PDA

View Full Version : Lets make a gaming system



Froogleyboy
2009-08-05, 08:42 PM
Okay, I was thinking today "There are so many game systems out there, Why can't I make one?" Turns out, its dreadfully hard. So why don't we (the playgrounders) make one.

I'm not talking about a setting
I'm not talking about variant rules
I'm talking about a completely new system.

We know what I mean they have the D20 system, the Storyteller system, the D6 system, etc. Come on guys, lets do it ! *does one of those light-hearted/dramatic jumps where you put your fist in the air and the camera freezes as the credits roll*

First we should decided how character creation works. Now remember we aren't just making variants of one system.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2009-08-05, 09:13 PM
Wait...character creation before anything else? There's a big step missing...what mechanic is this system going to use for conflict resolution? Dice? Coins? Cards? Rock-Paper-Scissors? Wrestling Matches? Mortal Combat?

You can't build a character without a system to determine what parts of your character you need.

Origomar
2009-08-05, 09:16 PM
Wait...character creation before anything else? There's a big step missing...what mechanic is this system going to use for conflict resolution? Dice? Coins? Cards? Rock-Paper-Scissors? Wrestling Matches? Mortal Combat?

You can't build a character without a system to determine what parts of your character you need.

A game of russian roulette whoever wins gets to go first.

Froogleyboy
2009-08-05, 09:18 PM
Oh . . . Oh yeah

Froogleyboy
2009-08-05, 09:25 PM
Well first we should make a core *trumpets* GAME MECHANIC

Remember . . . this isn't D20 system. I can't stress that enough

jmbrown
2009-08-05, 09:35 PM
Although I'm a long time D&D player, I honestly hate carting dice around. I know it gives some people a hard on ("I roll 10d6 for my fireball oh boy oh boy oh boy!!! *nasally wheeze*) but I hate dumping my dice sack on the table, sorting everything, then grabbing the appropriate set when my turn comes. The same thing applies to single type, large dice games like story teller system where you're regularly rolling like 6-10 d6's at a time.

GURPS uses 3d6 and you roll under. That's it.

I like the idea of 2d10 + modifiers set against a target number. TN 5 is an easy task even for an untrained person. TN 10 is an average task for a skilled person and slightly difficult for an unskilled person. TN 15 is pretty difficult and TN 20 requires an expert.

In combat, you roll against a set number based on the characters attributes. A person with 10 armor and 5 dodge has a TN of 15 which is required to hit them. Damage would be based on the weapon in question + your margin of success. If I rolled a 17 against a TN 15 and my weapon had a base damage of 6, then I'd deal 8 points total. Your margin of success is the difference between a glancing blow (I hit him...) and a powerful blow (I hit him right in the jewels!).

As far as attributes go, I've always been tossing around an idea that every attribute directly supports another. You have two physical and two mental attributes;

Body: Represents physical health and endurance.
Reflexes: Represents muscle memory and the speed at which you react
Perception: Represents how quickly you can mentally process your surroundings
Will: Represents your mental strength, memory, and concentration.

Each physical and mental attribute can directly supplement the other. A strong body makes you less susceptible to physical and mental trauma much like a strong will. Quick reflexes allow you to react before you mentally perceive something. A strong will allows you to push your body to great lengths.

Whenever you want to supplant a directly related attribute for an added edge you can. For example, shooting a gun is a reflex based skill (steady hand and trigger discipline I.E. squeezing the trigger instead of pulling it) but if you have a 3 in reflexes and a 6 in perception, you can use perception instead (representing keen aim and sighting).

Supplanting an attribute has a drawback in that it raises the TN (it's harder for an out-of-shape person to run a mile through sheer force of will than a mentally weak but physically fit person).

Okay, brain fart. I'm done now.

EDIT: There are two ancillary attributes; strength and IQ. Strength starts as your base body and represents physical power. IQ represents your mental capacity and also reflects the maximum number of skills you can have starting out and how long it takes to raise a skill (slow people obviously take longer to learn). An IQ of 8 means you can have max 8 skills as a beginning character.

Each skill has a difficulty rating which determines how long it takes to learn it. You subtract the rating from your IQ to get the amount of time it takes to learn said skill. For example, a skill with difficulty 20 would take 10 weeks for a person with IQ 10 to gain 1 point in.

Brain fart again.

Froogleyboy
2009-08-05, 09:40 PM
Although I'm a long time D&D player, I honestly hate carting dice around. I know it gives some people a hard on ("I roll 10d6 for my fireball oh boy oh boy oh boy!!! *nasally wheeze*) but I hate dumping my dice sack on the table, sorting everything, then grabbing the appropriate set when my turn comes. The same thing applies to single type, large dice games like story teller system where you're regularly rolling like 6-10 d6's at a time.

GURPS uses 3d6 and you roll under. That's it.

I like the idea of 2d10 + modifiers set against a target number. TN 5 is an easy task even for an untrained person. TN 10 is an average task for a skilled person and slightly difficult for an unskilled person. TN 15 is pretty difficult and TN 20 requires an expert.

In combat, you roll against a set number based on the characters attributes. A person with 10 armor and 5 dodge has a TN of 15 which is required to hit them. Damage would be based on the weapon in question + your margin of success. If I rolled a 17 against a TN 15 and my weapon had a base damage of 6, then I'd deal 8 points total. Your margin of success is the difference between a glancing blow (I hit him...) and a powerful blow (I hit him right in the jewels!).

As far as attributes go, I've always been tossing around an idea that every attribute directly supports another. You have two physical and two mental attributes;

Body: Represents physical health and endurance.
Reflexes: Represents muscle memory and the speed at which you react
Perception: Represents how quickly you can mentally process your surroundings
Will: Represents your mental strength, memory, and concentration.

