Homemade RPG

[nikita]

I have been writing a RPG to my own pleasure.

I am currently using following system:

Game has five attributes named STRENGTH, DEXTERITY, MENTAL, SOCIAL and KNOWLEDGE with two aspects each. Attribute values vary between 2 and 12. Higher value describes larger "better" attribute. Human average is 7 and vast majority of people have attribute values between 6 and 8.

Attributes are:
STRENGTH is a measure of character's physical strength and stamina.

DEXTERITY is a measure of character's agility and nimbleness.

MENTAL is a measure of character's personal mental balance and power to keep calm at the face of adversary.

SOCIAL is a measure of character's ability to deal with other people in social situations and society at large.

KNOWLEDGE is a measure of character's ability to think and find solutions to problems.

Each attribute is further divided to SHORT and LONG aspect respectively. SHORT is used to describe attribute that is used with short time activity. LONG is used with activity that takes very long time to achieve.

Designer's note: I usually use breakpoint in selecting either SHORT or LONG as 24 hours but GM should use her imagination as necessary.

Example Character:
Anna
SHORT/LONG ATTRIBUTE
TEST NUMBER
8 / 7 STRENGTH 6+ / 7+
7 / 7 DEXTERITY 7+ / 7+
8 / 9 MENTAL 6+ / 5+
8 / 6 SOCIAL 6+ / 8+
8 / 8 KNOWLEDGE 6+ / 6+

I roll ATTRIBUTE TEST ROLL as following:
Select suitable attribute and aspect and roll 2D6 to get same or higher than attribute test number. If roll is successful character has succeeded with MARGIN OF SUCCESS (MoS) equal to end result minus attribute test number.

For example:
Anna is working at a big party for a night and wants to show off herself at best possible light. GM decides that this is SOCIAL-SHORT attribute test roll. Anna's player rolls 2D6 with Attribute Target number as 6+ (checking her character sheet). She rolls 8 which means her MoS is 8 - 6 = 2.

During a contest both characters roll relevant attribute test roll and one with higher MoS is winner. If someone fails and other one succeeds the successful character is winner. If both fail the contest is re-rolled.

---

Characters may have skills in different trades. Skills vary between 0 and 6 with higher level depicting character being higher skilled in particular trade. Vast majority of characters have skills between 1 and 3.

0 Hobbyist/amateur
1 Serious hobbyist/part-time worker
2 full time worker
3 experienced veteran
4 expert in field
(5-6 heroic levels reserved for exceptional people)

Each skill is tied to particular attribute. For example Astrobiology is tied to KNOWLEDGE.

Skills can be divided further to skills that can be tried without any skill and those that cannot be without adequate training. If skill can be tried without
attribute has rolling player die roll modifier -2.

Skill test is rolled with 2D6 using suitable skill against skill target number.

For example:
GM decides crew of spacecraft may try to solve what they can from sample of organic matter. Characters have plenty of time to do so and GM decides this is LONG task. GM also states that astrobiology is something that cannot be done without adequate training in skill.

Anna
SKILL RATING ATTRIBUTE Target(short/long)
Astrobiology 2 KNOWLEDGE 7+/7+

Anna is interstellar biologist and has Astrobiology 2. Her player rolls 2D6 against 7+ (KNOWLEDGE-LONG and Skill Rating 2) and gets 10. MoS is 10 - 7 = 3 which is excellent result. GM tells Anna's players very much information.

---

table on how to calculate attribute and skill target numbers

Relevant Attribute Skill
Attribute Target Target
Value Number Number
2 12+ 12+
3 11+ 11+
4 10+ 10+
5 9+ 10+
6 8+ 9+
7 7+ 9+
8 6+ 8+
9 5+ 8+
10 4+ 7+
11 3+ 7+
12 2+ 6+

How does this system feel? Any ideas or thoughts on how to develop it further?

[Username17]

Is there any reason at all to have the actual attributes? You have the derived test values, which you seem to actually use in the game, and I don't understand what the base values are for.

I mean it's a little weird for your stats to get better when they get smaller, and I think you might find it easier for people conceptually if you just said that the Target Number was always 12 and just added the stat to the literal die roll (stats would then range from 1-10, which is a plus). But I can see where you're coming from in writing "You need a 6+ to succeed on these rolls" on the character sheet. I just don't understand why you still have a number that counts up right next to it.

