My Fantasy Heartbreaker Dilemma

[Shazbot79]

So...

I've never really been into game design.

Sure, I've kit-bashed monsters and traps together for D&D games and house-ruled the ever living fuck out of things I don't like in pre-existing games...but I've never really turned my eye toward creating a game from scratch until recently.

I'm doing this now for two reasons:

1) I have a lot of downtime at the office...and one can only watch so much youtube.

2) As a proof of concept. An old gaming buddy of mine wants to see if it is tenable to publish a game system entirely in wiki-format so he can run it easily from his laptop without scrolling through PDF's. (If nothing else, it will help me organize my notes)

So I've hit a stumbling block and a couple of pretty big ones at that, and I've come here for advice since the folks on this board post some of the best design ideas I've seen.

Dilemma 1: Can't decide on a core mechanic (ouch).

That is to say, I have a basic idea of how the game will work:

Opposed rolls for combat; roll vs. target number for most skill checks.

What I can't decide on is a random number generator. I'm wavering between the tried and true d20+Modifier, or an aggregate dice pool (3d6)+modifier.

The potential pitfall I see with the 3d6+mod method is that it tends to produce an average range of numbers more often, and so having a higher modifier would be a huge advantage in opposed roles, whereas d20+mod tends to be swingier.

Then again, I can do some very cool things with rolling doubles on 3d6.

Dilemma 2: Skill system

I want the skill system to be somewhat granular, but not to the extent of games like D&D 3.x.

To that end, the idea I've come up with is to have a scale of target numbers for non-opposed checks ranging from intuitive/reflexive to nigh impossible. So assuming I use a d20 roll for the RNG, let's say the scale looks like:

0-reflexive/intuitive
5-very easy
10-easy
15-moderate
20-difficult
25-very difficult
30-extraordinary
35-nigh impossible

Each skill has 3 ranks: Basic, Expert and Master. The idea I had is that rather than adding a static modifier to skill rolls, each rank would lower the difficulty level of a task. So for an untrained character, climbing a sheer marble wall would be "Nigh Impossible" (DC 30), but for a character that has Basic training in the Climb skill, this becomes an "Extraordinary" (DC 30) task. With Expert training in Climb, this becomes a "Very Difficult" (DC 25) task and for a Master climber, this skill is merely "Difficult" (DC20).

In addition to having a stat modifier applied to the RNG, there would also be a level based modifier (say 1/2 level ala Star Wars Saga Edition).

What I'm wondering is if a modified RNG will interact poorly with descending skill DC's. So far what I anticipate is that higher level characters will be able to perform herculean feats of adroitness in their chosen skills...which is part of what I'm going for.

If I can hammer out these details, then the rest will be gravy so I appreciate any advice the board has to give.

[Username17]

Dilemma 1: Can't decide on a core mechanic (ouch).

Well, your core mechanics are two things. There's action resolution and there's also resource management.

Opposed rolls for combat; roll vs. target number for most skill checks.

What I can't decide on is a random number generator. I'm wavering between the tried and true d20+Modifier, or an aggregate dice pool (3d6)+modifier.

Well, that sounds like you basically have chosen an action resolution system. As far as grabbing a RNG, really any of them will work. Here are some simple cost/benefits of any of the choices:

