The old thread will remain for general discussion.
This thread set aside for specific game mechanic issues.
Arturius: Mechanics
Moderator: Moderators
Arturius: Mechanics
Trust in the Emperor, but always check your ammunition.
As this relates mostly to the "game" part of things (as distinct from setting), reposting here;
The best at-present answers to the following:
1.) What is your game about?
2.) What do the characters do?
3.) What do the players (including the GM if there is one) do?
4.) How does your setting (or lack thereof) reinforce what your game is about?
5.) How does the Character Creation of your game reinforce what your game is about?
6.) What types of behaviors/styles of play does your game reward (and punish if necessary)?
7.) How are behaviors and styles of play rewarded or punished in your game?
8.) How are the responsibilities of narration and credibility divided in your game?
9.) What does your game do to command the players' attention, engagement, and participation? (i.e. What does the game do to make them care?)
10.) What are the resolution mechanics of your game like?
11.) How do the resolution mechanics reinforce what your game is about?
12.) Do characters in your game advance? If so, how?
13.) How does the character advancement (or lack thereof) reinforce what your game is about?
14.) What sort of product or effect do you want your game to produce in or for the players?
15.) What areas of your game receive extra attention and color? Why?
16.) Which part of your game are you most excited about or interested in? Why?
17.) Where does your game take the players that other games can’t, don’t, or won’t?
18.) What are your publishing goals for your game?
19.) Who is your target audience?
1) Gritty heroism - a relatively small group (including but not limited to the PCs) trying to preserve "civilization" and a basically just system against invading "barbarians" (Creator's note: Seriously contemplating going beyond this). Tragedy and disappointment before (if all goes well) ultimate victory. Heroic sacrifice.
2) Serve the king - often was warriors, but also as trusted subordinates who can speak on his behalf and act in his name, which may involve diplomacy and strategy as well as actual combat (both individual and mass battle). Traveling is important, but more in terms of getting where you're going than some kind of "on the road" experience - though they may well come up.
3) Um, play the heroes (good guys) of in semi-historically based mixed wargame/rpg.
4) A long time ago, the majority of the land in question was once united in one great kingdom. Now it has fragmented, thanks in part to barbarians and also due to some really nasty evil stuff. The setting is roughly equivalant to the Dark Ages in that regard. Elements of other things are sneaking in, however, but that's the current model.
5) Well, the kind of things you have to choose as abilities are reflecting what kind of things matter here, otherwise I don't know what character creation has to do with it. I intend to have a sample character or three that can be customized written up so that if PCs are out of the picture, one doesn't have to start a character from the first lines all over again (if not desired).
6) There are two basic ways to do things. There's the chivalrous path, which is harder (more challenging) both to uphold and in terms of not being easy to succeed, and then there's the path of dread, which while more "practical" runs into a variety of problems, such as inspiring loyalty and bravery in one's followers, even if the person on said path is probably "safer" in that they're "free" to do morally dubious actions.
A reputation as a hero counts for something, but its far more about doing the brave deed than just being known for it - anyone can have people claim they're on the path of chivalry but you actually have to show it to benefit from it - simply invoking "I'm Sir Honesty." doesn't work very well (limited effect? Less chance of providing the effect?) unless people have seen you do the deeds in question many times over. This is not as true for the path of dread - life isn't fair. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing for a PoD follower varies, naturally.
7) There are some actions that can only be attempted if you take appropriate risks. You can't check to see if you enflame your troops without putting your life firmly on the line, for instance. Its not necessarily true that putting yourself more at risk will help that, however - sometimes it will, but sometimes it won't.
8.) There's a GM. It is also assumed that that the "canon" is true unless stated otherwise (which is perfectly permissible in terms of many e vents - the PCs and NPCs in any actual campaign should determine what "truly" happened, but having the king secretly be an evil sorcerer would be a bad thing.)
9) I'm not sure. This game is firmly directed at people who find the premise interesting without me having to sell it as somehow exciting and cool. But good narration and interesting NPCs are important.
10) 3d6+modifiers vs. (Target Number).
11) 3d6 reliably turns up a number between 9-11, and extreme results - either very poor or very good are unlikely. This is good for emphasising that a one in a hundred action really is that difficult.
12) I am not sure. Slow advancement if any, however - the PCs start as some pretty darn competent people.
