I'd like to know more. Have you done much with the design yet or are you still at the beginning with some vague ideas of how things will work?.
I've done a fair bit of designing an some very minor solitaire play testing. Here's some general notes on the game:
OVERVIEW
* Fantasy game, with cinematic overtones
CHARACTER CREATION
* Character creation is point-based. Attributes are fairly standard, and include Strength, Agility, Intelligence, Willpower, and Presence. The average attribute for a human is 7. Typical range is 4-9, with atributes lower/higher than that representing extremes of disability or talent (i.e. someone with a 12 agility would be phenomenally quick and dextrous).
* NO character classes. THe player can create a character that fits his vision, rather than using a broad archetype. Races will have starting attributes and some bonuses in terms of natural skills.
* PLayers purchase skills, equipment, manuevers and spell components for their characters, and these are kept as cards in their character decks.
TASK RESOLUTION
* The primary resolution mechaning is based on a d6 pool, with the player taking the highest 3 dice and comparing the result to the difficulty of a task or the appopriate attribute of an NPC. The dice pool for an attribute can be determined by dividing it by 3 and keeping any remainders as bonuses to the roll. For example, a character with a strength of 13 (a very strong character!) would have a strength dice pool of 4d6+1. Let's say he is trying to lift a heavy item, and the GM has set the difficulty at a moderate number (11). He rolls 4d6+1 (3-5-5-4-2), keeping only the highest 3 dice. The result is 15, so the task is completed.
* I am thinking about keeping the skill list fairly broad and role-based (i.e. subterfuge representing several rogue based skills such as sneaking and lock-picking), but I haven't quite decided yet. A skill will basically add additional dice to an attribute. THere migth be levels of mastery in a skill, with the possibility of upgrading your card through experience. The first level ads 1d to the attribute dice pool for that skill. Some skills may be performed untrained; others require at least the basic skill card to complete.
EQUIPMENT
* Equipment is tracked using cards. The player can keep the "in hand" items in a special position in his play area.
COMBAT
* Combat is an area that I am pretty proud of. WHen a combat encounter begins, the character cards and NPC cards are arranged on the table. The default combat layout is 5 columns wide, with the PC's and NPC's "across" from each other on opposite sides of the table. Everyone in the same column is assumed to be in melee, and may attack anyone else in the same column using melee weapons. Character's using ranged weapons may shoot/throw into another column. Character's may also manuever from one column to another in order to close in on an opponent or fall back.
* To picture this, just imagine a solitaire layout, except the columns extend above and below the base cards. Base cards for each column can be used to represent terrain features (i.e. cover, rugged terrain that impedes movement, etc.)
* So, if we have 5 columns, combat might begin with the NPC's in column 1, and the PC's in column 5. Characters with missile weapons can exchange fire at this range, while other character may manuever to melee range.
* Big characters might span more than 1 column. i.e. a dragon would have a sideways (printed in landscape) card and would cover two columns.
* The combat and skill resolution system is PC-centric. By that I mean that the players will always roll the dice against a fixed value, even if they are attacking or defending against an attack. Each NPC has values for attack and defense that are derived from their attributes, skills and equipment, and are clearly listed on the card in order to simplify things for the GM.
* THe system is also PC-centric in terms of its cinematic nature. Players will have "maneuver" cards that they play as a combat round proceeds. They can play these cards not only to attack or perform an action on their turn, but to react to an attack from an NPC. Every character gets basic manuever cards, and may purchase additional manuever cards during character creation and advancement. Basic manuever cards include things like Thrust (a basic, quick weapon attack), Swing (a slower attacak that causes more damage), Dodge, Move, Parry, etc. Special manuever cards include things like Feint (make an Int check versus the NPC and get an attack bonus on success). A player gets a number of "action" points for each round, and may play cards in the round up to that value. Each manuever card is marked with an action point cost. The player just lays these cards on the table as they are played in order to keep track of their remaining action points for the round.
* Attacks by the PC's are made by rollig their AGI+Weapon Skill dice pool against the NPC's Defense score. Any bonuses based on a special manuever are added to this dice pool.
* Players can defend against attacks using their base defense (Agi). Things like shields will add to this base defense. They may also play defense manuever cards such as dodge or parry to increase their dice pool. THey may not play a defense card if they are unaware of an attack of if they have no remaining action points.
* Other maneuver cards will give the PCs an opportunity to work togther by playing cards that give bonuses to other characters.
* If the PC attacks successfully, damage is determined by rolling their STR+Weapon Damage pool against the NPC's toughness. If the attack breaks through their toughness (which is figured using Strength+Armor), then they cause a wound. If any of their top 3 dice were 6's, they cause an additional wound for each 6. For example, if a PC rolled 4d6+1 against a toughness of 10, and had the following dice: 5-6-3-6, we would drop the 3 and the total (including the +1) is 18. They cause a wound plus an additional 2 wounds for the 2 6's in their dice pool. The NPC takes 3 wounds total
* If a PC is attacked successfuly by an NPC, he rolls his Str+Armor dice pool. Damage is applied in the same way as described above, except he takes an additional wound for each "1" in his top 3 dice. In this way, I've given the PC's a natrual advantage (since you're pulling the top 3 dice you are more likely to have 6's than 1's), but this fits the cinematic version of combat I am after, where a skilled PC can take down an Orc with one hit.
* The system does not use hit points. The character cards and NPC cards have a wound tracker. With each wound, their attributes will be reduced by one level. Once their STR and their WILL reaches 0, they are out of the fight. Strong-willed characters might keep fighting even when they have no more strength, and vice-versa.