-Username17

[sabs]

So do you roll Xd6 where X is your skill rating, and you're trying to go over 12-stat? as the Target Number?

I guess if I had a 3 skill i'd have 3d6?

That seems weird, why is my target number tied to my stat.
Frank's suggestion of Stat adding to my roll is good. It means high stat people have lower variance. One thing I don't like is this whole 0-4 skill range. It's an exponential skill growth, with incredibly flat mechanical value. It's almost as bad as shadowrun.

[nikita]

Is there any reason at all to have the actual attributes? You have the derived test values, which you seem to actually use in the game, and I don't understand what the base values are for.

I mean it's a little weird for your stats to get better when they get smaller, and I think you might find it easier for people conceptually if you just said that the Target Number was always 12 and just added the stat to the literal die roll (stats would then range from 1-10, which is a plus). But I can see where you're coming from in writing "You need a 6+ to succeed on these rolls" on the character sheet. I just don't understand why you still have a number that counts up right next to it.

-Username17

My idea was that higher attribute meant lower target number to roll.
Thus: Attribute 9 --> 2D6 roll with 5+ to succeed.

I put it another round can pondered your idea to be ATTRIBUTE + 2D6 towards fixed target number 14?

Attribute 12 ---> 12 + 2D6 towards 14+ and then 2+ would succeed
Attribute 7 ---> 7 + 2D6 towards 14+ and then 7+ would succeed
Attribute 2 ---> 2 + 2D6 towards 14+ and then 12+ would succeed

This has same chances to succeed as previous one. Do you think this is better from gaming stand point?

[nikita]

So do you roll Xd6 where X is your skill rating, and you're trying to go over 12-stat? as the Target Number?

I guess if I had a 3 skill i'd have 3d6?

That seems weird, why is my target number tied to my stat.
Frank's suggestion of Stat adding to my roll is good. It means high stat people have lower variance. One thing I don't like is this whole 0-4 skill range. It's an exponential skill growth, with incredibly flat mechanical value. It's almost as bad as shadowrun.

I believe I wrote it wrong.

I meant that you select the skill target number which depends on attribute. Then the skill rating is decreased from this number and you throw 2D6 towards that target number.

For example: relevant attribute would be 9. Thus skill roll target is 8+. Then I decreased from that value the character's skill rating, for example 3. Thus the target number I try to overcome is: 8 - 3 = 5+.

I tried to combine to that roll both relevant attribute and skill rating but make it a bit more difficult if person is exceedingly skilled.

----

I pondered an idea of having different calculation as basis:

ATTRIBUTE/2 (rounded downwards) + SKILL + 2D6 towards fixed target number of 12+


ATTRIBUTE Attr/2down + SKILL + 2D6
12 6 + 0 + 2D6 at 12+ --> 6+
10-11 5 + 0 + 2D6 at 12+ --> 7+
8-9 4 + 0 + 2D6 at 12+ --> 8+
6-7 3 + 0 + 2D6 at 12+ --> 9+
4-5 2 + 0 + 2D6 at 12+ --> 10+
2-3 1 + 0 + 2D6 at 12+ --> 11+
1 0 + 0 + 2D6 at 12+ --> 12+

Thus Anne has Attribute KNOWLEDGE 9 and Astrobiology Skill Rating 3 and thus rolls: 4 + 3 + 2D6 towards target number of 12+

Is this better?

[sabs]

I hate attribute divide by 2
If you're going to do that, lower your attribute range.
If you can go from 1-12 and it's div2, round down. Just make it 1-6 no dividing. It works out the same, and seems less stupid.

What's your crit failure options.
What's your crit success options.

ars magica is stat+skill+d10, that's basically the same system, with slightly different dice.

instead of doing 1-12 div 2, or 1-6, you could do -4-+4 or -6-+6 (though that's ripping off slightly from Ars Magica)

How do you differentiate between:
Eric the Scientist and Hung Low the Street Broker.
One has a lot of book/scientific knowledge
The other has a lot of street knowledge

Where does Area Knowledge, Navigation, MapReading fall in.