13) This is about "interesting people doing interesting things", so it really wouldn't be appropriate to be going from medicore to top end of humanity.
14) I'd like to have it inspire respect for those who fought in situations like the one that the game is talking about - Alfred the Great earned that "the Great". There's no heroism in this sense without peril, and there is something truly inspiring about those humans who rise to the occasion.
15) The ability of humanity to do truly extraordinary things. I'm not sure how I want to represent that, but I do want to emphasis that people can do some amazing feats. Nothing overly "cinematic', however. I do intend to take full advantage of the fact RL feats can be quite extreme, so anything that could happen as a feat of human endurance/ability in our world is at least potentially possible (though you may or may not be able to reach it, it is in the game).
16) The ability to tell a tale of "real" heroes in a setting based on the real world - not very much fantasy here. Maybe some.
17) Most games go for either gritty and a real chance of death in a "fair fight" or if about heroes go to the extreme that the heroes somehow survive countless dangers. This is trying to represent how a real chance that you -can- die is also something you can overcome - sure, being shot at is dangerous, but if getting shot at was invariably fatal, we'd have a lot few veterans. Not much archery here (unless something changes), but the metaphor works.
18.) The closest to publishing this is going to get is being put in a pdf.
19) People who like bold heroes with a more "realistic" reality (not just as in low magic and such), and who agree with the line that "the more arduous the struggle, the more glorious the triumph".
The best at-present answers to the following:
1.) What is your game about?
2.) What do the characters do?
3.) What do the players (including the GM if there is one) do?
4.) How does your setting (or lack thereof) reinforce what your game is about?
5.) How does the Character Creation of your game reinforce what your game is about?
6.) What types of behaviors/styles of play does your game reward (and punish if necessary)?
7.) How are behaviors and styles of play rewarded or punished in your game?
8.) How are the responsibilities of narration and credibility divided in your game?
9.) What does your game do to command the players' attention, engagement, and participation? (i.e. What does the game do to make them care?)
10.) What are the resolution mechanics of your game like?
11.) How do the resolution mechanics reinforce what your game is about?
12.) Do characters in your game advance? If so, how?
13.) How does the character advancement (or lack thereof) reinforce what your game is about?
14.) What sort of product or effect do you want your game to produce in or for the players?
15.) What areas of your game receive extra attention and color? Why?
16.) Which part of your game are you most excited about or interested in? Why?
17.) Where does your game take the players that other games can’t, don’t, or won’t?
18.) What are your publishing goals for your game?
19.) Who is your target audience?
1) Gritty heroism - a relatively small group (including but not limited to the PCs) trying to preserve "civilization" and a basically just system against invading "barbarians" (Creator's note: Seriously contemplating going beyond this). Tragedy and disappointment before (if all goes well) ultimate victory. Heroic sacrifice.
2) Serve the king - often was warriors, but also as trusted subordinates who can speak on his behalf and act in his name, which may involve diplomacy and strategy as well as actual combat (both individual and mass battle). Traveling is important, but more in terms of getting where you're going than some kind of "on the road" experience - though they may well come up.
3) Um, play the heroes (good guys) of in semi-historically based mixed wargame/rpg.
4) A long time ago, the majority of the land in question was once united in one great kingdom. Now it has fragmented, thanks in part to barbarians and also due to some really nasty evil stuff. The setting is roughly equivalant to the Dark Ages in that regard. Elements of other things are sneaking in, however, but that's the current model.
5) Well, the kind of things you have to choose as abilities are reflecting what kind of things matter here, otherwise I don't know what character creation has to do with it. I intend to have a sample character or three that can be customized written up so that if PCs are out of the picture, one doesn't have to start a character from the first lines all over again (if not desired).
6) There are two basic ways to do things. There's the chivalrous path, which is harder (more challenging) both to uphold and in terms of not being easy to succeed, and then there's the path of dread, which while more "practical" runs into a variety of problems, such as inspiring loyalty and bravery in one's followers, even if the person on said path is probably "safer" in that they're "free" to do morally dubious actions.
A reputation as a hero counts for something, but its far more about doing the brave deed than just being known for it - anyone can have people claim they're on the path of chivalry but you actually have to show it to benefit from it - simply invoking "I'm Sir Honesty." doesn't work very well (limited effect? Less chance of providing the effect?) unless people have seen you do the deeds in question many times over. This is not as true for the path of dread - life isn't fair. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing for a PoD follower varies, naturally.