MAGIC
* Magic system is component based. Think Hero system powers, but simplified. PLayers combine spell cards to cast a spell. For example, playing the following cards: Mend, Flesh, Touch - would result in a healing spell that works by touching the target. I am thinking about having all magic be instantaneous, which would help to simplify the system by taking out a modider, and serve to support a sense that in this world all magic is ephemeral and unstable.
* Characters collect spell components through advancement and training in order to increase their repotoire.
* Each spell component has a cost, which reduces the character's power pool. They also determine the difficulty ranking of the spell. As a character is reduced in power, spells become harder to cast. Failing to cast a spell may even wound the character (if 1's are rolled in the top-3 dice).
* This is an area where I have a lot of work and decisions to do -- I may just end up with a spell list, but I would LOVE to turn casting spells almost into a mini-game of its own. COnsidering the abstract nature of combat and adventuring, however, I need a system that offers a clear-cut result based on the cards played by the player. Ths may not be possible if I want to use a spell-building paradigm.
GAMEPLAY
Cards are also used by the GM to move the game along. Cards will represent terrain (forest, village, inn), challenges and encounters. The GM can construct a plot and a map for a session by choosing cards based on a desired plot. Travel is somewhat abstracted, and the idea is to concentrate on "events" rather than minutia in order to replicate that cinematic atmosphere. The GM is essentially editing on the fly. If the PC's enter a dungeon/ruins, then they might face a few specific challenges and encounters in this area, but they won't be traveling from room to room.
And that's the gist of it so far. I'd appreciate any comments or suggestions. As noted, this isn't intended for actual publishing, but who knows--maybe I'll offer free PDF's some day with all of the cards and card templates.
Alex Johnson wrote:
On an aside, while it was a collectible game, which ruined it for me, have you ever played DragonStorm? It is super simple, very fast, and I had lots of fun with it. It is card plus dice based. My only complaints were that it took a Magic the Gathering approach by adding new powerful cards that make it arms race, and that it was collectible and random in nature so you couldn't buy what you wanted, you had to spend money and pray. But taking the basic rules and a starter deck, it should be easy to devise and print your own cards.
I'd agree with avoiding any collectible aspect. The cards in my proposed system are used as a play-aid and a game enhancer.
On 2/23/2004 at 6:16pm, Alex Johnson wrote:
RE: Task Resolution: Looking for input/caveats
I would encourage you to at least publish via PDF. That is, after all, the entire point of the Forge (read the stickies). You'll get more input on a system people can see their feedback represented in. And I for one would like to see the full rulebook. There are a number of aspects of this game that sound like they'd enhance gameplay. You have to decide, of course, how you want to produce the cards, even if just for yourself.
Dragonstorm is collectible, but if you had a master list of card images and could print your own it would be very very close to your game. Things in your game I dislike in other games: dice pools, huge piles of scattered information to form a PC. Things in your game that are innovative and interesting: cinematic action, card columns in combat, component magic system. I think there will be some drawbacks. You want a lot of flexibility and cards are not suited to that, particularly because to have a playable game you'll have to have hundreds, if not thousands of cards (even though only a few dozen might be used by your players). There are all the manouvers, the spells components, the equipment and treasure; you'll need monster cards, terrain cards, advantage/disadvantage, etc. It adds up to a lot of pieces, most of which you'll probably only have electronic copies of until you need them in a game, but you must still type/set them all.
On 2/23/2004 at 11:01pm, smc wrote:
RE: Task Resolution: Looking for input/caveats
I would encourage you to at least publish via PDF. That is, after all, the entire point of the Forge (read the stickies).
Yes, assuming things turn out I will probably offer the rules as a PDF, and the cards themselves in a way that can be easily printed onto individual 3x5 index cards. I'll probably offer the cards as both a PDF and a MSWord doc, in order to support customization. I am loathe to do layout in MSWord (I prefer Freehand), but if I keep things simple I think it will work okay (and 3x5 index cards would be a cheap option with plenty of room for readable text).
Things in your game I dislike in other games: dice pools, huge piles of scattered information to form a PC.
See my post about descriptive PC attributes. I am thinking of simpifying the PC process quite a bit, with PC's defined by a simple set of descriptors. The more I think about this approach the more I like it, though I've got some work and playtesting to do.
You want a lot of flexibility and cards are not suited to that, particularly because to have a playable game you'll have to have hundreds, if not thousands of cards (even though only a few dozen might be used by your players). There are all the manouvers, the spells components, the equipment and treasure; you'll need monster cards, terrain cards, advantage/disadvantage, etc.
All true. I am working at simplifying some aspects (i.e. the manuevers). For example, a basic "attack" (which uses 1 action point) covers melee weapons, missile weapons, thrown weapons, unarmed attacks, etc. The card will note the differences between each option.
Similiarly, simplifying my approach to stats reduces the amount of info I need on the grunt-level NPC cards. As noted in the other thread, an orc might be a a strong, unintelligent brawler. The only other thing that needs to be defined in order to play that card as an NPC is his weapon(s) and armor (and perhaps I might even end up abstracting those).
Another approach might be to make cards editable in play. For example, maybe we just have a basic armor card that the player uses to write in his armor type. Less cool, less pretty, but more flexible.
So, yeah ... still a lot of work at setting up the cards, obviously, but I will be doing it bit-by-bit through game test and play sessions, so I don't think it will be too much of a hardship. If I end up offering this stuff, I will just provide everything I have assembled as well as the templates for people who want to create their own. It may also be that the GM/story telling cards will be sort of a seperate, optional component, since most people would probably prefer more traditional narrative play.
In the end though, I don't have any illusions of grandeur, and this game will probably be something that is just right for me, but not for anyone else.