Each physical and mental attribute can directly supplement the other. A strong body makes you less susceptible to physical and mental trauma much like a strong will. Quick reflexes allow you to react before you mentally perceive something. A strong will allows you to push your body to great lengths.

Whenever you want to supplant a directly related attribute for an added edge you can. For example, shooting a gun is a reflex based skill (steady hand and trigger discipline I.E. squeezing the trigger instead of pulling it) but if you have a 3 in reflexes and a 6 in perception, you can use perception instead (representing keen aim and sighting).

Supplanting an attribute has a drawback in that it raises the TN (it's harder for an out-of-shape person to run a mile through sheer force of will than a mentally weak but physically fit person).

Okay, brain fart. I'm done now.
I like (although its basicly the D20 system :smalltongue: )

Strawman
2009-08-05, 10:23 PM
Perhaps one common problem with many systems can get nipped in the bud. Magic being overpowered.

My idea is that magic cannot be used to directly damage, kill, imprison, or charm. Instead, magic comes in the form of strange effects. It is up to the player to decide a way to make that effect useful in any given situation.

Examples-

Borrowed from dnd, the immovable rod. It's just a rod that stays where you put it, but people have found a thousand and one uses for it.

A shovel that, when you put it to dirt, immedietly makes a couple cubic feet of dirt into mud. Could be used to sink a foe in mud, help with building a trench, provide mud for pigs on a farm. The mud could be filtered to provide water. It could be used to sink a house or even a fortress given enough time.

Objects that return when you throw them. Easy combat applications and great for pranks. Great on arrows and stones. Maybe cast it on a person and throw them around a corner, then enjoy the sound of them smashing into a wall repeatedly.

A bottle that can carry messages. You speak into it, close the lid quick, and when someone opens it they hear the message. Find a creature with a loud roar to speak into it, and use it as a distraction in battle.

A marble that you can see through like an extra eye. Many uses.


Anyway, it's just an idea.

Froogleyboy
2009-08-05, 10:28 PM
Perhaps one common problem with many systems can get nipped in the bud. Magic being overpowered.

My idea is that magic cannot be used to directly damage, kill, imprison, or charm. Instead, magic comes in the form of strange effects. It is up to the player to decide a way to make that effect useful in any given situation.

Examples-

Borrowed from dnd, the immovable rod. It's just a rod that stays where you put it, but people have found a thousand and one uses for it.

A shovel that, when you put it to dirt, immedietly makes a couple cubic feet of dirt into mud. Could be used to sink a foe in mud, help with building a trench, provide mud for pigs on a farm. The mud could be filtered to provide water. It could be used to sink a house or even a fortress given enough time.

Objects that return when you throw them. Easy combat applications and great for pranks. Great on arrows and stones. Maybe cast it on a person and throw them around a corner, then enjoy the sound of them smashing into a wall repeatedly.

A bottle that can carry messages. You speak into it, close the lid quick, and when someone opens it they hear the message. Find a creature with a loud roar to speak into it, and use it as a distraction in battle.

A marble that you can see through like an extra eye. Many uses.


Anyway, it's just an idea.

Should we even use magic? Its just a hassle

Delwugor
2009-08-05, 10:44 PM
To continue on with Djinn_In_Tonic's thought, you also need to have targets for developing a new system.

Genre: Fantasy, Sci Fi, Modern, Horror, Generic...
Play style: Tactical, Cinematic, Role-playing, multi...
Rules: Heavy, Medium, Light
Mechanics: Single resolution, multiple resolution (like d20), Modular (Single resolution with specific changes per subsystem)
Randomness/Probability: Even, Curved, Pooled, Dice, Cards, coins (hey D02 :smallbiggrin:)
GM: Single, Multiple, Player based
Character Abilities: Skill based, Attribute based, Mixed, or something off the wall
Character Classes and Levels.

For example (with my interpretation):
D&D 4E - Fantasy, Tactical, Medium rules, Multiple resolution, Even randomness with dice, Single GM, Mixed attribute/skill base characters with classes and levels

Gurps - Generic, MultiStyle, Heavy rules, Modular resolution, curved randomness with dice, Single GM, skill based character

Risus - Gneric, Role-Playing style, Light Rules, Single resolution, pooled randomness with dice, Single GM, Skill based characters.

elliott20
2009-08-05, 10:56 PM
I just want to see you guys develop a game that doesn't use dice for task/conflict resolution.

jmbrown
2009-08-05, 11:01 PM
I just want to see you guys develop a game that doesn't use dice for task/conflict resolution.

Without dice conflict resolution will rely on set attributes or straight up roleplay. Amber Diceless uses a system where the highest ranking person will eventually win in a fair encounter but players can change the primary attribute by changing tactics. It works, but it's kind of boring IMO.

Froogleyboy
2009-08-05, 11:02 PM
I just want to see you guys develop a game that doesn't use dice for task/conflict resolution.

0-e why . . . .?

Froogleyboy
2009-08-05, 11:07 PM
Genre: IDK yet
Play style: Tactical,Role-playing
Rules: Medium
Mechanics: I don't understand
Randomness/Probability: Even, Dice
GM: Single
Character Abilities: Skill based, Attribute based
For example (with my interpretation):
D&D 4E - Fantasy, Tactical, Medium rules, Multiple resolution, Even randomness with dice, Single GM, Mixed attribute/skill base characters with I think we should use a selection of feat-like-things for your class-like-thing and use EXP the same way the storytelling system does

EleventhHour
2009-08-05, 11:08 PM
d12.

Why?

Because it's random, and everything can be multiples of two.

