SumDumMuffin
2014-01-07, 12:48 AM
I'm trying to create or find a system to model duels, and the unstable equilibrium within them.
I mostly play Pathfinder and World of Darkness, and they are generally great systems but the time's I've run long fighting duels in them make me think :smalleek: about using them to run a campaign revolving around long fighting duels. So I'm thinking up a whole new system that may be retrofitted into other systems later.
Core mechanic so far:
There is a bar drawn on a piece of paper that goes from negative to positive, say, 20. The combatant with the worse fighting ability places their token at 0 and the other places it at the positive difference between both their fighting abilities.
Each round both combatants roll three d6's (or some other combination of dice with a bell curve) and adds their fighting ability to it, and if one of them rolls higher than the other, the combatant who rolled higher increases their fighting ability by the difference between the two rolls and the combatant who rolled lower decreases their ability by that number.
If somebody hits +20 they win, representing complete fighting domination over the other. If they hit -20 they lose, representing getting beat up too much to continue. I might have to add something in because now you can lose at 18 if your opponent gets to 20 a turn before you, but for now the race aspect of it is part of the duel.
The positive/negative distinction is to allow for boss battles; you could put four players and one boss on the same bar and have everyone roll, and the boss will, ideally, get reduced to -20 more easily than for one party member to get to +20. The inverse can work for when a party member fights hordes of minions; they just have to get to +20 to flop all of them, like Neo exploding out of a crowd of Agent Smiths in the Matrix Reloaded. I haven't worked out how multiple people on a side affects their fighting ability; maybe everyone starts at +1 for every ally.
I haven't playtested the numbers yet; perhaps 20 is too high or three d6's too centrally biased. I was thinking about having fractions or having different fighting styles use different sets of dice, like in Savage Worlds.
The point I was trying to model was that combatants with equal fighting ability will start at the will be evenly matched until one of them gets a lucky blow in. Then they can press their advantage until they win. Combatants with disparate fighting ability will have shorter and more one-sided fights, maybe only requiring one easily-made roll to . Like in kung-fu movies, the hero can mow down tons of mooks, but then get in a stalemate with an elite ninja for awhile before dodging at the right moment and then beating the stuffing out of him.
You can replace "fighting ability" with "magical ability" to model wizard's duels, and maybe with "public speaking" to model formal debates.
I know that, by itself, fights revolving around unstable equilibrium aren't very compelling; once someone gets an advantage they will win. So players should have powers that they can activate to offset unbalance or trigger it sooner.
Current Ideas:
- A 'total attack' gambit that doubles any difference, so a win is twice as effective but a loss hurts twice as bad.
- A defensive stance that, after three turns in, automatically increases fighting ability by one every turn, up to zero.
- A 'taking you with me' attack that hurts the user by one but hurts the enemy by three.
If you know of a system that already does this, have any thoughts on the core mechanics itself, or ideas for powers to make the system less predictable, your input would be appreciated. :smallsmile:
I mostly play Pathfinder and World of Darkness, and they are generally great systems but the time's I've run long fighting duels in them make me think :smalleek: about using them to run a campaign revolving around long fighting duels. So I'm thinking up a whole new system that may be retrofitted into other systems later.
Core mechanic so far:
There is a bar drawn on a piece of paper that goes from negative to positive, say, 20. The combatant with the worse fighting ability places their token at 0 and the other places it at the positive difference between both their fighting abilities.
Each round both combatants roll three d6's (or some other combination of dice with a bell curve) and adds their fighting ability to it, and if one of them rolls higher than the other, the combatant who rolled higher increases their fighting ability by the difference between the two rolls and the combatant who rolled lower decreases their ability by that number.
If somebody hits +20 they win, representing complete fighting domination over the other. If they hit -20 they lose, representing getting beat up too much to continue. I might have to add something in because now you can lose at 18 if your opponent gets to 20 a turn before you, but for now the race aspect of it is part of the duel.
The positive/negative distinction is to allow for boss battles; you could put four players and one boss on the same bar and have everyone roll, and the boss will, ideally, get reduced to -20 more easily than for one party member to get to +20. The inverse can work for when a party member fights hordes of minions; they just have to get to +20 to flop all of them, like Neo exploding out of a crowd of Agent Smiths in the Matrix Reloaded. I haven't worked out how multiple people on a side affects their fighting ability; maybe everyone starts at +1 for every ally.
I haven't playtested the numbers yet; perhaps 20 is too high or three d6's too centrally biased. I was thinking about having fractions or having different fighting styles use different sets of dice, like in Savage Worlds.
The point I was trying to model was that combatants with equal fighting ability will start at the will be evenly matched until one of them gets a lucky blow in. Then they can press their advantage until they win. Combatants with disparate fighting ability will have shorter and more one-sided fights, maybe only requiring one easily-made roll to . Like in kung-fu movies, the hero can mow down tons of mooks, but then get in a stalemate with an elite ninja for awhile before dodging at the right moment and then beating the stuffing out of him.
You can replace "fighting ability" with "magical ability" to model wizard's duels, and maybe with "public speaking" to model formal debates.
I know that, by itself, fights revolving around unstable equilibrium aren't very compelling; once someone gets an advantage they will win. So players should have powers that they can activate to offset unbalance or trigger it sooner.
Current Ideas:
- A 'total attack' gambit that doubles any difference, so a win is twice as effective but a loss hurts twice as bad.
- A defensive stance that, after three turns in, automatically increases fighting ability by one every turn, up to zero.
- A 'taking you with me' attack that hurts the user by one but hurts the enemy by three.
If you know of a system that already does this, have any thoughts on the core mechanics itself, or ideas for powers to make the system less predictable, your input would be appreciated. :smallsmile: