Reviving TNE

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sun Jun 15, 2008 11:08 am

Very basically you can give people new abilities for 10 levels, or you can give people new abilities for 10 levels and then have them replace abilities with new abilities for 10 levels. You can repeat the latter as many times as you want, with characters gradually turning into Makai Kingdoms characters.

-Username17

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Sun Jun 15, 2008 11:27 am

I tried to research Makai Kingdoms, but I can't really see what you're trying to say about that comparison.

Well, part of the thing is how far ahead of the game do we want players to advance. 3E made it so that there were basically two quantum leaps of power (going by the CR system), such that you got to a point where you could fight a functionally unlimited number of orcs, and then eventually get to be able to fight a functionally unlimited number of people who could individually fight an unlimited number of orcs. Having two such leaps seems like a fine arrangement, and could be done in ~10 levels so long as a level difference of 5 was insurmountable.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sun Jun 15, 2008 11:34 am

Makai Kingdoms characters start as "swordsmen" and such. Late in the game they become demon lords who chop planets in half.

-Username17

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 6:58 am

So we've got ourselves a ~10 level game by virtue of limiting the number of things to remember.

We can increase this level cap by whole number multiplication, so long as we have characters switch out abilities at each iteration. I don't know whether it's a good idea for an RPG to have your character end up like Makai Kingdoms characters, because many players like to have their character be recognizable to the original. Thus, I can see one or two iterations of ability replacement (so ~20 or ~30 levels).

I'll need to check another one of the threads about what kind of game we want this to be, as far as scale was concerned.

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 11:57 pm

Could the d20/3d6 attack resolution system work with an attribute-based soak roll? It seems as though such a system would significantly over-value the 'soak side' (damage and resistance attributes).

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 8:54 am

Aye, using a bell curve for damage does place significant value on damage resistance, and not in a linear fashion. A couple points almost doesn't mean anything when their base CAN is low, yet that same damage resistance means a world of difference if their CAN is high.

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:08 pm

I guess if you assume min/max but place caps, it's possible to just throw up your arms and say 'it doesn't matter'! The effect of attacking somebody with a high soak score will be weak enough that you'll want to switch to something that attacks a lower score--so long as your attribute for the alt's damage is greater than your target's (lower) alt soak.

If attacks have 'touch' effects and you go with the 'unleveled attack rolls', the attack attribute becomes more significant when fighting superior foes. If there is some level of consistency between dodge attributes vs. soak attributes, focusing on the first is superior when you're fighting significantly higher or lower-level foes. That is, until you fall off the damage RNG at the high end. The unleveled attack rolls would keep you from falling off the attack RNG regardless.

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:43 pm

I'm trying to see the advantage in having a soak roll when your damage is in a bellcurve. If the soak is linear, then that plays havoc with the damage distribution. If the soak is also curved, then you have some difficult to predict math going on.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 5:41 pm

In general, you can have a soak roll or a damage roll. Having both is statistically identical to just having more dice in the damage or soak roll once you've gone bell curve.

I mean, you can have one player roll a d10 for damage and another roll a d10 for soak, but that is topologically identical to just rolling 2d10 for damage and adjusting the Target Numbers accordingly.

About the only advantage such a system would have is if you were physically allergic to subtraction.

-Username17

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:08 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:About the only advantage such a system would have is if you were physically allergic to subtraction.

-Username17

Heh. Could be.