Harperfan7
2009-08-05, 11:16 PM
A few months ago I toyed around with the idea of making my own system for a prehistory game where the main goal of the game is to survive, and secondary goals pop up when surviving isn't quite so hard anymore, which can mean many, many different things.

Basically, I imagined it being similar to the original fallout computer game. With a set of attributes, no magic, and somewhat percentage based skills set in a realistic-but-different world.

The first problem with this is that it would work best on a computer, and I don't have a system for it that isn't SPECIAL.

jmbrown
2009-08-05, 11:47 PM
A few months ago I toyed around with the idea of making my own system for a prehistory game where the main goal of the game is to survive, and secondary goals pop up when surviving isn't quite so hard anymore, which can mean many, many different things.

Basically, I imagined it being similar to the original fallout computer game. With a set of attributes, no magic, and somewhat percentage based skills set in a realistic-but-different world.

The first problem with this is that it would work best on a computer, and I don't have a system for it that isn't SPECIAL.

It does work best on the computer and someone else got the bright idea before you :P (http://www.jmp.fi/~smaarane/urw.html)

Don the Bastard
2009-08-06, 12:25 AM
I like the d12 idea too.

Perhaps it could be a game based on the 12 sign of the Zodiac, where as character "class" you choose, Aries, Taurus, Aquarius or whatever and this determines character strengths and weaknesses.

Cedrass
2009-08-06, 01:11 AM
I like the d12 idea too.

Perhaps it could be a game based on the 12 sign of the Zodiac, where as character "class" you choose, Aries, Taurus, Aquarius or whatever and this determines character strengths and weaknesses.

This I like.

Also, I think it would be nice to see a Steam Punk game ^_^.

EleventhHour
2009-08-06, 01:49 AM
This I like.

Also, I think it would be nice to see a Steam Punk game ^_^.

One of the random things that developers hide could be... THE CRAZY TRAIN.

(Including a guy that wears a conductor's hat and Ozzie's glasses. :smalltongue: And has a mysterious bucket of bats, which he never explains to the PCs.)

mikeejimbo
2009-08-06, 07:12 AM
Not to be a wet blanket, but why are we designing a new gaming system? What will it do that other systems in existence cannot?

Vadin
2009-08-06, 09:48 AM
An idea!

Genre: Sci-Fi or Fantasy
Play style: Tactical/Cinematic
Rules: Medium
Mechanics: Modular
Randomness/Probability: Even or Cards
GM: Player based
Character Abilities: Skill based, no classes or further character attributes

A game wherein the players compete to be the first ones to accomplish a specific task or set of tasks. It's them vs. the game, no GM involved.

Delwugor
2009-08-06, 12:58 PM
I like the d12 idea.

How about a resolution system that compares d12 against a skill/difficulty chart. I personally hate charts but the old Marvel chart resolution works really well IMHO (OK not so much H :smallbiggrin:)

Horizontal would be the difficulty and vertical would be the skill level. Something like (forgive the bad formatting, I'm being too lazy to put in a html table)

Simple Easy Moderate Difficult Very Hard Extreme
Expert 0 2 4 6 8 10
Skilled 1 3 5 7 9 11
Amateur 3 5 7 9 11 12*
None 5 7 9 11 12* NA

12* indicates some special condition is required such as receiving help, buff spells...

The skills are determined by class/features/feats/proficiencies. The level of skill is determined by attributes/skills/training.

As in Marvel this could be the base resolution mechanics with other sub-systems (magic, psionics, space ships) adding their own details to define what the skills are and how to determine difficulty.

Knaight
2009-08-06, 01:18 PM
Without dice conflict resolution will rely on set attributes or straight up roleplay. Amber Diceless uses a system where the highest ranking person will eventually win in a fair encounter but players can change the primary attribute by changing tactics. It works, but it's kind of boring IMO.

Not necessarily. I was on a plane for 12 hours recently, and needed a diceless system, so I whipped one up. It uses points on a number line. Everyone shares a number line with the numbers 1-40 on it. Then for every task you have a skill, which would vary from 2-8 or so. You put this many blocks on the number line, and the GM does the same, with either a static difficulty, or an opposed task. They are treated the same.

If you have a space between 2 of your own blocks on the number line which has none of your opponents blocks in the same line then you get a success with a rating equal to the space between the blocks. This rating would then be compared to an attribute, and how it compares affects what happens. So someone might have a swim skill of 5, a brook would be difficulty 2, a fast river in the winter 6. In the first case the brook is in all probability not going to get through the defense meaningfully at all, if it does you compare it to a stamina/constitution/whatever attribute, to simulate getting worn out. The swimmer getting successes would be swimming distances.

Its a diceless system with an interesting core mechanic (it goes fast in practice and is really easy to use, but harder to explain), but it still has its own randomness. Plus it can be tactical.

TheGrimace
2009-08-06, 01:24 PM
I like the use of cards. Every player is dealt a "hand" at the beginning of a conflict. When they choose to take an action (like... attack) they secretly select their card, and the target selects theirs. Add your card value to your modifiers, and see who wins.

edit: Every five resolutions sees the dealing of a new hand, but some characters will be dealt more than five cards.

This allows the PC to decide when they want to invest a lot of energy on an action (I used my ten, because I thought this one would kill him).

Also, what about a FFIII (or VI) magic system, where every player learns spells depending on what items they have equipped.

Delwugor
2009-08-06, 01:46 PM
Also, what about a FFIII (or VI) magic system, where every player learns spells depending on what items they have equipped.

There was a d20 Future setting where magic was from the use of drugs.

So one thought would be the spell components are used in a potion. If the spell caster wanted Identify, Sleep and Fly he would mix a potion with crushed diamonds, sand and a bird feather together and drink it. Then make a fortitude type roll to determine whether he was able to keep it down and what components the body absorbed.
His attributes/skills would determine the strength, duration and so forth.