7) There are some actions that can only be attempted if you take appropriate risks. You can't check to see if you enflame your troops without putting your life firmly on the line, for instance. Its not necessarily true that putting yourself more at risk will help that, however - sometimes it will, but sometimes it won't.
8.) There's a GM. It is also assumed that that the "canon" is true unless stated otherwise (which is perfectly permissible in terms of many e vents - the PCs and NPCs in any actual campaign should determine what "truly" happened, but having the king secretly be an evil sorcerer would be a bad thing.)
9) I'm not sure. This game is firmly directed at people who find the premise interesting without me having to sell it as somehow exciting and cool. But good narration and interesting NPCs are important.
10) 3d6+modifiers vs. (Target Number).
11) 3d6 reliably turns up a number between 9-11, and extreme results - either very poor or very good are unlikely. This is good for emphasising that a one in a hundred action really is that difficult.
12) I am not sure. Slow advancement if any, however - the PCs start as some pretty darn competent people.
13) This is about "interesting people doing interesting things", so it really wouldn't be appropriate to be going from medicore to top end of humanity.
14) I'd like to have it inspire respect for those who fought in situations like the one that the game is talking about - Alfred the Great earned that "the Great". There's no heroism in this sense without peril, and there is something truly inspiring about those humans who rise to the occasion.
15) The ability of humanity to do truly extraordinary things. I'm not sure how I want to represent that, but I do want to emphasis that people can do some amazing feats. Nothing overly "cinematic', however. I do intend to take full advantage of the fact RL feats can be quite extreme, so anything that could happen as a feat of human endurance/ability in our world is at least potentially possible (though you may or may not be able to reach it, it is in the game).
16) The ability to tell a tale of "real" heroes in a setting based on the real world - not very much fantasy here. Maybe some.
17) Most games go for either gritty and a real chance of death in a "fair fight" or if about heroes go to the extreme that the heroes somehow survive countless dangers. This is trying to represent how a real chance that you -can- die is also something you can overcome - sure, being shot at is dangerous, but if getting shot at was invariably fatal, we'd have a lot few veterans. Not much archery here (unless something changes), but the metaphor works.
18.) The closest to publishing this is going to get is being put in a pdf.
19) People who like bold heroes with a more "realistic" reality (not just as in low magic and such), and who agree with the line that "the more arduous the struggle, the more glorious the triumph".
Trust in the Emperor, but always check your ammunition.
-
mlangsdorf
- Master
- Posts: 256
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 11:12 pm
Additional question:
Why aren't you using GURPS, or at least basing your mechanics off of it? GURPS can be gritty and low-powered. It is very possible for characters to die in GURPS, especially when outnumbered or facing equally skilled opposition. It even uses your preferred die mechanics already.
If you don't like GURPS for being too fiddly or whatever, I'd understand, but it certainly seems like the right mechanical framework for starting down the path you want to go.
Why aren't you using GURPS, or at least basing your mechanics off of it? GURPS can be gritty and low-powered. It is very possible for characters to die in GURPS, especially when outnumbered or facing equally skilled opposition. It even uses your preferred die mechanics already.
If you don't like GURPS for being too fiddly or whatever, I'd understand, but it certainly seems like the right mechanical framework for starting down the path you want to go.
GURPS uses 3d6 vs. (modified by difficulty) skill.
Arturius uses 3d6+skill vs. difficulty.. That's not...exactly...the same thing.
GURPS has some interesting points, but it also is in some ways too complex (too many steps in a "plain vanilla attack").
So yeah, that's why.
Arturius uses 3d6+skill vs. difficulty.. That's not...exactly...the same thing.
GURPS has some interesting points, but it also is in some ways too complex (too many steps in a "plain vanilla attack").
So yeah, that's why.
Last edited by Elennsar on Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
Trust in the Emperor, but always check your ammunition.
-
RandomCasualty2
- Prince
- Posts: 3295
- Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:22 pm
Odd... what steps don't you like? I know in the other thread you said that you liked defense rolls. You need an attack roll, so what did you want to eliminate, just the whole hit locations rules in GURPS?Elennsar wrote: GURPS has some interesting points, but it also is in some ways too complex (too many steps in a "plain vanilla attack").
So yeah, that's why.
