nikita wrote: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.