• d20 Everyone knows it. Every +1 or -1 has a 5% shift to your chances. Unfortunately, that means that it's really random. Also, as a flat RNG, it is painfully easy to get pushed of the RNG entirely. If you get a couple of bonuses that are each moderately noticeable and add them together, you've hit the edge of the RNG. Use it if you want a lot of swinginess inside a narrow range and total domination outside that range.
• 3d6 or 2d10 for that matter. Has about the same averages as d20s, s you can make things bas 10 and have that work. A +1 is "bigger" on a curved die than it is on a flat die, so you can set your stat and circumstance modifiers to smaller numbers. This allows people to get more of a sure thing before getting an actual sure thing, and also makes people have (very small) chances of besting people that are farther apart in level than would be possible on a d20. The shape of the curve is more intuitive on 3d6 than 2d10 (in that you can make a 50-50 shot by setting the TN to 11), but the percentages are easier to calculate on 2d10 (every +1 adds 1% less than the previous +1).
• d% Has the advantage that your bonus is actually your chance to succeed. People keep making percentile roll-under systems but they shouldn't, because they make bonuses hard to deal with. You should instead have a universal target number of 100% all the time in all cirumcumstances. Add your skills and bonuses to the roll, and the percent you exceed 100% is your margin of success. Probably the most intuitive RNG, but like all flat RNGs it has a relatively narrow amount of meaningful bonuses you can add before you push the RNG to the edge (which may be a good thing, if you like automagic success and failure).
• Dice Pool Roll a number of dice, each die can hit or miss. The number of hits is your target and your degree of success. Has the advantage of scaling tremendously without ever exactly leaving the RNG. Each bonus die is meaningful, but even 20 more bonus dice won't guaranty you getting any more hits. Requires more literal die rolling than other systems, and the probabilities are a little on the opaque side (better do your math ahead of time is what I'm saying, because players won't be able to catch math errors easily in playtest).

Dilemma 2: Skill system

The division between the skill system, the combat system, and the power system is completely arbitrary. There is only action resolution. How you handle actions is how you handle sneaking. Because sneaking is an action.

What I'm wondering is if a modified RNG will interact poorly with descending skill DC's.

Well, adding to the roll and lowering the target number at the same time is needlessly complicated. Bonuses and penalties should only be applied to one side of an equation when possible.

-Username17

[Shazbot79]

Well, your core mechanics are two things. There's action resolution and there's also resource management.

Resource management is something that I have a few ideas on. I'm just trying to get the actually game engine down before I worry about how many fireballs someone can throw per hour, as I think the challenge resolution mechanic will probably inform the resource management mechanic.

Well, that sounds like you basically have chosen an action resolution system. As far as grabbing a RNG, really any of them will work. Here are some simple cost/benefits of any of the choices:

• d20 Everyone knows it. Every +1 or -1 has a 5% shift to your chances. Unfortunately, that means that it's really random. Also, as a flat RNG, it is painfully easy to get pushed of the RNG entirely. If you get a couple of bonuses that are each moderately noticeable and add them together, you've hit the edge of the RNG. Use it if you want a lot of swinginess inside a narrow range and total domination outside that range.
• 3d6 or 2d10 for that matter. Has about the same averages as d20s, as you can make things bas 10 and have that work. A +1 is "bigger" on a curved die than it is on a flat die, so you can set your stat and circumstance modifiers to smaller numbers. This allows people to get more of a sure thing before getting an actual sure thing, and also makes people have (very small) chances of besting people that are farther apart in level than would be possible on a d20. The shape of the curve is more intuitive on 3d6 than 2d10 (in that you can make a 50-50 shot by setting the TN to 11), but the percentages are easier to calculate on 2d10 (every +1 adds 1% less than the previous +1).
• d% Has the advantage that your bonus is actually your chance to succeed. People keep making percentile roll-under systems but they shouldn't, because they make bonuses hard to deal with. You should instead have a universal target number of 100% all the time in all cirumcumstances. Add your skills and bonuses to the roll, and the percent you exceed 100% is your margin of success. Probably the most intuitive RNG, but like all flat RNGs it has a relatively narrow amount of meaningful bonuses you can add before you push the RNG to the edge (which may be a good thing, if you like automagic success and failure).
• Dice Pool Roll a number of dice, each die can hit or miss. The number of hits is your target and your degree of success. Has the advantage of scaling tremendously without ever exactly leaving the RNG. Each bonus die is meaningful, but even 20 more bonus dice won't guaranty you getting any more hits. Requires more literal die rolling than other systems, and the probabilities are a little on the opaque side (better do your math ahead of time is what I'm saying, because players won't be able to catch math errors easily in playtest).