-
mlangsdorf
- Master
- Posts: 256
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 11:12 pm
Basic GURPS attack:
1 Attacker rolls less than skill
2 Defender chooses an active defense and fails to roll over it
3 Attacker rolls damage
4 Defender's armor reduces damage
5 Remaining damage is multiplied per damage type
6 If the defender is badly wounded, various things happen
Steps 1, 3, and 6 are part of just about every RPG combat system, so you don't like steps 2, 4, and 5.
5 could be cut out if you're house ruling or abstracting combat differently.
So that leaves steps 2, 4. You've already said you want there to be a mechanic difference in fighting styles and armor, and these steps allow for a lot more mechanic differentiation: a lightly armored skirmisher fights MUCH differently than a heavy infantry in layers of steel.
It's your game, but I'd scrounge as much of the GURPS stuff as I felt comfortable with as a basis. The end product may not look much like GURPS, but you'd have a robust(ish) starting framework.
1 Attacker rolls less than skill
2 Defender chooses an active defense and fails to roll over it
3 Attacker rolls damage
4 Defender's armor reduces damage
5 Remaining damage is multiplied per damage type
6 If the defender is badly wounded, various things happen
Steps 1, 3, and 6 are part of just about every RPG combat system, so you don't like steps 2, 4, and 5.
5 could be cut out if you're house ruling or abstracting combat differently.
So that leaves steps 2, 4. You've already said you want there to be a mechanic difference in fighting styles and armor, and these steps allow for a lot more mechanic differentiation: a lightly armored skirmisher fights MUCH differently than a heavy infantry in layers of steel.
It's your game, but I'd scrounge as much of the GURPS stuff as I felt comfortable with as a basis. The end product may not look much like GURPS, but you'd have a robust(ish) starting framework.
Pretty much - if you want to hit someone in the hand, aim at the damn hand. Otherwise you hit the torso (if you hit) - center of mass and all that.Odd... what steps don't you like? I know in the other thread you said that you liked defense rolls. You need an attack roll, so what did you want to eliminate, just the whole hit locations rules in GURPS?
So it goes like this:
Attack roll / Defense roll ( http://www.gamesdiner.com/decide is fully agreed with.)
Soak roll
Interesting and unpleasant things may happen
3-4 steps instead of 5-7.
GURPS does have some very good stuff, so I intend to take advantage of it. I just don't want to use it as a system instead of working something else out.It's your game, but I'd scrounge as much of the GURPS stuff as I felt comfortable with as a basis. The end product may not look much like GURPS, but you'd have a robust(ish) starting framework.
Any mechanics used will have to be converted from "roll as low as possible" to "roll as high as possible", however.
Last edited by Elennsar on Thu Mar 05, 2009 4:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Trust in the Emperor, but always check your ammunition.
-
RandomCasualty2
- Prince
- Posts: 3295
- Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:22 pm
Easy enough. Just play GURPS and say you have to attack a specific body part. There are no random attacks.Elennsar wrote: Pretty much - if you want to hit someone in the hand, aim at the damn hand. Otherwise you hit the torso (if you hit) - center of mass and all that.
Again pretty easy. You may just want to make attack versus defense rolls into a straight up "whoever gets highest roll wins" situation.Any mechanics used will have to be converted from "roll as low as possible" to "roll as high as possible", however.
And as for normal tasks, you assign a DC, with your base average task DC being a 22.
It's not actually that hard to turn GURPS into a roll high system.
Not arguing, but not interested in GURPS for this either.
Easy enough. Just play GURPS and say you have to attack a specific body part. There are no random attacks.
I'm not sure - I would like to make it so that while you might have a hard time hitting someone in the hand in the dark, they're not necessarily as challenged to avoid being hit in the hand.Again pretty easy. You may just want to make attack versus defense rolls into a straight up "whoever gets highest roll wins" situation.
And as for normal tasks, you assign a DC, with your base average task DC being a 22.
It's not actually that hard to turn GURPS into a roll high system.
As for converting: If you'd like to do so, I'd like to see it - but I'd like to know if "Base average task TN is 22." means for what GURPS has as +0 or not.
GURPS has some good stuff, but I'm going to say this once.
I do not want to make this in GURPS. If I did, I would be using GURPS, not contemplating what I want to do differently.
If nothing else, this is focused on a particular setting and such, which means the mechanics have to deal with that in particular, not with GURPS's "generic"ness.
