All right, let's get some actual game discussion going in here, instead of just hijinks.

If you look at the efluvia flowing out of the Forge, what I've seen has been rule lite soap opera CRAP.  Maddman's favourite, "Dogs of the Vineyard", sounds particularly vile.  His example for it was some shit about a PC having a brother who was going to kill a whore for revenge over something or other, and the PC had to decide whether to stop him or not.  Whatever.  If I want to experience that kind of crap, I'll either contact my extended family or watch the Jerry Springer show.

I'm all for tinkering with games, though.  I think they can always be made better.  And by better I sure as hell don't mean "more like a soap opera".  I mean more mechanically smooth and elegant.

To that end, I am continually thinking about the die mechanic used by a game.  (Diceless doesn't work -- at least Amber doesn't.  Cards possibly could, but I've never tried them, so I dunno.)  

d20 is simple and elegant, but it is inherently suited to pass/fail tests.  Degrees of success are harder to do.

Dice pools are great for degrees of success, but you end up rolling buckets of dice.  That can be fun, but it can also be time consuming.  Especially when you're rolling a 30 die test.

GURPS 3d6 system is, frankly, awful.  I don't like how extreme the bell curve is on it.  I've had 2d10 suggested to me, and it's interesting to tinker with, but I'm still not sure how thrilled I am with it.  It still tends to make modifiers much more valuable than the die roll.

But these are the only systems I've really played and/or tinkered with.  I'm interested on any of y'all's thoughts on these die mechanics, or any other ones you've used or thought about.

I can bring the storytelling to whatever system I'm using.  What I want from IT is good mechanics.  

the problem with dice pools is that they are also a kind of distributed pass/fail test - but they do tend towards the average more. hmm...

Quote from: Aelfinnthe problem with dice pools is that they are also a kind of distributed pass/fail test - but they do tend towards the average more. hmm...

When you get down to it, *any* system is going to have you either pass or fail on a lot of things.  Either you hurt someone with your sword or you don't.  With a die pool, though, it becomes possible to combine the damage with the attack -- the more successes you get, the more damage you do.  Again, though, I'm not convinced it's the "best" solution.  Combats in Exalted take forever.  Even with simplified rules, they'd still take a long time.

So I like the possibilities of gradations, but not so much the bucket 'o' dice...

Quote from: CyberzombieWhen you get down to it, *any* system is going to have you either pass or fail on a lot of things.  Either you hurt someone with your sword or you don't.  With a die pool, though, it becomes possible to combine the damage with the attack -- the more successes you get, the more damage you do.  Again, though, I'm not convinced it's the "best" solution.  Combats in Exalted take forever.  Even with simplified rules, they'd still take a long time.

So I like the possibilities of gradations, but not so much the bucket 'o' dice...

huh. ok, lets think about this - we want a system where the fighting archetype is bound to do more damage than the magical archetype, in terms of physical attacks.

howbout we drop weapon damage alltogether? give each weapon a bonus - say +2 on a dagger up to +5 or so on a greatsword - and add that bonus to the attack roll itself. base roll of 10+dex hits, armor as damage reduction, and anything that beats 10+dex is the damage done?

Quote from: Aelfinnhuh. ok, lets think about this - we want a system where the fighting archetype is bound to do more damage than the magical archetype, in terms of physical attacks.

howbout we drop weapon damage alltogether? give each weapon a bonus - say +2 on a dagger up to +5 or so on a greatsword - and add that bonus to the attack roll itself. base roll of 10+dex hits, armor as damage reduction, and anything that beats 10+dex is the damage done?

huh. can't edit my post to add in something I forgot:

keep the natural 1 always missing, maybe even bring it up to natural 1 & 2, and slow down the base attack bonus progression.

I'm not usually very good at discussions of this type, but after reading this I had a thought. How hard would it be to incorporate a system where weapons do a set base damage, and then a certain amount of bonus damage based on how well an attack roll succeeds? That way you roll just one die to hit, but you also get some gradation in how wewll ya hit and the effects that follow.

Quote from: SigmundI'm not usually very good at discussions of this type, but after reading this I had a thought. How hard would it be to incorporate a system where weapons do a set base damage, and then a certain amount of bonus damage based on how well an attack roll succeeds? That way you roll just one die to hit, but you also get some gradation in how wewll ya hit and the effects that follow.

what, you mean like the system I just propsed? :heh:

Quote from: SigmundI'm not usually very good at discussions of this type, but after reading this I had a thought. How hard would it be to incorporate a system where weapons do a set base damage, and then a certain amount of bonus damage based on how well an attack roll succeeds? That way you roll just one die to hit, but you also get some gradation in how wewll ya hit and the effects that follow.

For something like D&D
Divide the dice type in half to get base damage. (longsword at 1d8 = 4 base dagger at 1d4 base = 2 base damage.)

Per x over needed to hit = +1 damage.  

If x = 3
AC of opponent = 20
I hit AC 21 with my dagger I do 2 damage (1/3 + 2)
I hit AC 31 with my dagger I do 5dmg or 6dmg depending on how you want to round. damage (10/3 + 2)

I have little interest in single die resolution systems. All I've ever seen have been seriously flawed in one way or another.

Besides, spliting out damage from strike chance (for the want of a better term) allows more detailed modifiers and mechanically description. I don't mind the second die roll, in fact I enjoy it.

I just borrowed a friend's True 20 (I need to buy the hardcover!) and it has something much like what Aelfinn and Sigmund are talking about.  I've just started reading it, so I'm not sure whether I like it or not.

Gleichman: I like the hit roll and damage roll of D&D, too.  I just like tinkering and coming up with something new.  

Quote from: CyberzombieGleichman: I like the hit roll and damage roll of D&D, too.  I just like tinkering and coming up with something new.  

Well, nothing wrong with that.

Good luck.

While trying to design a fast, simple system for games based on the novel/movie Battle Royale, I designed a d20 skill-based system with single-roll resolution and grades of effect.  The system used few and small modifiers that didn't often stack to preserve the effect grades, and ensure bonuses didn't make certain results impossible.  For example, here are the effect grades for attacks:

Result: Effect
1-7: Missed
8-12: Grazed
13-16: Wounded
17-19: Crippled
20+: Dead

The system was hp-less and meant to be played fast and furious, with as little stat-tracking or tactical consideration as possible.  Yes, a solid punch from a geeky character could potentially drop a hulking bruiser, but that was the kind of game Battle Royale... death was sudden, unexpected, and possible with every attack.

I haven't looked at this system in a long time, but reading it now, I think I might try and finish it.  Maybe even release it as a minigame.

Quote from: Aelfinnwhat, you mean like the system I just propsed? :heh:

Heh, if it is I had no idea...told ya I'm not the best at this stuff, but I am interested. I do really like the True20 system, but I don't think it's quite the same as what I was thinking of. The end effects are the same though I believe, because in the end your level of injury varies depending on how hard ya got hit as well as how well ya manage to "shrug-off" the damage.

I really don't mind the 'ole roll the die and take X number of damage either.

Quote from: CyberzombieI just borrowed a friend's True 20 (I need to buy the hardcover!) and it has something much like what Aelfinn and Sigmund are talking about.  I've just started reading it, so I'm not sure whether I like it or not.

Gleichman: I like the hit roll and damage roll of D&D, too.  I just like tinkering and coming up with something new.  

cool. I havn't gotten my dirty little mits on true20 or blue rose yet, So I look forward to that point...

I'm a big Alternity fan. In Alternity, you roll a d20 +/- a "situation die" (depending on difficulty), and try to get below your skill value. If you roll below half your skill, you've gotten a Good success, and below 1/4 you've gotten an Amazing success. In combat, the different success levels translated to doing more and/or worse (Alternity has three different damage tracks, stun, wound, and mortal) damage. In addition, someone who takes an Amazing hit has a chance of being knocked out cold. In other situations, a better success means different things. On an astrogation roll, it determines how close you get to where you wanted to jump in. On a sensors roll, it might determine how close something is when you detect it. On a repair roll, it might change how long the repairs take.