Game Mechanism idea

[nikita]

I have been once again started to build a RPG (that will probably never be published).

It uses following mechanism:
3D6 + skill effect versus opponent doing same.

My idea is that GM does not give out XP. Instead GM gives out every year to every character a fixed number (I have been thinking 6) of skill points that must be spent on skills open by current profession. For example a astronaut will have skills like Zero-G while typical athlete would not). Character typically spends either 0, 1 or 2 points per available skill or attribute according to her wish. 1 point would be fairly normal.

During game the points from various relevant sources (attributes and skills) are counted together. I also think that some equipment could give a fixed number of points as positive or negative (for example a magic sword could be +1 to +10).

Once the points are counted together they are transformed to skill effect according to following conversion:
total points --> skill effect
0 --> 0
1 --> +1
2 --> +2
3-4 --> +3
5-8 --> +4
9-16 --> +5
17-32 --> +6
33-64 --> +7
65-128 --> +8

Do you see any advantages or disadvantages using this kind of method?

[PhoneLobster]

I think the whole thing needs to be reworded dramatically for clarity.

I think we need to know if that's an in game year or what, and if so if there is a formalized or semi formalized long term time management mechanic.

I think we need to know what starting/generally expected skill point and attribute totals are expected to be.

I think 3d6 opposed rolls with probably very similar bonuses will result in a mechanic that is in practice little better than a coin flip. And with less similar bonuses probably isn't much better than just saying "screw it, high bonus wins".

I think your total points --> Skill effect conversion table is made out of arbitrary "mystical numbers" with no particular link to practical goals.

I think elaborate conversions of attributes and skills involving a ridiculous conversion table are a bad mechanic, and you should be designing from the ground up for your "attributes" to be directly applicable as bonuses because that is a good thing and why the hell would you not just do it like that instead of make people add attributes and skills and refer to a look up table every damn time they do anything?

I think even then we don't actually know if we are trying to roll low or high or what happens on ties. Or how we roll against inanimate objects or anything else lacking attributes and skill points.

I think I am dissatisfied with the proposed idea in it's current form.

[JonSetanta]

The basic premise is promising since it will always be balanced as long as all players are rolling the same.

I like the point distribution. That works.

[nikita]

ROUND 2:

I have been once again started to build a RPG (that will probably never be published).

Game uses Attributes and Skills.

There are 10 Attributes, all of which have medium value 0. Negative values vary from -1 to -4 with -4 being extremely poor.

Skills are grouped into skill groups (for example Rural and Urban) and there is roughly 35 to 40 skills.

There are both Attribute and Skill tests.

Both tests uses following mechanism for characters who are opposed to each other (assume characters A and B):
A's player rolls 3D6 + Effect versus B's player rolling 3D6 + Effect.
Assuming A's result is higher than B's the A win. Same result means that either there is no result or contest continues.

Character can also roll a skill roll against fixed target number of 14 if target of roll is not a person.

My idea is that GM does not give out XP. Instead GM gives out every game year to every character a fixed number (I have been thinking 6) of advancement points that must be spent on attributes or skills open by current profession. Each profession has also effect on attributes. Typically one attribute point raises and another falls (could be more but overall attribute increases and decreases should be zero).

Character starts getting advancement points once she is 10. Since adventures can happen few years apart from each other the advancement skill are gained throughout character's life depicting characters normal mundane life.

For example a astronaut will have skills like Zero-G while typical athlete would not). Character typically spends either 0, 1 or 2 points per available skill or attribute according to her wish. 2 points can only be spent if character is talented in particular attribute or skill. Number of talents picked is typically one for normal person.

During game the points from various relevant attributes or skills are counted together. I also think that some equipment could give a fixed number of points as positive or negative (for example a magic sword could be +1 to +10).

Once the points are counted together they are transformed to Effect according to following conversion:
total points --> Effect
0 --> 0
1 --> +1
2 --> +2
3-4 --> +3
5-8 --> +4
9-16 --> +5
17-32 --> +6
33-64 --> +7
65-128 --> +8

Do you see any advantages or disadvantages using this kind of method?

[PhoneLobster]

have medium value 0.

It would be better if you wrote that differently. Like "values can be between -X and +Y", seriously "starts at -4 and half way to maximum is 0" is... a weird and bad way to say it.

Also "medium value" instead of "median value" isn't to my knowledge a modern term and doesn't tell us nearly as much as if you said something like "and the average person has 0 on their attributes" or something... IF that is true.

And...

Negative values vary from -1 to -4 with -4 being extremely poor.

...why use negative values? Why not start at 0 and go up instead?

Both tests uses following mechanism for characters who are opposed to each other (assume characters A and B):
A's player rolls 3D6 + Effect versus B's player rolling 3D6 + Effect.
Assuming A's result is higher than B's the A win. Same result means that either there is no result or contest continues.