But any assistance (either in learning how or in doing the work or both) in converting would be welcome.
Less importantly: I would like to focus on fluff/setting building before doing the mechanics - I don't mind switching from one to the other, but a setting where a sword should be a superior weapon to an axe needs to be decided on as a good or bad thing before writing the rules for how axes work.
Geography, thusly, is priority #1. There's a couple maps up, and my thoughts on whether or not they really work well or not posted in the other (Setting) thread.
Last edited by Elennsar on Thu Mar 05, 2009 7:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Trust in the Emperor, but always check your ammunition.
One mechanical issue that I am musing over.
This is about failure and tragedy and disappointment as well as overcoming those things.
So a thought.
If you roll an 8 or lower, and fail by 5(?) or more, you get a (need a better name) tragedy point.
A tragedy point may be spent exactly like a hero point in all respects, but it cannot (completely) negate the failure that it was used for - afterwards, its just a regular hero point, and if you have one of those you might well be able to negate failure completely (but then you don't get the tragedy point, because you didn't fail by 5 or more - which is better depends on how confident you are in being able to handle the failure).
Now, I recognize that this needs some balancing and numbercrunching work. But how does the concept sound?
This is about failure and tragedy and disappointment as well as overcoming those things.
So a thought.
If you roll an 8 or lower, and fail by 5(?) or more, you get a (need a better name) tragedy point.
A tragedy point may be spent exactly like a hero point in all respects, but it cannot (completely) negate the failure that it was used for - afterwards, its just a regular hero point, and if you have one of those you might well be able to negate failure completely (but then you don't get the tragedy point, because you didn't fail by 5 or more - which is better depends on how confident you are in being able to handle the failure).
Now, I recognize that this needs some balancing and numbercrunching work. But how does the concept sound?
Trust in the Emperor, but always check your ammunition.
I don't like tragedy point. It promotes behavior in which it is sometimes a good thing to fail and thus, you'll get people making rolls knowing they'll flub them just for the hero point. It's bag of rats territory.
As for the attacking, I'd like to say that 3d6 produces very swingy results and is hard to balance for. May I instead interest you in a role and keep/hits system?
Step one: Attacker declares they are attacking. Defender chooses a defense.
Step two: Attacker rolls Weapon Skill in d6. Note hits for later. Attacker keep a number of dice equal to his Agility. Determine results as follows
A) Defender used Parry defense. Attacker connects automatically. Defender rolls Weapon Skill in d6, keeps Agility, if higher than attacker's, they may add net hits to Soak roll. If Defender gets net hits, they may make a counterattack using total hits in unused dice against the attacker on the defender's next turn.
B) Defender used Dodge defense. The defender rolls Dodge Skill-Armour in d6, keeps Agility in dice. If greater than attacker's roll, they are totally unharmed. If defender gets more hits than attacker, they can move up to net hits in distances away from the attacker or towards the attacker.
Step Three: If attacker conected with attack, attacker rolls Weapon Skill+Strength in d6, hits are damage to attacker.
Step Four: Defender rolls Strength+Armour to soak damage.
As for the attacking, I'd like to say that 3d6 produces very swingy results and is hard to balance for. May I instead interest you in a role and keep/hits system?
Step one: Attacker declares they are attacking. Defender chooses a defense.
Step two: Attacker rolls Weapon Skill in d6. Note hits for later. Attacker keep a number of dice equal to his Agility. Determine results as follows
A) Defender used Parry defense. Attacker connects automatically. Defender rolls Weapon Skill in d6, keeps Agility, if higher than attacker's, they may add net hits to Soak roll. If Defender gets net hits, they may make a counterattack using total hits in unused dice against the attacker on the defender's next turn.
B) Defender used Dodge defense. The defender rolls Dodge Skill-Armour in d6, keeps Agility in dice. If greater than attacker's roll, they are totally unharmed. If defender gets more hits than attacker, they can move up to net hits in distances away from the attacker or towards the attacker.
Step Three: If attacker conected with attack, attacker rolls Weapon Skill+Strength in d6, hits are damage to attacker.
Step Four: Defender rolls Strength+Armour to soak damage.
Last edited by Grek on Sun Mar 15, 2009 12:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
3d6 is a pretty good bell curve, actually.
As for attempting the rolls knowing they'll fail - that is a problem. I would like to have some way to make it so that you can fail and win in the end through determination, without having hero points in general being too common.
