PDA

View Full Version : Original System How does this read to you?



vgunn
2016-11-15, 04:47 PM
Note: this is just the base, more will be added. I've kept it generic, but would add flavor to suit the genre. Looking for some feedback on how it reads and the overall design.

Every character comes with seven attributes. There are three scores, three saves, and one lucky number. Roll 3d6 seven times and then decide on where to put each result. Higher numbers are better for your scores, while lower numbers are better for your saves. For your lucky number, use personal preference.

Your rolls will help you to choose a class. In this game, your class is a combination of background and skills. You'll begin play at level one. Your level is how experienced and talented you are in your class. If using your class, an attempt will always succeed--unless difficulty or opponent is above your level.

Whenever you attempt to overcome an opponent, obstacle, or dilemma, you'll need to use one of your scores and roll a d20. If the result is equal or below your score, you have succeeded. Rolling your exact score is a critical success. If you attempt an action outside of your class or the difficulty is greater than your level, this number becomes the chance of critical failure.

Use CONFRONT when facing another opponent in a non-lethal situation. Use AVOID when trying to get past a physical or non-physical obstacle. Use RESOLVE when confronted by a dilemma.

Sometimes in the game you will find yourself in danger. When this occurs you'll need to make a save. Roll a d20 and if the result is higher than your save number, you have succeeded. If the difficulty or opponent's level is higher than yours, then the difference is added to the save, making it harder to succeed.

Save with COOL when responding under pressure. Save with GRIT when faced with adversity. Save with QUICK when reacting on impulse.

Sample Character

Name: Felix "the Cat"
Class (level): Cutpurse (2)
Scores: Confront (12) Avoid (15) Resolve (14)
Saves: Cool (8) Grit (11) Quick (10)
Lucky Number: (7)

Let's say Felix is attempting to break into a safe. The difficulty for the safe is a 7. If the difficulty is 2 or less, the attempt automatically succeeds. Since this is not the case, the difference is 5 and becomes the risk factor for the cracking the safe.

He will use his AVOID score of 15 to try to crack the safe (since it is considered an obstacle). Felix needs to roll 6-15 to be successful. A roll of 15 is a critical success. A roll of 16-20 the attempt fails, but nothing bad happens. A roll of 1-5 is a critical failure.

Felix rolls a 2 and his attempt at cracking the safe fails badly. Not only does the safe not open, but the three guards in the next room overhear him and give chase. Felix manages to get outside and looks for a way to escape.If Felix's level is higher than the guards, then automatically escapes (at least for a while).

If the level of any of the guards is equal or higher than the thief, then Felix has to make a save roll and the difference in level is added to the score. One of the guards is level 1 and soon gives up the chase. However, the second guard is level 3, and the third is level 4. Take the highest difference, guard (4) versus cutpurse (2) and add that number (2) to the save.

Felix makes COOL save as he is attempts to escape. He has an 8, along with difference in level makes his save number a 10. Felix will need to roll an 11 or higher, or else be caught.

Keep in mind that you can, once per session, switch out a die roll and replace with your lucky number. It can be switched for either a score or save. In this example, Felix's lucky number is 7. If he had decided to use his lucky number when attempting to break into the safe, the roll of 2 would have been switched to 7 and the safe would have been cracked instead.

JoshuaZ
2016-11-15, 05:22 PM
It sounds like you are trying to make a rules-light system. Is that your goal here? If so, seven attributes may be a lot. What is your central goal with this system?

vgunn
2016-11-15, 05:39 PM
Joshua,

Thanks for the quick response!

Yes, on the lighter scale--though more crunch coming in other areas.

Influences are Into the Odd, Dungeon World, Whitehack, and Torchbearer (others I am forgetting right now).

The key is making sure the base is sound. I'm not trying to have a unified mechanic.

JoshuaZ
2016-11-15, 08:03 PM
So what in your view does this system do that other systems do not?

vgunn
2016-11-15, 09:21 PM
So what in your view does this system do that other systems do not?

A few of things (I hope).

One, is that you can have "roll 3d6" for random stats at character generation, but nevertheless generate "better than average" stats (since the player will place high numbers in scores and low numbers in saves). You don't really need to roll 4d6 drop the lowest or roll extra and keep best results.

Two, your scores can mean different things for different classes. For example, a Fighter may Confront an opponent very different than say a cleric.

Three, allow for multiple possiblities with each roll. Yes, and (critical success); Yes (success); No (failure); No, and (critical failure. But this occurs only when you are acting (using one of your three scores). Also you've got three reactive saving throws.

Beneath
2016-11-16, 05:18 AM
First impression: What kind of stories (I said "adventures" here but the idea that the game is about /adventures/ as opposed to other stories is an unstated assumption that there's room to challenge) are you planning to run with this? "Everything" isn't a real answer; I've run one-shots with more prep material than this, and when you have more prep material for a specific campaign or adventure than your system, that campaign is your system. What first campaign do you plan to run this system in? That's really the metric; we can't judge the system on anything but, like, internal consistency and typographical issues until we know what it's trying to do.