You are going to get a lot of ties in anything like an even match on bonuses. That had better be an intended feature.

Speaking of intended features. Can you actually give a clear explanation of why you are rolling 3d6 vs 3d6 and what about the specific math of that interaction is important to your design goals? Because it is a complex and weird interaction and I somewhat doubt you've actually picked it for anything close to sensible reasons.

And then you ALSO have to explain the non-linear bonus look up table. WTF is up with that? Why is the interaction between that and two 3d6 rolls an important part of your game?

"I like curves and I once heard curves have something to do with reality so if I roll a curve against a curve that's extra curvy and extra real right?" is not a valid answer.

Character can also roll a skill roll against fixed target number of 14 if target of roll is not a person.

Why the fixed target number instead of a 3d6+bonus like a character does? What about the difference in the math by turning the defensive 3d6 into a 10 is desirable when rolling to climb a wall but somehow NOT desirable when rolling to shoot a moving character?

This question might have a reasonable answer, but importantly you at least should at least have some answer. And you should have that answer already. You should be in a position where you decided on that difference because you saw it as a good idea and you aren't making something up to justify it after the fact.

My idea is that GM does not give out XP. Instead GM gives out every game...

Arbitrary experience doling out is probably the way of sensible RPGs in general so it looks good... until...

...every game year to every character a fixed number (I have been thinking 6) of advancement points that must be spent on attributes or skills open by current profession.

Why 6 points?
Why per game year?

Especially with game years being seemingly arbitrary. Why not just make down time experience arbitrary? Is there a reason that it has to be 6 points per game year?

Also. Why are attributes worth the same as skills. There are 10 attributes and 35-40 skills, attributes most likely add to significantly more rolls than skills. Why wouldn't characters invest everything in attributes ESPECIALLY if that will grant them bonuses to skill rolls that they can't even invest in skills for due to the open profession business.

Or is that original (merely implied) maximum of 4 points on an attribute a hard cap that cannot be exceeded by experience gain and profession modifiers? And considering 4 points is half of all possible modifiers and the best value for your money IF 4 is a hard cap why wouldn't everyone max out ALL their base attributes as their first priority. Making all characters pretty much identical at age 17 when they max out all their attributes and have 2 points to waste on less efficient skill expenditure.

Even further devaluing skills is the non-linear look up table. Since the most valuable points come from the general base attribute already (regardless of possible caps) and you have an inexplicable non-linear look up table for stacking on the skill points... they are worth even less... for some reason...

Character starts getting advancement points once she is 10. Since adventures can happen few years apart from each other the advancement skill are gained throughout character's life depicting characters normal mundane life.

So... 110 year old characters have 600 points to invest and are nigh on gods. In general the best characters in all fields are really elderly, and that includes feats of great physical strength, agility, memory etc...

Indeed with the assumption of an inexplicable cap on attributes the situation is only worse.

As already mentioned, everyone maxes their attributes and ends up about the same at 17 bar 2 skill points.

With BOTH your non-linear roll mechanic AND your non-linear bonus look up table players probably only really want to invest, I don't know, about 4 points to max their attribute, and then perhaps 5 points on skills. With professions breaking up skills I doubt you have more than 10 skills to a profession, so a single profession character then maxes out the more efficient advancement by about 25 ish and then changes careers every 8-9 years thereafter until they can do that with all 40 skills. Which they do at about 51, like all sensible 51 year olds do in this system.

But if you DON'T want to be a bullshit 51 year old super human jack of all trades the remaining +3 bonus you COULD accrue with... 56 more points per skill (and hey never spend the last 64 points, those are for suckers), that +3 could almost be worth... something... So if you DON'T generalize for a cheap pay off on your skills after the 4 point attribute cap you don't actually max out your SINGLE skill bonus until you are about 27. And if you stay in your single career to max out all the skills in it you don't ever master your career of "Gardener" or whatever until the age of... about 110...

Specializing is severely punished. Like REALLY severely. That 110 year old single profession specialist is only barely ahead of a 51 year old generalist on his specialties, and on three fourths of the skill set he is somewhat behind. But in an even match a 51 year old generalist vs a 51 year old specialist ONLY has +1 more on his specialty skills vs the generalist!

Just ... why?

Is this intended to be a solution to the generalist vs specialist problem? Because it looks more like a demonstration of one of the potential incarnations of that problem.

For example a astronaut will have skills like Zero-G while typical athlete would not). Character typically spends either 0, 1 or 2 points per available skill or attribute according to her wish. 2 points can only be spent if character is talented in particular attribute or skill. Number of talents picked is typically one for normal person.

Frankly this "limitation" combined with the 6 point thing and the "one talent" thing... Doesn't effect anything much at all. It WOULD be better to spend in 6 point sized chunks on your race to 17 year old base attribute max out, or 51 year old super generalist.