TheGrimace
2009-08-06, 03:03 PM
I actually kind of like that. Spells are build out of components, and "research" consists of mixing a bunch of stuff together, and getting your barbarian to drink it.

Siosilvar
2009-08-06, 03:07 PM
Not to be a wet blanket, but why are we designing a new gaming system? What will it do that other systems in existence cannot?

It will be ours.

jmbrown
2009-08-06, 04:33 PM
Not necessarily. I was on a plane for 12 hours recently, and needed a diceless system, so I whipped one up. It uses points on a number line. Everyone shares a number line with the numbers 1-40 on it. Then for every task you have a skill, which would vary from 2-8 or so. You put this many blocks on the number line, and the GM does the same, with either a static difficulty, or an opposed task. They are treated the same.

If you have a space between 2 of your own blocks on the number line which has none of your opponents blocks in the same line then you get a success with a rating equal to the space between the blocks. This rating would then be compared to an attribute, and how it compares affects what happens. So someone might have a swim skill of 5, a brook would be difficulty 2, a fast river in the winter 6. In the first case the brook is in all probability not going to get through the defense meaningfully at all, if it does you compare it to a stamina/constitution/whatever attribute, to simulate getting worn out. The swimmer getting successes would be swimming distances.

Its a diceless system with an interesting core mechanic (it goes fast in practice and is really easy to use, but harder to explain), but it still has its own randomness. Plus it can be tactical.

Hmm... I like the sound of it. Diceless systems are nice for uninterrupting role play but the only system I've played is Amber Diceless and frankly I don't like the whole auction system (or the Amber universe for that matter *everyone gasps*)

Vadin
2009-08-06, 04:51 PM
So...are we looking at making an inclusive game and system, or a roleplaying system with which one can play games of certain varieties?

If the former, I would move for a game of Players VS Game as opposed to one that tells a story. If the latter, bah humbug and what genre/variety? My preference, if the latter, would be one that can accommodate this (http://mythpunk.blogspot.com/2009/07/washington-invictus.html) and this (http://mythpunk.blogspot.com/2009/08/wealth-of-nations.html)?

mikeejimbo
2009-08-06, 05:08 PM
It will be ours.

I just think that an even better place to start than the mechanics is "What do I want it to do?"

Vadin
2009-08-06, 05:17 PM
I just think that an even better place to start than the mechanics is "What do I want it to do?"

Hence my post on the previous page.

I'm a huge fan of us making a game that is Players VS Players VS Environment & Goals, a game that doesn't always end with anyone winning. An actual game instead of a roleplaying system.

Dogmantra
2009-08-06, 08:30 PM
I'm a huge fan of us making a game that is Players VS Players VS Environment & Goals, a game that doesn't always end with anyone winning. An actual game instead of a roleplaying system.

I like this idea. What if each session was a standalone adventure, pre-rolled with monsters and traps, and it was the PCs' jobs to get to the treasure first, perhaps before their "team-mates"? Making tables to roll up the adventure on would be the hardest part.

As for a core mechanic, I'm a fan of Skill Based, roll under your skill to succeed, so if the main die was d12, skills would go up to 12 (or maybe 11), and you'd have to roll under that to succeed. Attempting to hit someone in combat would mean you add their AC to your roll. Something like that.

mikeejimbo
2009-08-06, 09:16 PM
Hence my post on the previous page.

I'm a huge fan of us making a game that is Players VS Players VS Environment & Goals, a game that doesn't always end with anyone winning. An actual game instead of a roleplaying system.

That is a solid starting place. I approve of it.

Faulty
2009-08-06, 09:19 PM
Can we use d12s?

Dogmantra
2009-08-06, 09:40 PM
Can we use d12s?

I wholeheartedly support this idea.

jmbrown
2009-08-06, 09:51 PM
I like this idea. What if each session was a standalone adventure, pre-rolled with monsters and traps, and it was the PCs' jobs to get to the treasure first, perhaps before their "team-mates"? Making tables to roll up the adventure on would be the hardest part.

As for a core mechanic, I'm a fan of Skill Based, roll under your skill to succeed, so if the main die was d12, skills would go up to 12 (or maybe 11), and you'd have to roll under that to succeed. Attempting to hit someone in combat would mean you add their AC to your roll. Something like that.

I remember (barely) a night of heavy drinking with my friends when we were discussing ideas for new roleplaying game systems. My idea was something akin to Indiana Jones. The idea was based around the random dungeon creator where you'd roll for a room which had a feature or two (like crumbling floor or 50 ton ceiling) and then you rolled for traps and monsters and stuff. I really liked Tunnels and Trolls as a kid so I thought to myself "We could make this a solo game by including a deck of cards with dangers on them..."

Then I passed out and woke up with rude sentences drawn on my face with permanent marker.

AstralFire
2009-08-06, 09:59 PM
I remember (barely) a night of heavy drinking with my friends when we were discussing ideas for new roleplaying game systems. My idea was something akin to Indiana Jones. The idea was based around the random dungeon creator where you'd roll for a room which had a feature or two (like crumbling floor or 50 ton ceiling) and then you rolled for traps and monsters and stuff. I really liked Tunnels and Trolls as a kid so I thought to myself "We could make this a solo game by including a deck of cards with dangers on them..."

Then I passed out and woke up with rude sentences drawn on my face with permanent marker.

You're friends with Jigglypuff?

Vadin
2009-08-06, 10:06 PM
You're friends with Jigglypuff?

Well, not after that little stunt!