Roll and keep...I'm not familiar with it or inclined to it.
As for attempting the rolls knowing they'll fail - that is a problem. I would like to have some way to make it so that you can fail and win in the end through determination, without having hero points in general being too common.
Roll and keep...I'm not familiar with it or inclined to it.
Trust in the Emperor, but always check your ammunition.
It's excellent if you want an actual bell curve, but it's hard to compare 3d6+X to 3d6+Y, as the relative values of +X and +Y vary wildly based on your roll. For example, let's say you need a 15 to succeed on a roll. Going from a +0 bonus to a +2 bonus would make a 9.3% chance of success turn into a 25.9% chance. That's nearly triple. At the same time, once you've settled on a value of +X and +Y, it's very simple to figure out your exact chance to hit and do math based on that so you can mathmatically optimize your strategy on the fly. That's not desirable either/
A system using roll and keep & net hits means that, while it's hard to predict your exact chance to hit and do math based on that, you can make general statements like "I am probably not going to be able to dodge that; I should block instead." or "There is a good chance that I will be able to bait that guy into letting me get a counterattack if I do X" or "If I stay here, I will be able to hold off barbarians for a long while before they overun this bridge."
I think that's where we want to be.
A system using roll and keep & net hits means that, while it's hard to predict your exact chance to hit and do math based on that, you can make general statements like "I am probably not going to be able to dodge that; I should block instead." or "There is a good chance that I will be able to bait that guy into letting me get a counterattack if I do X" or "If I stay here, I will be able to hold off barbarians for a long while before they overun this bridge."
I think that's where we want to be.
I'm not sure how much difference in play there is between "Probably not" and "25%", assuming one can actually calculate that in play. (I can calculate it with time to concentrate on it without any trouble, I'm not sure about while thinking about multiple other things at once.)A system using roll and keep & net hits means that, while it's hard to predict your exact chance to hit and do math based on that, you can make general statements like "I am probably not going to be able to dodge that; I should block instead." or "There is a good chance that I will be able to bait that guy into letting me get a counterattack if I do X" or "If I stay here, I will be able to hold off barbarians for a long while before they overun this bridge."
I think that's where we want to be.
Otherwise, explain.
Trust in the Emperor, but always check your ammunition.
Let's say you have two attacks:
One is 3d6+2 tohit and 3d6+3 damage. The other is 3d6+1 tohit and 3d6+7 damage. To hit the enemy, you need to roll a 13 or more.
For the first attack, you'll hit 50.0% of the time and do 13.5 average damage on hits, for an average of 6.75 Damage per Action. For the second attack you hit 37.5% of the time, doing 17.5 average damage on hits for an average of 6.5625 damage. That means that the first attack, while it has lower numbers, is still better on average. With this knowledge, you can create guidelines like "If I hit on a 15+, I'll always use attack #1, otherwise I'll always use attack #2."
If you can't do that sort of math with "Probably not". You can tell what your average roll will be, (R*K/6), but the percent chance of any set coming up is pretty hard to calculate.
One is 3d6+2 tohit and 3d6+3 damage. The other is 3d6+1 tohit and 3d6+7 damage. To hit the enemy, you need to roll a 13 or more.
For the first attack, you'll hit 50.0% of the time and do 13.5 average damage on hits, for an average of 6.75 Damage per Action. For the second attack you hit 37.5% of the time, doing 17.5 average damage on hits for an average of 6.5625 damage. That means that the first attack, while it has lower numbers, is still better on average. With this knowledge, you can create guidelines like "If I hit on a 15+, I'll always use attack #1, otherwise I'll always use attack #2."
If you can't do that sort of math with "Probably not". You can tell what your average roll will be, (R*K/6), but the percent chance of any set coming up is pretty hard to calculate.
The point was that I'm not sure I can calculate that a given thing will be true 25% of the time (more or less) in play...nor am I sure why being able to calculate something will come up 25% of the time is worse for gameplay than being equally sure that that it will happen "infrequently" or "not very often".
I mean, how does this lead to people making better decisions?
Better in the sense "what we want it to look like".
I'm just not feeling that this is helping here - there may be something to it that I'm overlooking, but I don't see how what you're saying is producing more desirable results than otherwise.
I mean, how does this lead to people making better decisions?
Better in the sense "what we want it to look like".