Knowledge doesn't strike me as a stat.
Social is complicated it's a stat and a skill.

2 physical stats, 1 mental stat? that does not leave room for a lot of customization and differentiation of characters. Especially with a skill range from 0-4

[nikita]

I hate attribute divide by 2
If you're going to do that, lower your attribute range.
If you can go from 1-12 and it's div2, round down. Just make it 1-6 no dividing. It works out the same, and seems less stupid.

What's your crit failure options.
What's your crit success options.

ars magica is stat+skill+d10, that's basically the same system, with slightly different dice.

instead of doing 1-12 div 2, or 1-6, you could do -4-+4 or -6-+6 (though that's ripping off slightly from Ars Magica)

How do you differentiate between:
Eric the Scientist and Hung Low the Street Broker.
One has a lot of book/scientific knowledge
The other has a lot of street knowledge

Where does Area Knowledge, Navigation, MapReading fall in.

Knowledge doesn't strike me as a stat.
Social is complicated it's a stat and a skill.

2 physical stats, 1 mental stat? that does not leave room for a lot of customization and differentiation of characters. Especially with a skill range from 0-4

1) The skill roll problem

I do not know this "ars magica" so I cannot really say how well it works. However, I am quite firm that attributes should stay between 2 and 12. This would allow me to limit the skill ratings to 0-4.

So I suggest now a system where ATTRIBUTE MODIFIER is used:

ATTR Modifier
2-3 (-2)
4-5 (-1)
6-7 0
8-9 (+1)
10-11 (+2)
12 (+3)

so ATTRIBUTE MOD + SKILL RATING + 2D6 versus fixed target number
(-2 to +3 ) + 0-4 + 2D6 versus 9

For example:
Anne has ATTRIBUTE 7 (ATTRIBUTE MOD 0) and Skill 0 and rolls: 0 + 0 + 2D6 towards a target number 9.

2) The "critical numbers"

I do not like critical rolls as I always seem to get them working against my game and thus I do not intend to use them in this game.

3) ATTRIBUTE problems

I have to admit of not thinking about attributes like that. I have thought knowledge as ability to come out novel solutions no matter what the field of expertise is. Perhaps better distinction is to put more emphasis on difference between SHORT/LONG to describe person who can immediately come up with solution versus person who is more at home in long time planning and thinking.

Do you have ideas on what might be a workable solution in this dilemma?

[Username17]

Again, you don't seem to be doing anything with the literal attribute values. The modifiers are the only number that makes any real difference. The fact that there is an 8 or 9 on the sheet is meaningless in the face of the +1. So why should the player write an 8 on the sheet in the first place?

Secondly, while there are reasons to use fixed target numbers, you don't seem to be using any of them. Why not just let the target numbers float? Or even just resolve things as opposed rolls all the time. It's a pointless extra two steps to determine Degree of Success for one person and Degree of Success for another and then subtract - you could just compare the results directly and never bother with a Target Number or subtraction at all.

-Username17

[nikita]

Again, you don't seem to be doing anything with the literal attribute values. The modifiers are the only number that makes any real difference. The fact that there is an 8 or 9 on the sheet is meaningless in the face of the +1. So why should the player write an 8 on the sheet in the first place?

Secondly, while there are reasons to use fixed target numbers, you don't seem to be using any of them. Why not just let the target numbers float? Or even just resolve things as opposed rolls all the time. It's a pointless extra two steps to determine Degree of Success for one person and Degree of Success for another and then subtract - you could just compare the results directly and never bother with a Target Number or subtraction at all.

-Username17

So essentially it boils down to concept of having Attribute that is -3..0..+3 and which is used as a modifier to both attribute and skill rolls?

So player would have:
Anne
STRENGTH 0/-1
(and so on)
Skills
Astrobiology (+1/+1) 2

Player would then roll:
(attribute check) ATTRIBUTE + 2D6
(skill check) ATTRIBUTE + SKILL + 2D6

Assuming we'd have opposed situation (Anne and Sanna both roll in competition) the highest result wins. I think this is very obvious to both players and GM to game. Opposed attribute/skill rolls would be good for cases where opposition could be established easily.