It's just that with only 6 points at a time and 10 priorities at a time to spend on... yeah... your over all advancement is pretty much the same. HOWEVER you have handily significantly increased the chance that in any given year your character will actually earn NO real bonuses to ANYTHING. And when you do get bonuses you will get them on 6 or 4 things at once.

That can't be right. That can't be intended. That can't be good. So... why is that 0-2 point cap there?

During game the points from various relevant attributes or skills are counted together. I also think that some equipment could give a fixed number of points as positive or negative (for example a magic sword could be +1 to +10).

Wait... what? So 10 year old "0 point" character who has a best quality magic sword is as good at fighting as a 51 year old super generalist, and ONLY 1 point behind a 51 year old swording specialist.

Better yet the super sword in the hands of a super generalist only adds +1, and the super sword in the hands of the super specialist also only adds +1, and THAT is only because the super specialist got lucky on your bonus table because he otherwise WASTED about the last 7.4 points or so on each of his skills (and about 12.3 YEARS OF HIS LIFE on not getting a bonus to anything).

Once the points are counted together they are transformed to Effect according to following conversion:
total points --> Effect

Again I'm going to suggest these look like arbitrarily chosen mystical numbers. Doubling the target numbers "just felt right" for no reason is what I'm guessing. And the actual outcomes were not considered as a high priority compared to the "feel" or nice elegant multiples of 2.

Well. Too bad. "Multiples of 2 feel good" is not a sufficient excuse. For... well... a crazy look up table that does crazy things.

This... feels like an early amateur attempt. I don't want to discourage you, but you need a better design process in general. One that doesn't involve just throwing random numbers at each other.

Start with your goals and intended outcomes then manufacture numbers to match. This looks like you are doing the opposite, and that's no good.

[PhoneLobster]

Oh yeah. And also. You do realize since you insist on negative base attributes down to -4 and possible negative modifiers from equipment at the very least (unknown value, I'm guessing down to -10).

So even just on what we know your "total points" for look up on your table to get a bonus could easily be as low as -14.

And your table doesn't start until 0 points total.

You do see the problem there right?

[Ice9]

The purpose of the table seems pretty clear to me - it's an attempt to have characters with wildly divergent skills that don't break the RNG.

Like in 3.x, you can have a skill where one character has +0, and other character has like +30, at the same level, and it breaks the RNG. So, you might switch to having skill strictly based on level, trained people get +5, and that's it, no more difference than that.

But that also has a problem - circumstantial modifiers. When you're supposed to be a master ninja, and you realize the Bob the Clumsy Dwarf has an equally good modifier if he gets somewhat favorable circumstances, that's bullshit - there should be a gigantic gulf in skill that minor assistance can't bridge.

So with this system, you can say that Jim the Master Ninja has 50 Stealth, and Bob has 1, and that means that no circumstance modifiers or buffs are going to close the gap - Jim will always be way fucking stealthier. But, they are only 6 points apart on the RNG, so it hasn't been rendered meaningless.

Now whether it's worth it, I don't know. It does punish specializing pretty hard, and the advancement method seems kind of slow and boring. But the intent makes sense.

[PhoneLobster]

The purpose of the table seems pretty clear to me - it's an attempt to have characters with wildly divergent skills that don't break the RNG.

That interpretation is... odd.

If the intent was simply "I want big numbers on the character sheet, but it needs to convert into something smaller for actual use in game so the RNG doesn't break"...

...Aside from that being a kinda dumb intent...

...then why is it non-linear? Why don't the skills/attributes convert to fixed bonuses you can record in advance so you don't have to sum things up and then refer to the conversion table for every roll?

It could have been something like "every 10 skill points is worth +1", and modifiers could have been applied directly to rolls so as not to render half of character advancement largely worthless.

Hell if you really like big numbers you could just use a big number RNG like Percentile dice or d30s or something.

Alternatively it could have been sensible and just decided "wait... there is no reason to put really big numbers on the character sheet if the game never directly uses them!" and every 1 Skill Point could just BE +1 to the roll and the game could avoid breaking the RNG by just giving out less skill points.

You can even do that and STILL have arbitrarily bullshit levels of specialization punishment as high as you want to make them by means of XP pricing for Skill Point upgrades being non-linear. It, again, has the advantage over the look up table of being a down time/advancement cost rather than once per roll cost.

All in all the "add bonuses then convert total on non-linear look up table" is just bizarre. Combine it with the other aspects of the mechanic like the advancement and the eccentric choice of 3d6+bonus vs 3d6+bonus and on a tie I dunno, reroll or nothing happens or something. And yeah it just keeps getting more bizarre.

[The Adventurer's Almanac]

The concept of a game mechanic has been around for years, but it has not yet been put into practice. It is time to change that.

Holy shit, big brain concepts comin' from the bot. TRUE game mechanics have never been tried. All the other game mechanics throughout history were just trial runs.