Delwugor
2009-08-06, 11:00 PM
The idea was based around the random dungeon creator where you'd roll for a room which had a feature or two (like crumbling floor or 50 ton ceiling) and then you rolled for traps and monsters and stuff.
Another way is to have every player bring several (say 5) rooms (complete with encounter) that they have pre generated along with several hallways and at least one final confrontation room. All are placed in a pile (or numbered cards used), shuffled and one player picks a random room.
The more rooms that are generated the bigger the dungeon is.


Then I passed out and woke up with rude sentences drawn on my face with permanent marker.
I assure you it wasn't me, but my college roommate woke up with half of his head shaven...

jmbrown
2009-08-07, 12:48 AM
Ah, I remember now. We were playing the Order of the Stick card-based-dungeon-crawling-game-thingy. You have dungeon tiles that you lay down and you move the characters back and forth to slay monsters and get treasure. Meanwhile, the annoying halfling is stabbing everyone in the back and the bard is running around with some overpowered hand puppet (sorry, I'm probably the only person on this forum that doesn't actually read OotS).

We played an extended variant or something and it took us a good five hours to complete. I thought it was mad fun until I passed out but my biggest complaint was over the lack of variance. If you combined something like this (random dungeon floors that everyone can play) and each player can set down monster/trap cards or something that'd be sweet. I'm thinking everyone has a hand made up of monsters and traps and you place them strategically based on the room you're in. If the room is "the underwater pit" you're at a disadvantage if you play an aquatic monster but you foolishly played the weaker monsters four rooms ago so now you're stuck in a tough encounter.

Something to that effect.

levi
2009-08-07, 01:37 AM
There's one surefire way to make magic not broken and that also makes the system inherently more balanced and simpler to design. Put simply, there are no magic rules, or, another way, magic isn't special.

The way this works is to use an "effects based system", which is a strict seperation of fluff from crunch. I stole the idea from BESM, but I'm sure they stole it from someone else.

As an example, let's say a character has a weapon trait, it does blah damage, has foo range, etc. For one character, it could be a BFG, for another it's a lightning bolt spell, for another it's a ki attack, etc. They can all work using the same rules mechanics, but how that manifests in the game universe is up to the player, the GM, the setting, etc.

Of course, various things can be tweaked to make the effect match the desired flavor more, but it's still all using the same system. For instance, the BFG may have a limited ammo drawback, the ki attack may have a uses energy drawback, and the fireball could have componant and ritual drawbacks.

At some point, the line between fluff and crunch gets blurry, but even this can be dealt with. For instance, your character has an doohicky that provides an armor trait, but only against magic. At this point, whether something is magic matters, so pricing requires some ajudication, but basically you can use the setting as a guide. If set in a typical fantasy game where magic is common, it's not a big price drop. On the other tentacle, if set in a modern setting where magic is rare, it's a major price drop.

That's my two cents.

elliott20
2009-08-07, 01:39 AM
Hence my post on the previous page.

I'm a huge fan of us making a game that is Players VS Players VS Environment & Goals, a game that doesn't always end with anyone winning. An actual game instead of a roleplaying system.

Vadin, meet AGON (http://www.agon-rpg.com/), AGON, meet Vadin.

mikeejimbo
2009-08-07, 07:15 AM
There's one surefire way to make magic not broken and that also makes the system inherently more balanced and simpler to design. Put simply, there are no magic rules, or, another way, magic isn't special.

The way this works is to use an "effects based system", which is a strict seperation of fluff from crunch. I stole the idea from BESM, but I'm sure they stole it from someone else.

As an example, let's say a character has a weapon trait, it does blah damage, has foo range, etc. For one character, it could be a BFG, for another it's a lightning bolt spell, for another it's a ki attack, etc. They can all work using the same rules mechanics, but how that manifests in the game universe is up to the player, the GM, the setting, etc.

Of course, various things can be tweaked to make the effect match the desired flavor more, but it's still all using the same system. For instance, the BFG may have a limited ammo drawback, the ki attack may have a uses energy drawback, and the fireball could have componant and ritual drawbacks.

At some point, the line between fluff and crunch gets blurry, but even this can be dealt with. For instance, your character has an doohicky that provides an armor trait, but only against magic. At this point, whether something is magic matters, so pricing requires some ajudication, but basically you can use the setting as a guide. If set in a typical fantasy game where magic is common, it's not a big price drop. On the other tentacle, if set in a modern setting where magic is rare, it's a major price drop.

That's my two cents.

Huh, sounds like GURPS without the Magic rules, and just Powers with the Magical Limitation.

Vadin
2009-08-07, 10:06 AM
Vadin, meet AGON (http://www.agon-rpg.com/), AGON, meet Vadin.

Very cool, and I'm enjoying reading it, but not exactly what I had in mind. This includes a game master, something I'm hoping our game here won't need.

elliott20
2009-08-07, 11:19 AM
ahh, I see what you mean then. in which case, maybe some kind of mechanic where the players can propose the storyline AND the encounters?

i.e. The Giant's very own OOTS boardgame kind of runs with that structure.

There are also a number of boardgames out there where the players all have a common goal they must achieve to avoid losing, but then after they've all survived that, you compare scores to get the winner.

Vadin
2009-08-07, 11:46 AM
ahh, I see what you mean then. in which case, maybe some kind of mechanic where the players can propose the storyline AND the encounters?

i.e. The Giant's very own OOTS boardgame kind of runs with that structure.

There are also a number of boardgames out there where the players all have a common goal they must achieve to avoid losing, but then after they've all survived that, you compare scores to get the winner.

Storyline? Ooooooh. See, I was thinking something more similar to a board game. Something that is fun, involves player vs. player conflict, and is easy to pick up and understand. Few if any story lines (Nobody writes Monopoly fanfics, after all...actually, I bet somebody has...).

Dogmantra
2009-08-07, 12:28 PM
So, ideas so far:

Boardgamy
little/no storyline
d12 based
skill based, no other attributes
some method of randomly generating the adventure
no GM

Anyone disagree with these?

mikeejimbo
2009-08-07, 01:07 PM
Has anyone ever played/heard of The Sorcerer's Cave? It's a high fantasy D&D-esque board game playable without a DM. I don't know if you can find any copies anymore. Mine is beat up badly, or else I might try to sell it on ebay.

Kuma
2009-08-07, 02:50 PM
Idea!
A PvP system using the cards idea. but where cards can be used either as actions or to create some obstacle for another player. the objective will be to grab the most loot. for skill use, each task has a benchmark card value needed for success. for example say cards totalling a value of 13 are needed to jump a 20ft chasm or something. a player can lay down as many cards as he wanted to get to that total. other characters within touch range can make it harder or easier for the player by laying down cards of thier own to beat the total needed or in the case of hindering, increase it.
okay, i just fell off my train of thought.

Zeful
2009-08-07, 03:30 PM
I just want to see you guys develop a game that doesn't use dice for task/conflict resolution.

Okay. Imagine a deck of normal playing cards. Every time you want to do something, you take the top card from the deck and reveal it against the DMs card. Aces count as 1s and kings count as 13. In the case of ties, Spades beats Club, Club beats Hearts, Hearts beats Diamonds, and Diamonds beat Spades.

There.

AstralFire
2009-08-07, 03:55 PM
That is the first use of a Pseudo-Random Number Generator explicitly called for in a game that I can recall.

jmbrown
2009-08-07, 03:58 PM
Okay. Imagine a deck of normal playing cards. Every time you want to do something, you take the top card from the deck and reveal it against the DMs card. Aces count as 1s and kings count as 13. In the case of ties, Spades beats Club, Club beats Hearts, Hearts beats Diamonds, and Diamonds beat Spades.

There.

In blackjack, the ace is either a 11 or 1; whichever is more beneficial to you. In this case an ace should be worth the same thing.

Zeful
2009-08-07, 04:04 PM
In blackjack, the ace is either a 11 or 1; whichever is more beneficial to you. In this case an ace should be worth the same thing.

This isn't blackjack, so why would I use rules from it?

elliott20 wanted a system that didn't use dice for conflict/task resolution, I provided.

Vadin
2009-08-07, 05:29 PM
That is the first use of a Pseudo-Random Number Generator explicitly called for in a game that I can recall.

There was an Old West RPG that I can't recall the name of that used a deck of playing cards to resolve pretty much everything.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2009-08-07, 06:07 PM
There was an Old West RPG that I can't recall the name of that used a deck of playing cards to resolve pretty much everything.

Deadlands, perchance? It uses dice for many mundane tasks, but Hex-slinging (arcane spellcasting), Mad Science (artificer-esque stuff), initiative, and a few other things (including character generation) are all card based. The system is pretty strong, and has a great feel...I really recommend it.

Vadin
2009-08-07, 06:14 PM
Deadlands, perchance? It uses dice for many mundane tasks, but Hex-slinging (arcane spellcasting), Mad Science (artificer-esque stuff), initiative, and a few other things (including character generation) are all card based. The system is pretty strong, and has a great feel...I really recommend it.

Yeah, that was it! Fun times, fun times...

mikeejimbo
2009-08-07, 07:00 PM
Idea!
A PvP system using the cards idea. but where cards can be used either as actions or to create some obstacle for another player. the objective will be to grab the most loot. for skill use, each task has a benchmark card value needed for success. for example say cards totalling a value of 13 are needed to jump a 20ft chasm or something. a player can lay down as many cards as he wanted to get to that total. other characters within touch range can make it harder or easier for the player by laying down cards of thier own to beat the total needed or in the case of hindering, increase it.
okay, i just fell off my train of thought.

Sounds kinda like Munchkin

jmbrown
2009-08-07, 08:55 PM
This isn't blackjack, so why would I use rules from it?

elliott20 wanted a system that didn't use dice for conflict/task resolution, I provided.

Because having a wild card would make situations more interesting/tactical than a set number you can't deviate from.

erikun
2009-08-07, 10:48 PM
Huh, well let me provide my random mind dump here.

Dice and Resolution

Many (early) RPGs used a d% for their resolution, as it represented a fairly clear percentile chance of success. Do you succeed 80% of the time? Then rolling 1-80 on a d% means you succeed. Does taking the high ground give you a 10% advantage? Then you would apply a +10 to your roll (somehow).

The d20 is basically a toned down d%, where +1 is +5%.

Making the dice match the system can help give the entire thing consistency. For a Casino RPG, you'd probably use 2d6, with 7 being a success and 2 (snake eyes) being a failure. For a Tarot RPG, you'd likely be using a deck of cards, drawing and playing them to determine the success of your actions.

Djinn_In_Tonic already mentioned Deadlands, which is similar to this.

d12 System

Remember that just because you're using one d12, the entire system doesn't need to revolve around a single (or several) of the same dice. The d12 could be saved as a special "wild" die, or as something that is only included at the player's choice.

Consider the following example, using a d12 + dice pool system:

"I'm a Libra, and I want to shoot the orc in the back of the head."

My character would roll d12 + *d6 based on my shooting skill. If the d12 came up Libra, fates would favor my character and I would get a critical hit/exceptional success/whatever. However, if the d12 came up Aries, the "opposite" of Libra, I would suffer a critical failure.

The point being, the d12 could be used to resolve however you want it to. You could roll *d12 for however many skill ranks you have, or 1d12 + skill ranks, or 1d12 with Libra being exceptional success and Aquarius/Gemini (the two "compatible" signs) being good luck.