Most of these look pretty good. The 2d10 dice pool definitely warrants another look.

I have a pretty clear set of design goals in mind, one of which is for combat to be dynamic and fast, but a little swingy and unpredictable.

Now, my question is about "pushing numbers off of the RNG". I assume this means the point in which the static modifiers are so high that the actual dice roll is completely arbitrary. I'm intentionally skewing numbers small to avoid this phenomenon.

The division between the skill system, the combat system, and the power system is completely arbitrary. There is only action resolution. How you handle actions is how you handle sneaking. Because sneaking is an action.

So here, you're suggesting a more unified system?

It makes sense for someone to roll say "spot" against an NPC's "sneak"...however, having a wall roll against someone's "climb" doesn't make as much sense.

Well, adding to the roll and lowering the target number at the same time is needlessly complicated. Bonuses and penalties should only be applied to one side of an equation when possible.
-Username17

Yeah....upon further reflection that idea does look a little too much like THAC0.

RNG+Ascending bonuses vs. TN it is.

Thanks for your input.

[Username17]

Resource management is something that I have a few ideas on. I'm just trying to get the actually game engine down before I worry about how many fireballs someone can throw per hour, as I think the challenge resolution mechanic will probably inform the resource management mechanic.

Resource management basically is your game. It's the thing that people are actually making choices against during the game. Without resource management, characters just play themselves.

You can do charges, or cooldown, or ragebar, or drain, or WoF, or defense commitment or some combination, or something else. But there has got to be a reason that your presence is actually required. Otherwise people will wander off and play smash brothers.

It makes sense for someone to roll say "spot" against an NPC's "sneak"...however, having a wall roll against someone's "climb" doesn't make as much sense.

Any action can be handled with an opposed roll or with a fixed Target Number. The practical effect is that an opposed roll takes long to resolve and is more random.

You could make the difficulty of a climb unknown, having just the "obvious conditions" apply, while the true difficulty was randomly generated. And you could make sneaking or perceiving a passive defense that other people roll against. Breaking it into two rolls makes it use up more of the evening and makes it less predictable whether an action will succeed or fail.

Thanks for your input.

You would get more input on the IMHO board, as this board is mostly for finished or near-finished pieces looking for a first pass edit.

-Username17

[Ferret]

I really like the idea of the ascending-percentile system. Any games out there already using this?

[Username17]

I really like the idea of the ascending-percentile system. Any games out there already using this?

None that I know of. Even Eclipse Phase uses a roll-under mechanic.

Percentile systems were all the rage in the early 80s. Back when THAC0 was a house rule to simplify AD&D (seriously). So no one thought it was weird that they were subtracting a bonus from a die roll. don't know of anyone who has taken the lessons of BAB to a Percentile system, but it would clealry be pretty functional.

-Username17

[MeMeMe]

I really like the idea of the ascending-percentile system. Any games out there already using this?

If you mean, roll d100 and add your ability, then the Rolemaster/SpaceMaster/MERP/HARP family of games qualify. I'm pretty sure one the of the early 80s FGU scifi games also used it.

[Username17]

I really like the idea of the ascending-percentile system. Any games out there already using this?

If you mean, roll d100 and add your ability, then the Rolemaster/SpaceMaster/MERP/HARP family of games qualify. I'm pretty sure one the of the early 80s FGU scifi games also used it.

Rolemaster uses a d100 plus bonuses and compares to a table full of crazy. The right way to do a percentile system is to set a TN to 100 for absolutely everything and then roll a d100 and add bonuses.

If you have to look up a chart in order to do action resolution, your game is too cumbersome.

-Username17

[MeMeMe]

Very true, but I wasn't talking about the rest of the system - just the basic dice mechanic.

[Ferret]

So in such a system, a given task would do like a + or - %, for rolls all basically being 1d100 + skill % +modifiers (which could be positive or negative) >= 100% for success.

Hrm. Wonder what starting characters and endgame characters would look like - seems like you'd have to fail a LOT in the early game to give any real feel of advancement, or high-difficulty actions would have like -80% modifiers to the rolls.

[Blasted]

The right way to do a percentile system is to set a TN to 100 for absolutely everything and then roll a d100 and add bonuses.

How do you deal with increasing skill levels of difficulty in this type of system. e.g. climbing a ladder vs. a greased pole? The obvious is to subtract from the role, but that way leads to tables of 'how difficult is X'

[Username17]

The right way to do a percentile system is to set a TN to 100 for absolutely everything and then roll a d100 and add bonuses.

How do you deal with increasing skill levels of difficulty in this type of system. e.g. climbing a ladder vs. a greased pole? The obvious is to subtract from the role, but that way leads to tables of 'how difficult is X'

Positive and negative modifiers to the roll, yeah. You cannot have the game tell you how difficult things are without having listings of difficulties, so I don't know what you're getting at there.

The point of Roll-Over d% rolls is that the player always knows whether they succeeded or not and by how much. And that opposed rolls are very easy to compare (since margin of success is just the final two digits). And the chance of success on any action is very easy to calculate (the total modifier to the roll is the percent chance to succeed).

-Username17

[Blasted]

I was thinking charts are very hard to remove from games and I'm not sure rolling against 100 helps. Certainly, there should be no difference in the amount of maths done.

[Username17]

I was thinking charts are very hard to remove from games and I'm not sure rolling against 100 helps. Certainly, there should be no difference in the amount of maths done.

Untrue.

Let's say you're using a standard roll-under d% system like Eclipse Phase or Call of Cthulhu. You have a 73 and you roll a 46. That's a success, because you rolled under your modified value. But now let's talk degree of success - you got a 27 (73-46). That's a more difficult calculation than adding 73 to 46 and 119 and calling that your degree of success.

Percentile systems are like other flat RNGs except that the dice are a bit of a pain in the ass in exchange for having a lot of granularity available and having very easy to explain odds.

-Username17

[Ice9]

I agree that d100+bonus is easier than roll-under, but I don't think that adding penalties is easier than changing the target number. For one thing, if you want to do opposed rolls, you're already dealing with a varying target number, and secondly, using a penalty requires an extra communication step that may not even be desirable:

Fixed TN:
Player: I'm going to hack into this computer.
DM: That's a 25% penalty.
Player: My roll is 103 - success!

Variable TN:
Player: I'm going to hack into this computer. My roll is 128.
DM: That succeeds.

While in some cases, the situation will be obvious, and thus its fine for the players to know the penalty (climbing a greased ladder is obviously harder), in other cases, not so much. In the example above, if the computer appears to be an ordinary office workstation but is actually a military launch controller loaded with the best security software money can buy, you don't want to say that up front. Now if the player gets a result that would be a success on a normal computer and fail, they'll realize that something's fishy. But if they're pressed for time and flub it completely, they won't know that.

[Username17]

The hidden modifiers versus non-hidden modifiers is a separate question. Hiding modifiers is more work and allows you to keep the difficulty secret from people. Of most utility with perception tests, since players routinely adjust their behavior if they attempt and fail a spot check.

For one thing, if you want to do opposed rolls, you're already dealing with a varying target number

You are wrong.

For opposed rolls, variable bonuses, fixed TNs is substantially easier than fixed bonuses variable TNs.

Consider:

Step	Variable TNs	Fixed TNs
1	Roll Dice	Roll Dice
2	Add Skill	Discover Modifier
3	Resport Initial Result	Add Skill and Modifier
4	Discover TN	Report Result
5	Subtract TN from Result	Compare Results
6	Report New Result
7	Compare Results

Edit: Totally had my table headers flipped!

-Username17

[CatharzGodfoot]

Frank, I think you have your table headers flipped.