I pondered your thoughts on opposed roll and floating target number if I cannot find a good opposed attribute/skill to roll or opposition is for example environment. I am beginning to think that floating target number (where GM determines the difficulty based on some guideline) might be very good one as I could write aide for suitable target numbers.

Perhaps 7 as medium to Attribute check then 5/6/7/8/9 for very easy to very hard.

Perhaps 9 as medium to skill check and 7..9..11 for very easy to very hard.

Does this sound better?

[sabs]

With your attribute table, you effectively only have a range of 6.

Sure I could have a 2 or a 3, but there's no difference between them.
In reality my stat is -2, -1, 0, +1, +2 or +3

You can make everything an opposed roll.

The DM sets a Task Difficulty: ranging from 0-4 depending on whether this is a task a beginner, or expert, or someone in between would do. He then adds a Task Modifier based on whether the task is simple, complex, hard, insane, ranging from -2 to +3.

It's actually quick and dirty. DM rolls 2d6, adds the modifiers, the player rolls 2d6, adds their modifiers, you compare.

The real question is what does the bellcurve look like.
a +2/4 skill guy would have 2d6+6. Doing something expected of a beginner, that's simple he'd be going against 2d6-1 die range is 1-11 vs 8-18.

That's not horrible. It does give a WIDE variance, when both sides are rolling 2d6

[nikita]

I played a simple scenario with following rules in this weekend with some people in convention and one of which was a rpg company boss.

The rules are following:

1) There are separate SHORT/LONG attributes
Attributes themselves are: STR, DEX, MEN, KNO and SOC.
Attrinbute values are: +3 to +3 with 0 as average and all player characters having 2 attributes as +1 and 1 attribute as -1 (out of total possible 10 possible positions).

Thus Sari had: STR: (0/0) DEX: (+1/0) MEN: (0/0) KNO: (0/0) SOC: (+1/-1)

2) The skills are from 0 to 4 with players having 2 skills as rating 2 and 4 as rating 1.

Thus Sari had: Negotiation: 2, Space Piloting 2, Space Navigation: 1, Small Arms: 1, Streetwise: 1, Stealth: 1

3) The game rules worked as following:

Attribute tests are: ATTRIBUTE + 2D6
Skill tests are: ATTRIBUTE + SKILL + 2D6

All Bad Guys have Attribute 0 and Skill 1.

All non person obstacles have rating 1 + 2D6.

---
The game itself worked fairly well but one thing that we noticed was psychological:

When player rolled her character's rolls against <person> then NPC die roll sprung up all kinds of talk about this or that being good luck to opponent being skilled or many other explanations concerning in-game universe.

However, when player roller her character's rolls against "inanimate" object the 2D6 roll by GM was seen to be unfair and artificial. When I changed all the rolls with inanimate objects as target numbers (with 7 for attribute rolls and (9 for skill rolls) and then added -1, 0 or +1 according to situation if necessary the players seemed to accept it.

Is opposed die rolling really the best method? It seems to me that players liked target numbers (that varied according to situation) when they faced inanimate opponents/situations.

Has there been any wider discussion or studies on psychology of different gaming methods on this subject?

[nikita]

I finally had time to continue development of my role playing game.

I started to ponder the rather thorny issue of combat system.

My first draft is following:

There are three sides: heroes, hoodlums and civilians. Heroes and hoodlums throw for initiative and civilians always move last.

Number of groups that roll initiative is defined to be:
-one roll per entire group for civilian groups (like irregulars or angry mob)
-one roll per fire team or squad or platoon for paramilitary units (depending on grouping's fighting method and training).

Initiative is rolled as a skill roll (2D6) + skill rating + any situational modifiers. The sum is initiative.

Units are then assembled to order of initiative from highest to lowest.

I think from my own RPG campaigns that in most common cases there are one to two groupings per side.

Combat round moves in such a way that each grouping will decide and act according to order of initiative from highest to lowest.

----

During each combat round character can do either one full action or two half actions.

Half actions:
attack
move
reload

Full actions:
disengage
charge
move fast

Special rules:
If character is very close of opponent she cannot leave melee until other is defeated or character decides to disengage.