Random Dungeon Generation

Most of the descriptions people have provided for randomly creating dungeons sounds like Dungeoneer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeoneer_(game)), a card game where each player draws cards to either benefit their own character, or impede/kill the other player's characters.

I certainly don't have a problem with this. Heck, a survivor-style game where conditions are randomly determined - or determined by each player, depending on what they'd most easily deal with - would probably work out well.

AstralFire
2009-08-07, 10:59 PM
Leapfrogging off of that, I strongly recommend using a mix of different die sizes if your 'signature' die is anything other than d4, d6, d8 or maybe d10. d2/d3 require far too many rolls to provide a wide variance of effect, and d12+ often produces too wide a variance for some things, while you can usually use multiples of d4-d8 to provide for a bell curved result in a one-die system.

erikun
2009-08-07, 11:21 PM
I'm a fan of the d8 myself. :smallsmile:

I do like the idea of a Wild Die, Luck Die, or Fate Die, especially if the game has a "the fates are manipulating your chances" feel. As I said, such a die doesn't need to even have negative consequences - the Zodiac d12 only giving you a bonus if you roll Libra just means that you'll succeed 1:12 of the time. The reasoning behind it doesn't need to be complex. Perhaps the PC is favored by the gods? Perhaps the gods like playing with mortal's lives behind the scenes?

Alternately, perhaps it isn't always rolled. Using a standard dice method, and only pulling out the d12 when the player "wishes to test their luck" is perfectly viable.

More thoughts on a potential card deck resolution system:

Begin with a deck of 52 cards, removing the Jokers.

At the beginning of a session, each player is dealt 3 cards. For larger groups, you'll want to combine more than one deck together.

The "challange rating" ranges from 1 to 13, where 1 is "never fail" and 13 is "virtually impossible".

Challanges are resolved by drawing a card from the deck, then playing one card in your hand. You don't need to play the card you drew. Bonuses from skills, etc. are added to the card played.

If you play an Ace, you both draw and play a second card.

You may, and your choosing, play two cards after drawing from the deck. Doing so represents "spending your luck," and your hand is permanently smaller for the rest of the session.


This system is basically the same as a d13, except that the players are given some control over the way the dice rolls. They may choose to hang onto higher cards, spending lower draws on "lesser" tasks, but run the risk of failure causing complications. Alternately, they may spend their higher cards, hoping to keep the lower cards "out of play" in their hands, but running the risk of getting a low card on an important draw.

There is the "wild card" Ace, which allows for potentially 13+ plays, or just more hand management. There is also spending luck, combining lower cards into a higher result - in exchange for less options later, and eventually relying entirely on the luck of the draws, if you spend your entire hand.

Knaight
2009-08-07, 11:23 PM
On the other hand Paranoia, Mutants and Master Minds, Yags(I think), and quite a few other games all use only d20 dice. Any number of percentile systems use only percentile dice. On the smaller end Fudge, Fate, Spirit of the Century, Now Playing, Don't Rest Your Head, Hack n' Slash, Starblazer adventures, and Ignition(once it gets out) all use a d3 system, albeit slightly modified.

Gnomo
2009-08-08, 01:23 AM
I'm a big fan of using 2d6... this creates more average results for the rolls.

{table=head]Result|Chance|%
12|1/36|2.78
11|1/18|5.56
10|1/9|11.11
9|1/9|11.11
8|1/6|16.67
7|1/6|16.67
6|1/6|16.67
5|1/9|11.11
4|1/9|11.11
3|1/18|5.56
2|1/36|2.78[/table]

Besides, the d6 is the most common, known and easy to buy kind of dice.

Dogmantra
2009-08-08, 08:11 AM
More thoughts on a potential card deck resolution system:

Begin with a deck of 52 cards, removing the Jokers.

At the beginning of a session, each player is dealt 3 cards. For larger groups, you'll want to combine more than one deck together.

The "challange rating" ranges from 1 to 13, where 1 is "never fail" and 13 is "virtually impossible".

Challanges are resolved by drawing a card from the deck, then playing one card in your hand. You don't need to play the card you drew. Bonuses from skills, etc. are added to the card played.

If you play an Ace, you both draw and play a second card.

You may, and your choosing, play two cards after drawing from the deck. Doing so represents "spending your luck," and your hand is permanently smaller for the rest of the session.


This system is basically the same as a d13, except that the players are given some control over the way the dice rolls. They may choose to hang onto higher cards, spending lower draws on "lesser" tasks, but run the risk of failure causing complications. Alternately, they may spend their higher cards, hoping to keep the lower cards "out of play" in their hands, but running the risk of getting a low card on an important draw.

There is the "wild card" Ace, which allows for potentially 13+ plays, or just more hand management. There is also spending luck, combining lower cards into a higher result - in exchange for less options later, and eventually relying entirely on the luck of the draws, if you spend your entire hand.
I really like this idea. If it's a PvP game, I'd deal larger hands, let the players play as many cards as they want per turn, and say that an Ace allows one to draw an extra card. Each round, the "zodiac" die (i.e. the d12) would be rolled, and all members of that star sign would draw X extra cards. When you run out of cards, you can't do anything, but if you don't get high enough numbers, you might fail.

levi
2009-08-08, 08:54 AM
There are a myriad types of resolution systems and which you use can influence the way the game plays. Most games use dice, but other methods have been used. I'll take a moment to discuss a few of the common dice based methods. I'm sure many of you have heard of at least some of these, but I figure an overview is useful to provide some ideas to use (or reject).

Number of Dice

Once you've decided to use dice (if you do), one of the most important factors (probably even more important than the size of the dice) is how many dice to use. I'm not taking about the number of kinds of dice, but rather, how many dice to roll. This effects the probability distribution of the dice roll.

Systems, like d20 or percentile based systems, that use a single die have a linear distibution. Each of the possible numerical results has an equal probablility of being rolled. This has several advantages. It is mathematically simple and the probability of success is easily calculated.

Using more than one die (such as the 2d6 used by many games, especially board games) gives a more bell-curve shaped distribution. Average rolls are more common than high or low rolls. Adding additional dice changes the curve by making it steeper (average rolls are even more likely), expanding the range of values, and moving the center of the curve upwards. The number of dice rolled can be fixed, or it may vary. Some people favor these sorts of systems because most natural events are distributed on a similar curve. One disadvantage is the complexity of figuring out the probability of a given outcome. It's not hard to calculate, but not easily figured in one's head.

Other systems that use more than one die consider each die seperately, rather than adding the results together. Usually each die over a given value (which may vary) is counted as one success, but other systems can be used. An advantage of this system is the several ways that it can be tuned. One can vary the number of dice rolled, the number required for a die to count as a success, and the number of successes required. This complexity can also be a disadvantage. White Wolf, who's system has used dice pools over several versions, simplified their mechanic after their previous versions where shown to be too complex to balance.

Size of Dice

The size of dice used primarily determine the range of outcomes. Large dice favor a wider range of results, while smaller dice give a reduced number of distinct possibilities.

A wider range of results can allow for more fine tuning of powerlevels and can allow the range of possible advancement to be spread out. The disadvange of a wider range is that results will be more influenced by chance and that the math becomes more complex as the numbers involved get larger.

A smaller range has the advantage of reducing randomness, making things more predictable. It also keeps the math simple, which can speed up conflict resolution. It has the disadvantages that values can only be coarsly tuned and that advancement must be limited or some actions become impossible for anyone who hasn't maxed out the relevant variables.

Target Numbers

There are two common systems of determining the difficulty of an action and both use target numbers. These are the roll over and roll under systems.

In a roll over system, as used by d20 and many other systems, a roll is made, modifiers (if any) added, and the result is compared to the target number. If equal or greater than the target, it is a success, otherwise it is a failure. In most cases, the modifers added to the roll are based on character statistics and the target number is based on the inherent difficulty of the task to be accomplised. However, other systems can be used. (The d20 system applies modifers to the roll, target number, or both, depending on the source of the modifier.)

In the roll under system, used by (amoung others) older vesions of DnD, the goal is to roll less than the target number. In these systems, target number is often based on character statistics. Modification based on difficulty of the task can be applied to the roll, the target number or both. Often, a task of average difficulty will use an unmodified roll and the character's stat as a target number.

The roll over system has the advantage that better die rolls are considerd to be better in most games. It also has the advantage of being well known. It has the disadvange that nearly every roll will have to have some number added to it.

The roll under system has the advange that many rolls can be made with no addition whatsoever. It has the disadvantage that some feel making lower numbers better feels odd and it is sometimes regarded as antiquated. If character stats are used as target numbers, it also limits how those stats can be allowed to get, lest failure become impossible and all risk be removed from the game.

Opposed Actions

When the outcome depends not just on the character's ability and the difficulty of the task, but also on the actions of another character, it is an opposed action. There are two basic ways to deal with this, contested rolls, and uncontested rolls.

Uncontested rolls work just like unopposed actions. The roll is evaluated relative to a target number. This target number is based on the statistics of the other character (or characters) involved. (Like armor class in d20.) This is the most common, case, but the situation can be reversed, where the target character rolls instead. (Which is how saves work in d20.)

The alternative is contested rolls. In this system, each character rolls, adds the relevant modifiers, and the better roll wins. This can be also be combined with a target number, where the character must hit the target number and beat the oppossing character's roll to succeed.

Uncontested rolls have the advatage of speed and simplicity. The have the disadvantage that the target has little influence over thier own fate, it's all in the hands of the active character. Some players feel disadvantaged by this.

Contested rolls have the advantage that they involve both parties in the action. Each player's roll influences the outcome, which some feel gives them more of a chance to defend themselves. They have the disadvantage of slowing things down and making the probability curves of opposed actions more complex (and possibly different from) than unopposed actions.

Special Results

Some systems have rules for special results above and beyond the basic system. Two basic mechanicms are automatic results and crtitical results (both of which are used in d20).

To allow for the possibility of success or failure despite the difficulty and the relevant modifiers, some systems include automatic results if the roll meets specific requirements. If a roll is particularly good, it automatically succeeds. Likewise, if particularly bad, it automatically fails. The range of results considered particularly good or bad can vary. It is also possible to include automatic successes without automatic failures (and vice versa).

Similar systems are used for critical successes and failures. A particularly good roll can allow for a better result than a simple success would have. A particularly bad result can have negative concequences, beyond just failing. These concequences can be detailed by game rules or left to GM (or player) fiat. It is also possible to use the final result relative to the target number to determine criticals, rather than staright die rolls.

Whether to use such systems is more a matter of taste than anything. They introduce more rules and can add complexity, but many players enjoy them. Others, of course, do not. In many games, they are an optional rule, or added by players as a house rule.

In Closing

I clearly haven't covered all the possibilities and many games use a combination, but I hope this provides some ideas. I've tried to be objective and not let my personal preferences bias things, but I may have failed, so take the advantages and disadvanages with a grain of salt. The many references to d20 are included because I figure it's the system most readers here are likely to know, rather than my personal choice. (I've actually grown dissadisfied with it lately. Mostly due to the complexity.)

Kuma
2009-09-12, 09:34 PM
Sounds kinda like Munchkin

never played it, so sorry if its too similar:smalltongue: