This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: System Design Questions  (Read 3404 times)

Philotomy Jurament

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1971
  • Prisoner 24601
System Design Questions
« Reply #30 on: April 30, 2011, 06:17:24 AM »
Quote from: flyingmice;454595
Roll to hit. Roll damage. There you are! Chance of success, quality of success.

1e AD&D surprise: a single d6 roll gives you chance of surprise (e.g., 2 in 6) and duration of surprise (e.g., 1 segment, 2 segments, or no surprise).
The problem is not that power corrupts, but that the corruptible are irresistibly drawn to the pursuit of power. Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito.

Zalmoxis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 595
System Design Questions
« Reply #31 on: April 30, 2011, 01:13:11 PM »
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;454661
Not specifically aware of any, though there are systems which can be optionally run dicelessly - which could be used to do that. FUDGE or many of Clash's games, for instance.


I suppose I could tinker with FUDGE to get that kind of result. Hmm...

StormBringer

  • Harbinger of Chaos
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9320
System Design Questions
« Reply #32 on: April 30, 2011, 04:08:41 PM »
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;454662
1e AD&D surprise: a single d6 roll gives you chance of surprise (e.g., 2 in 6) and duration of surprise (e.g., 1 segment, 2 segments, or no surprise).
Good point.  I found the overall system quite abstruse, and I am not alone.  It made very little sense to me until I read the OSRIC explanation.
If you read the above post, you owe me $20 for tutoring fees

'Let them call me rebel, and welcome, I have no concern for it, but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul.'
 - Thomas Paine
'Everything doesn't need

StormBringer

  • Harbinger of Chaos
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9320
System Design Questions
« Reply #33 on: April 30, 2011, 04:09:20 PM »
Quote from: Cole;454635
I can't immediately think of any that use an Amber style straight comparison as the explicit primary mechanic with limited randomization added, but D&D/AD&D do historically make some use of straight-comparison mechanics, for example adventures will often state a total combined strength score is needed to move a heavy object, or creatures above a fixed amount of hit dice will not be affected by a spell.
Nobilis has such a system, which is partly why Pundit hates it so.  ;)
If you read the above post, you owe me $20 for tutoring fees

'Let them call me rebel, and welcome, I have no concern for it, but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul.'
 - Thomas Paine
'Everything doesn't need

StormBringer

  • Harbinger of Chaos
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9320
System Design Questions
« Reply #34 on: April 30, 2011, 04:11:34 PM »
Quote from: two_fishes;454546
Quality, I guess. I'm a fan of only rolling dice when the consequences of failure are interesting. So a die roll to determine the degree of success... Meh.
Just to make sure we are on the same page, if your character has all the time in the world, and no distractions, rolling for a skill (pick locks, say) is something you would find pointless?  Not that I necessarily disagree, just making sure of what you are saying.
If you read the above post, you owe me $20 for tutoring fees

'Let them call me rebel, and welcome, I have no concern for it, but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul.'
 - Thomas Paine
'Everything doesn't need

Cole

  • Factotum
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2427
System Design Questions
« Reply #35 on: April 30, 2011, 04:18:17 PM »
Quote from: StormBringer;454785
Nobilis has such a system, which is partly why Pundit hates it so.  ;)

I have only given Nobilis a casual browsing on a friend's coffee table.

"You've got to check this game out. It's completely unplayable," he said.
ABRAXAS - A D&D Blog

"There is nothing funny about a clown in the moonlight."
--Lon Chaney

Ulas Xegg

Cole

  • Factotum
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2427
System Design Questions
« Reply #36 on: April 30, 2011, 04:43:55 PM »
Quote from: StormBringer;454787
Just to make sure we are on the same page, if your character has all the time in the world, and no distractions, rolling for a skill (pick locks, say) is something you would find pointless?  Not that I necessarily disagree, just making sure of what you are saying.


From my perspective, the consequences of failing that particular skill check are potentially interesting ones - PC may have to  break down the door, PC may have to take the long way around, PC may have to find an NPC locksmith to open the lock for him.

I think this idea can apply broadly to many more simple checks.
ABRAXAS - A D&D Blog

"There is nothing funny about a clown in the moonlight."
--Lon Chaney

Ulas Xegg

flyingmice

  • Flunchist-Cruftist
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9757
    • http://www.flyingmice.com/flyingmice.html
System Design Questions
« Reply #37 on: April 30, 2011, 06:08:00 PM »
My games all use the same system, the StarCluster system, but there are various resolution mechanics that can be slotted in and used with the system. One of them, StarPerc percentile,  has separate chance and quality rolls. The others use combined Chance and Quality in one roll. The StarPool and StarNova systems use dice pools - d20 roll under and count successes, and d6 roll and add respectively. Star20 uses a 4d6-4 mechanic, and StarZero uses d6-d6. StarKarma is entirely diceless/randomless, and StarRisk uses risk dice - take an automatic, low Quality success, or roll dice and risk failure for a potentially higher Quality. In all these, the margin between the Target Number and the roll determines the Quality.

More resolution sub-systems are coming, BTW! :D

-clash
« Last Edit: April 30, 2011, 11:52:13 PM by flyingmice »
clash bowley * Flying Mice Games - an Imprint of Better Mousetrap Games
Flying Mice home page: http://jalan.flyingmice.com/flyingmice.html
Currently Designing: StarCluster 4 - Wavefront Empire
Last Releases: SC4 - Dark Orbital, SC4 - Out of the Ruins,  SC4 - Sabre & World
Blog: I FLY BY NIGHT

Peregrin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2807
System Design Questions
« Reply #38 on: April 30, 2011, 06:32:37 PM »
Clash, how dare you give your customers multiple ways to enjoy your games.  Do you know how many lives were lost warring over which resolution mechanic is superior?  To offer so many systems as if player preference had anything to do with is just downright offensive.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2011, 06:38:16 PM by Peregrin »
“In a way, the Lands of Dream are far more brutal than the worlds of most mainstream games. All of the games set there have a bittersweetness that I find much harder to take than the ridiculous adolescent posturing of so-called 'grittily realistic' games. So maybe one reason I like them as a setting is because they are far more like the real world: colourful, crazy, full of strange creatures and people, eternal and yet changing, deeply beautiful and sometimes profoundly bitter.”


two_fishes

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • t
  • Posts: 1364
System Design Questions
« Reply #40 on: April 30, 2011, 07:11:17 PM »
Quote from: StormBringer;454787
Just to make sure we are on the same page, if your character has all the time in the world, and no distractions, rolling for a skill (pick locks, say) is something you would find pointless?  Not that I necessarily disagree, just making sure of what you are saying.


Pretty much. Attach some kind of risk to making the check, or just let it succeed. If it's impossible to succeed, just say so and don't bother with the dice. Any time failure (or even success, for that matter) just leads to, "Nothing happens," the result is an increase in boredom at the table. If there's no risk attached to the test and no time constraints, the players can just sit around and chatter about different ways to tackle the problem until they succeed. While this may be fun for some people, in my experience it bores me to tears. I suppose the case could be made that a locked chest (for example) could yield some resource that might be useful later, but if a failed check only means they don't get it, then the only person that's fun for is the DM, who knows what's in the chest.

Cole

  • Factotum
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2427
System Design Questions
« Reply #41 on: April 30, 2011, 07:24:43 PM »
Quote from: two_fishes;454820
Pretty much. Attach some kind of risk to making the check, or just let it succeed. If it's impossible to succeed, just say so and don't bother with the dice. Any time failure (or even success, for that matter) just leads to, "Nothing happens," the result is an increase in boredom at the table. If there's no risk attached to the test and no time constraints, the players can just sit around and chatter about different ways to tackle the problem until they succeed. While this may be fun for some people, in my experience it bores me to tears. I suppose the case could be made that a locked chest (for example) could yield some resource that might be useful later, but if a failed check only means they don't get it, then the only person that's fun for is the DM, who knows what's in the chest.


I see where you're coming from, but from my perspective "nothing happens" often as not translates to "the results are not yet obvious." The failed "open the chest" roll for example, might govern when the PC gets the item in the chest (if he gets it now, it might be stolen by the thief hiding in the next room, if he gets it later, the thief may later be dead.) Or how he gets the item (lock doesn't open; the PC breaks the chest, and gets the item but it's partially damaged by the breaking). Or if someone else gets the item (the PC can't open the lock, but later a thief following the party sees the chest and gets the item, which he can use against the PCs, etc.) You never know, since, at least as I play, the action develops a little bit at a time and it can be hard to tell when the butterfly wings now cause the hurricane later.

Now, don't take this to mean that I am in favor of trying to stop or hamstring the players left and right. What I am saying has more to do with success/failure of a given task is often neutral or a matter of opinion as to whether it is a success or failure for the player, and on what time scale. Player unlocks the door, fights the werewolf on the other side, is killed. Player fails to unlock the door, takes another way, finds the Wolf's Bane sword along the way, trounces the werewolf. Games have a way of surprising you, especially when as DM you don't think about situations in terms of the right and wrong outcome.
ABRAXAS - A D&D Blog

"There is nothing funny about a clown in the moonlight."
--Lon Chaney

Ulas Xegg

warp9

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 292
System Design Questions
« Reply #42 on: April 30, 2011, 10:00:20 PM »
Quote from: Zalmoxis;454634

I come from a roleplaying background of D&D and D&D-like products... all dice-based for conflict resolution. I had never seen Amber until recently, and some of the ideas, for a mechanics standpoint, seemed very interesting to me. The idea of using fixed numbers for combat, magic and so on. I wanted to know:

1. Are you aware of any games that combine fixed numbers for resolutions with a randomizing element, such as dice? I am referring to a system where the basic mechanic is fixed but radomization is used sparingly or in specific circumstances.

2. If you are aware of such a thing, have you ever seen it in practice and how did it work out?

3. If you haven't seen such a system in practice, do you think it could work wihtin the framework of a more traditional, D&D-type setting?

What I'm about to say does not exactly relate to your quesiton, however, there are clearly dice based games where randomization is less of a factor than others.

Example: all other things being equal, a 3d6 bell curve means that randomness will be less of a factor than in a d20 resolution situation. And that is why I generally prefer 3d6 over 1d20, I'd prefer skill to be a bigger factor than luck.

two_fishes

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • t
  • Posts: 1364
System Design Questions
« Reply #43 on: April 30, 2011, 10:04:29 PM »
Quote from: Cole;454826
I see where you're coming from, but from my perspective "nothing happens" often as not translates to "the results are not yet obvious."

 
 
Valid points, and you might be happier with a subtler game than I am. I'm not terribly interested in action that builds slowly over the course of a few hours. I've played too many games of D&D that were supposed to do that and panned out to nothing, too many games that were, in that infamous phrase, a half-hour of fun packed into 3 hours. So now I'm more of a BANG! POW! ZOOM! sort of guy, and if we're rolling dice, I want it to add tension and excitement directly to the table, right now, not be a passive re-direction of tension & excitement to some potential later time.

Cole

  • Factotum
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2427
System Design Questions
« Reply #44 on: April 30, 2011, 10:27:46 PM »
Quote from: two_fishes;454830
Valid points, and you might be happier with a subtler game than I am. I'm not terribly interested in action that builds slowly over the course of a few hours. I've played too many games of D&D that were supposed to do that and panned out to nothing, too many games that were, in that infamous phrase, a half-hour of fun packed into 3 hours. So now I'm more of a BANG! POW! ZOOM! sort of guy, and if we're rolling dice, I want it to add tension and excitement directly to the table, right now, not be a passive re-direction of tension & excitement to some potential later time.


That's fair, I feel you. I do enjoy that subtlety. I have run games that have more of the effect that you're looking for and it's gone well, but there is something that I miss that again I think is that butterfly wings factor.

If I feel like the players are being too myopic about a given task and it's slowing the pace to a crawl, as DM I am more likely to say, "it's been 5 minutes, let's not overthink this, boys." Or by rolling to see if an event happens.

If I've got a "locked door" situation and there are guards in the area, a failed roll might well end up in the guards showing up anyway just due to timetable, with one of the guards having a key; arguably the difference is semantic.
ABRAXAS - A D&D Blog

"There is nothing funny about a clown in the moonlight."
--Lon Chaney

Ulas Xegg