Character may React to action even if it is not her turn. Reactions are:
Parry melee attack and dodge ranged attack (possibly also overwatch). Using action reduces one half action.

Thus: Anne and Sari fight. Anne has initiative.

Combat 1
Anne's turn:
Anne: Attack
Sari: Parry
Anne Attack
Sari: Parry

Sari's turn:
Sari has no actions left and cannot attack at all.

Combat 2:
Anne's turn:
Anne: Attack
Sari: Parry
Anne: Attack
Sari: I will not react

Sari's turn:
Sari: Attack
Anne: I cannot react

This is the basis of combat system. Any comments on this idea?

[Stubbazubba]

The game itself worked fairly well but one thing that we noticed was psychological:

When player rolled her character's rolls against <person> then NPC die roll sprung up all kinds of talk about this or that being good luck to opponent being skilled or many other explanations concerning in-game universe.

However, when player roller her character's rolls against "inanimate" object the 2D6 roll by GM was seen to be unfair and artificial. When I changed all the rolls with inanimate objects as target numbers (with 7 for attribute rolls and (9 for skill rolls) and then added -1, 0 or +1 according to situation if necessary the players seemed to accept it.

Is opposed die rolling really the best method? It seems to me that players liked target numbers (that varied according to situation) when they faced inanimate opponents/situations.

Has there been any wider discussion or studies on psychology of different gaming methods on this subject?

Well, I don't know about the general community, but I'm hammering together a system of my own, and that is precisely the premise; there are Tasks which are 2d6+Attribute against a TN for inanimate opponents, and then there are Contests, which are opposed 2d6+Energy (Energy pools for Contests are derived from the Attribute in question) for actions that are actually opposed by another character.

[nikita]

I rewrote my combat system to be following:

Basis of combat system:

Attack of A agaibnst B:
A's Attribute modifier + skill rating + 2D6 + other modifiers
versus
B's Attribute modifier + skill rating + 2D6 + other modifiers


Most important other modifier for attack roll is the weapon that has following ratings:
+1 Knife, bow, sling
+2 Axe, spear, sword, light crossbow
+3 heavy crossbow, modern crossbow, polearm

Most important modifier for defense roll is armour/shield character is wearing/wielding:
+1 small wooden shield
+2 wooden shield
+3 big wooden shield
+1 leather armour
+2 chainmail
+3 plate mail

Final MoS is number of damage points B suffers.

Every char has 5 + attribute modifier hit points.

---

Initiative:

Initiative is rolled once per encounter for every team.

Initiative is:
A team's initiative = A group's cohesion + A group's team leader's tactics rating + 2D6 + other modifiers

Teams are the put to order of initiative from highest to lowest. If two teams have same initiative, the highest cohesion moves first. Not still same, the highest tactics moves first.

Combat round:

Every team member can carry out activities if allowed.
Every character can do either 1 Full Action (FA) or 2 Half Actions (HA).
Results of actions are take effect immediately.

The logic of game is that once character moves to a hex next to opponent the movement stops. Character is then engaged in melee with opponent.
This melee must go on until character either defeats opponent or disengages voluntarily or flees involuntarily (or character is defeated).

----

List of possible actions:

Combat Actions

Attack (HA) - normal attack against opponent.
Hard Attack (FA) - attack against opponent with modifier +1 to attack roll and -1 to defense roll.
Cautious Attack (FA) - attack against opponent with modifier -1 to attack roll and +1 to defense roll.

Defense (FA) - no attack rolls, +2 to defense roll.

Disengage (FA) - Moves up to 3 points away from opponent(s) without enemy allowed to do free attack.
Flee (FA) - Moves up to 8 points away from opponent(s). Any attack who was in adjacent hex to character receives a free attack. This is involuntary action.

Movement Actions

Move (HA) - Moves up to 5 points
Full Move (FA) - Moves up to 15 points

Those characters who have received training in combat may use following additional actions:

Charge (FA) - Moves up to 5 points to a hex next to enemy and attacks with +1 to attack roll.
Feint (HA) - Roll attack and defense rolls normally. If attack is successfull the MoS is added to next Attack.
Knock-down (HA) - Roll attack and defense rolls normally. If attack is successfull the opponent is knocked over.
Grapple (HA) - Roll attack and defense rolls normally. If attack is successfull the opponent is grappled (not yet certain what kind of rules to describe following combat where aim is to disarm and subdue the grappled character).

Knocked over character has to stand up to fight (uses HA). During this action opponents in adjacent hexes receive a free attack.

This is the basis of game. Ideas?

[nikita]

I managed to have three playtest games in last weekend for my system. Two were non-combat adventures and one was pure combat session.

The system now has following features:
The target numbers are fixed for both skill test and attribute tests as: 6/8/10/12 with 6 as "easy" and 8 as "average".

ATTR + 2D6
ATTR + SKILL + 2D6

My players liked it and said they could actually use it as it was easy and fast.

We also pondered thorny issue of several chars doing together something. We settled to system where everyone involved rolls attribute or skill test and highest roll is the result of team's efforts.

The Combat system went to rethinking. people liked idea of opposite skill tests with damage as MoS + weapon damage mod - armour rating but half actions and full actions did not seem to work. Thus I need to rethink the combat system's actions and activities again.

[nikita]

I have managed to get my rpg rules (and new combat rules) into a somewhat coherent pile of handwritten papers. The rules set is nominally set to run my scifi campaign set (borrows heavily from Traveller and BattleTech game universes). I am also playtesting them on roughly weekly basis.

I would like to start compiling them to a real rules set. In essense this means that I should start to write a rule book.

I would like to have ideas and/or examples of well written rules books to look for ideas/form. How rule book should be organized?

[...You Lost Me]

I totally skimmed this--someone may already have brought it up--but let's see.

Your stats can range from 2-12, correct? Your RNG is also 2d6.

That means the difference between a player's maxxed stat and their dumb stat can be THE ENTIRE RNG.

[nikita]

Hmmm ... Actually attributes go between -3 and +3 and vast majority of people being between -1 and +1.

[fectin]

I have managed to get my rpg rules (and new combat rules) into a somewhat coherent pile of handwritten papers. The rules set is nominally set to run my scifi campaign set (borrows heavily from Traveller and BattleTech game universes). I am also playtesting them on roughly weekly basis.

I would like to start compiling them to a real rules set. In essense this means that I should start to write a rule book.

I would like to have ideas and/or examples of well written rules books to look for ideas/form. How rule book should be organized?

Generally, they seem to go:
Chapter 1: this is an RPG!
Chapter 2: fluff & world overview
Chapter 3: character creation
Chapter 4: stuff! (equipment, spells, etc. Especially long sections get pushed to the end instead, like the dnd spell list)
Chapter 5: most systems
Chapter 6: combat
Chapter 7: character advancement/xp
Chapter 8: Getting around (maps, organizations, and overland movement)
Chapter 9: crazy stovepipe system that doesn't work like anything else
Chapter 10: whatever got bumped from chapter 4.

Most books will group at least two of those chapters, apparently at random.

That's obviously not the best arrangement, but it's at least sort of standard.
If you include a good index it's not too offensive either.

[nikita]

I asked this a bit around and following suggestion seems to be match yours:

"Overlord - Game of ambition"

1) "Overlord"
1.1) Hello to all players
1.2) "This is Overlord Universe", Here I put 1-2 pages of theme and what kind of campaign I'd like players to play (intrigue).
1.3) Basic Gameplay, Here I put explanation how Attributes, Skills and basic tests are done (ATTR + SKILL + 2D6 versus fixed TN or both roll and then winner has bigger result )
1.4) What does this book contain (in following chapters after this)

2) Overlord Universe
Some explonation of movers and shakers of game universe and how chars (as scions of noble houses) join to entourage of noble or try out on their own. Perhaps very short description of major houses (think Harkonnen).

3) Character Creation
Character is done as a step by step method where player is given choices. None of the choices limit next choice (as people often have changes in their life) and ultimately they join to a career(s) that ends with them starting game. Last step is selecting a House they follow.

Would this work for start of the book?

[fectin]

You can do whatever you want; I don't think theres an industry standard.

But yes, that seems reasonable. Think of the fluff as a sales pitch though: you're explaining why your game is awesome, but not in so much detail that people get bored and wander off