I'm just not feeling that this is helping here - there may be something to it that I'm overlooking, but I don't see how what you're saying is producing more desirable results than otherwise.
Trust in the Emperor, but always check your ammunition.
Once you have the percentages for each number on a 3d6 (There's only 8 percentages to remember) it's really really easy to do.
The problem with is that you can be mathmatically certain what is the best attack to use in a 3d6 based system. You can number-crunch your way to victory. If you use that system, it has to be balanced around people having done the math and knowing mathmatically what is best. It leads to flimsy roleplay and internal monologes where the player goes "Yep. That attack is more DPS than this attack, I'll use it."
It's all about pyschology. If you want your players to roleplay well, you want them to be thinking of their attacks in qualitative terms, like "well aimed attack" and "powerful but reckless attack" instead of quantitative terms like "87% chance to hit" and "+6 on the damage roll".
The problem with is that you can be mathmatically certain what is the best attack to use in a 3d6 based system. You can number-crunch your way to victory. If you use that system, it has to be balanced around people having done the math and knowing mathmatically what is best. It leads to flimsy roleplay and internal monologes where the player goes "Yep. That attack is more DPS than this attack, I'll use it."
It's all about pyschology. If you want your players to roleplay well, you want them to be thinking of their attacks in qualitative terms, like "well aimed attack" and "powerful but reckless attack" instead of quantitative terms like "87% chance to hit" and "+6 on the damage roll".
Last edited by Grek on Mon Mar 16, 2009 1:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
Someone determined to number crunch will number crunch anything that isn't hopelessly obscure.It's all about pyschology. If you want your players to roleplay well, you want them to be thinking of their attacks in qualitative terms, like "well aimed attack" and "powerful but reckless attack" instead of quantitative terms like "87% chance to hit" and "+6 on the damage roll".
I'm not convinced this helps that.
Trust in the Emperor, but always check your ammunition.
There isn't a formula for it, so unless you plot out every combination of results that rolling 20d6 on a spreadsheet and compare it to a spreadsheet for every combination of 19d6, you're not going to get an exact percentage. You can, however, estimate and know which is "better" even if you can't get numbers for it, because human brains are suprisingly good at that sort of estimation. Sort of like how you can play basketball without using the formulas for ballistics and working out extactly what angles and forces are needed to get the ball into the hoop.
It's pretty obscure mathmatically, but completely playable without doing the math.
It's pretty obscure mathmatically, but completely playable without doing the math.
FrankTrollman wrote:I think Grek already won the thread and we should pack it in.
Chamomile wrote:Grek is a national treasure.
For a skill check against a set TN or for the concept of weapon reach I proposed a while back?
FrankTrollman wrote:I think Grek already won the thread and we should pack it in.
Chamomile wrote:Grek is a national treasure.
It works perfectly fine against with set TN. 7th Sea used to use it and that was a pretty good game. 7th Sea is not exactly what you want, but the roll and keep system it used lends itself to Arturius well, I think. So does the hits system. So I used both.
The weapon reach thing was in one the other threads. Basically, when two people are fighting, there is a set distance between them. Each attack a "reach" and trying to attack someone who is at a distance other than that reach makes you incur a penalty. It makes it so that the spearmen want the swordsmen at a spear's length away from them and not up in their faces where they can't use their spears correctly while the swordsmen are trying to get around the spearmen's spears and get close enough to hurt them with swords.
The weapon reach thing was in one the other threads. Basically, when two people are fighting, there is a set distance between them. Each attack a "reach" and trying to attack someone who is at a distance other than that reach makes you incur a penalty. It makes it so that the spearmen want the swordsmen at a spear's length away from them and not up in their faces where they can't use their spears correctly while the swordsmen are trying to get around the spearmen's spears and get close enough to hurt them with swords.
Last edited by Grek on Tue Mar 17, 2009 9:39 am, edited 2 times in total.
Oh yes, that. I don't recall the details, but its a good thing to have in some form - otherwise, spears aren't much good.
Well, if roll and keep to a total works, great.
I think I'll go back to poking at the fluff, though you or anyone else reading this has mechanical suggestions as well, they're welcome.
Well, if roll and keep to a total works, great.
I think I'll go back to poking at the fluff, though you or anyone else reading this has mechanical suggestions as well, they're welcome.
Trust in the Emperor, but always check your ammunition.