Difference between revisions of "Dieter's Gaming System of Awesomeness"

Latest revision as of 07:22, 2 July 2012

User:Dieterthebold

Edit: I realize that you can't get a perfect system, and awesome mechanics won't make up for good GMing, planning, storytelling and jazzed players. But I think there's a way to get the mechanics arranged so they get more out of the story's way without sacrificing the, I don't know, realism?, that makes us prefer tabletop gaming over LARPing.

I'm putting this up here as I've been starting to come into some concrete thoughts concerning what I want out of a game system, specifically mechanics. The two bases I'm working off of are the Victory Point (VP) system of Fading Suns and the Burning Wheel system. The VP system is good because ability scales without adding dice, while I like Burning Wheel for its hard focus on creating mechanics that drive storytelling among the players and GM.

The dissatisfaction that's been pushing to the fore is the dice. I think this might have reached its flashpoint with the WHFRP 3rd edition dice, which are awesome. They're totally awesome and easy to use, but they still have the same basic effect on the players: random effects for skills and powers. Sometimes you roll well and they work awesome, sometimes you get fucked, and sometimes they just do what you'd expect them to do. I know you can calculate the statistics and try to use math to smooth out the rough edges of probability, but I'm starting to wonder if there isn't a better way. I don't want to go to diceless roleplaying, as that's just too much a can of worms that isn't satisfying for me. But I do want to reduce the amount of chance that figures in to the game.

Specifically on the VP system, you roll a d20 aimed at equal to or less than your Goal Number, which is determined by your base ability + skill (+/- modifiers). You score Victory Points equal to your Goal Number divided by 2. More VPs are good and create better effects. So the higher your abilities and skills are, the likelier you are to succeed and the better you will succeed when you do. What it lacks, though, is a mechanic, something literally built into the game system that protects players from shit rolls on things they shouldn't have an issue with.

This is where Burning Wheel makes its contribution, as it has mechanics that specifically emphasize this. Namely, theJust Say Yes and Let it Ride! rules, along with Instincts and requiring Stakes for all rolls. Just Say Yes came from Matt's favorite game, Dogs in the Vineyard, and instructs the GM to give the players what they need without requiring a skill roll unless the situation/story/NPC has a legitimate reason for blocking them. Sure, you can roleplay it out and make them work for it a little, but you don't ask for a 'Gather Information' roll just to chat up the bartender unless the bartender really hates you or is opposed to you for some reason. This allays about half of my concerns with skill rolls and chance, but still doesn't address the chance part. Requiring Stakes also goes a long way towards satisfying my concerns, as it allows for both success and forward motion in the story by adding on complications. Let it Ride! is the follow up to Just Say Yes. Unless it's some form of opposed contest, you make one roll and you stick with it until circumstances would say that the situation has changed sufficiently to require a new roll. You make one 'Observation' roll for an entire trip through the dungeon. Unless you decide to take more time than originally stated, or you get better light, or maybe find a map, etc. And Instincts are player-created action macros for their characters that trump the GM. This is the only mechanic I've come across in any system that literally tells the GM, "The Character does this, regardless of what you say." E.g., "I always draw my sword when surprised" is an Instinct. So when an ambush happens, you've immediately drawn your sword as a free action even if your opponents act first. Naturally this doesn't trump common sense, like if you wake up stuck in a spider's web and can't reach your sword, or you were surprised from your sleep by someone stealing your sword off you.

So the effect of chance, I guess, is my main concern. I'm still not 100% satisfied with how Initiative, Damage (inflicted and resisted), Skill focus and Stats work in any of the systems, so those are things to ponder as well.

My initial thoughts on chance are to describe general standards for each level (attribute, skill, whatever) and inform the GM that under normal circumstances, rolls aren't necessary to accomplish said standards. If the character is at Level X, they can do what X says. If they're in abnormal circumstances (rushed, trying something common sense is within described standards but is a novel use, working without normal tools, etc.), then require a roll for success, which is where you call for Stakes.

• E.g., you can bake this pastry, in a kosher setting and flourless for Passover, but because it's not something you've done before it could end up taking you longer than you thought or won't turn out very tasty. You still manage to bake it so that it will pass as what it should look like and is edible even if you fail, but failure will mean someone doesn't like it, you can't make enough in the time/ingredients allotted, or maybe you end up with a solid batch but have wasted far more ingredients than you should have figuring it out.

If the character is trying something above their level, then you bring dice into the mix. The GM would use common sense in setting limits to how far a character could reach above their level. The question here would be how to bring the dice in? Use a scale to allow stats to be taken into affect (natural aptitude) like the VP system? Use more a WHFRP 3.0 approach and add more dice the further the character reaches above their level (with maybe Challenge Dice tossed in for speed/tool/concentration constraints)? Or something else?

Skills shouldn't overlap Stats
-Sports vs Athletics (just test Speed/Agility/Strength/Endurance)

The genre and setting should determine the granularity of skills

Should there be a difference in costs between types of skills?
-Should less useful skills be made cheaper? I.e., why does Crafts cost as much as Shooting when you're likely to get more out of shooting?
-How much of this is can be generalized given individual play-styles and expectations?

Character background and era (medieval vs renaissance/industrial vs modern) should have a large effect on how their skills are broken down
-modern characters are likely to have more general knowledge and a mechanistic conception of the world, meaning unknown things can be broken down and figured out
-someone from a farm has Animal Handling with bonus specializations based on the animals they raised
-someone with the Riding (Horses) skill would have fewer penalties to ride a camel than someone without the Riding skill
-learning a new skill should be harder than learning a new specialization

And now a spam of notes because it's getting late and I'm tired.

Effects should be as independent/nonvariable as possible and should instead modify the characters' reactions. -weapons don't do damage, they force a roll vs character's Health, with more powerful weapons inflicting larger negative modifiers against the roll How does Armor effect this? Generic levels reduce the negative modifier (but will this satisfy players' modding tendencies?) How to prevent lucky characters from being hit multiple times to no effect? Have Vitality track that goes down with each hit regardless of outcome of roll. How to prevent combat becoming immediately lethal with a couple bad rolls? -But then again, how lethal do we want combat to be? Specific effects for certain kinds of weapons? (Too crunchy & fiddly?) Nonlethal damage and Lethal damage are separate things Weapons do one kind of damage (skill/ability can alter from Lethal -> Nonlethal (melee weapons, ammo for missile weapons) Hands do Nonlethal unless specially trained Nonlethal goes into Lethal if unconscious and continually beaten

Musings: How important is the story and background setting versus modding & crunchy tendencies? Can we get by with "Assault Rifles do X", with X modded by quality or package, but not by manufacturer? How important is character growth/experience? I like to be able to continually grow characters, others grow their character through in-game equipment gains, reputation, etc. Burning Wheel offers steady gain through Skill Tests, and skills are only tested when there's something at stake How to handle initiative? "The Edge" a la 3rd Ed. FS is a good start. Individual initiatives within group a la 3rd Ed. WHFRP also a solid idea. Should there be a specific attribute that effects initiative or should it be a setting and choice issue? (Stance and number of characters (also quality of leadership/group tension)) How detailed do stats want to be? The more figured & derived characterstics mean things will be harder to keep track of. But the fewer the stats the more effect they'll have on things.

Base Material: Fading Suns Attributes ..BODY= Strength, Dexterity, Endurance ..MIND= Wits, Perception, Tech ..SPIRIT (opposed)= Extrovert/Introvert, Passion/Calm, Faith/Ego FS Skills ..Natural Skills ("Universal Skills") ..Learned Skills (training required) Figured Stats ..Vitality (Hit Points)= 5 (penalties incurred) + Endurance ..Wyrd= higher of Passion/Calm (mundanes), higher of Extrovert/Introvert (psychics), Faith (Theurgists)

Burning Wheel Characteristics ..Mental Pool= Will , Perception ..Physical Pool= Power , Agility , Forte , Speed Figured Attributes ..Health= average of Will & Forte +/- Background mods ..Steel= 3 + Background mods ..Reflexes= (Perception + Agility + Speed) averaged (round down) ..Mortal Wound= 6 + [Power + Forge (average)] (rounded down) ..Emotional Attribute= Faith, Greed, Grief, Hate