The example hints a little at it: "cutpurse" is old-timey language, implying a historical or fantastic setting, and suggests that the game is about teams where one person's being a cutpurse would be an important distinction and therefore that whatever story they're in is one where a person's skills as a cutpurse would be relevant and also make them the likely person to crack a safe, implying that the majority of classes are not professional criminals; but it doesn't /say/

Your commentary about what it offers seems to be "D&D, but with slightly different mechanics" (like many systems proposed on this forum).

You don't have a list of classes, or of examples of what might be CONFRONTed, AVOIDed, or RESOLVEd. Also I note that fighting to the death is undefined as to what it uses, but knocking someone out might be a simple CONFRONT check. I'm not sure if that's a bug or a missing combat system to be added later. Your resolution mechanic implies that classes, and whether an action is within or outside them, are important but not what this means.

Your example and the math outlined in the paragraphs preceding don't line up:

Whenever you attempt to overcome an opponent, obstacle, or dilemma, you'll need to use one of your scores and roll a d20. If the result is equal or below your score, you have succeeded. Rolling your exact score is a critical success. If you attempt an action outside of your class or the difficulty is greater than your level, this number becomes the chance of critical failure.
does not produce

He will use his AVOID score of 15 to try to crack the safe (since it is considered an obstacle). Felix needs to roll 6-15 to be successful. A roll of 15 is a critical success. A roll of 16-20 the attempt fails, but nothing bad happens. A roll of 1-5 is a critical failure.

I haven't seen a "roll 1d20 and try to get something medium" system before.

The difference between a failure and a critical failure isn't illustrated, except in your comment, but also much of modern TTRPG design (D&D being a noted exception, but I've seen this included as GM advice) frowns on simple-no failure mechanics, favoring complication, cost, or twist mechanics as more interesting. You can go to Dungeon World and Torchbearer for examples of how this works. Unless there's a reason you prefer the simple-no?

If the result is just "you don't get the lock open right now" you can just try again until you succeed or get a critical failure; rolling until you get one result or the other is boring (D&D3 even lets you declare that you will do that and thereby skip rolling). If the result is "the lock is beyond you", as in old-school D&D, you waste less time but the attempt is still, in effect, wasted time; you declare that you were going to try it, you rolled the dice, the dice said no, and you're back where you started except with one less move. If a failure result always creates a complication or cost of some kind (Torchbearer's "you successfully pick the lock, but your frustration clouds your thinking until you find a way to calm down"), or even a choice, as Dungeon World uses a lot (a normal failure might be "choose: you don't attract the guards, the lock isn't beyond your ability to pick"; a critical failure would be both), then it's interesting.

I hope this doesn't seem over-harsh; I'm trying to be helpful but that means being a critic right now.

vgunn
2016-11-16, 12:37 PM
Beneath,

Thanks for the very detailed response. Much appreciated.

For the purposes of the example, I used bog-standard dungeon crawling just to get feedback. My original idea came out of a thread on wilderness survival and the game I am planning to run first with it is weird west (though the setting is closer to John Harper's Blades in the Dark).

Combat system has not been included on purpose. I'm actually working on two different approaches, one more tactical than the other. But it's still in the very early stage.

Unknown Armies uses a similar system (roll high, but under), but is percentile rather than d20.

I think the math adds up--perhaps I didn't write the example clear enough.

I'm a bit torn on the simple no aspect. I'm not sure every roll needs a twist or consequence. I can see both sides of the coin.

On another forum a poster offered an interesting suggestion:

What if you have a limited, shared pool of d20s, representing time and resources: whenever you roll one, you "use up" a d20. All PCs draw dice from the same big pool. When you fail, the problem is you've wasted time and resources - you've used up a d20 - without accomplishing anything! Class and level become crucial: the core winning strategy is divvying up tasks between PCs so that as much as possible can be accomplished without rolling. Critical failures typically breed situations where you have to make saving throws, potentially using up more dice from the pool! Maybe, those rare lucky "critical successes" add dice to the pool (these represent doing things super-quickly, conserving resources or finding new useful resources on the field) adding a little extra incentive to the gamble of a roll.

Perhaps changing the "no" result to a "no, but" would work better. So there is always a consequence, as you mentioned.

Good stuff. Thanks again!

Beneath
2016-11-16, 04:21 PM
What would the consequence of running out of dice be? That is an interesting idea, for certain; somewhat like Torchbearer's turns, though a little backloaded (if there aren't any consequences until you run out of dice). Also Torchbearer works on the assumption that every PC is trying to help with every roll.

I'd say to go for that if you're trying to hurry people along with resource management and make failing by running out of rolls (in Torchbearer, running out of food, light, etc) a serious concern. It works in Torchbearer because the PCs are supposed to be a highly-coordinated team of experts in an environment where if you're not that, you're going to die. If the world is meant to be less dangerous, if it's supposed to be safe for someone to go off and do their own thing, rationing rolls might work against that.

On first glance, it looked like your example and your explanation of how to determine target numbers come from different drafts, but I can kinda see what you meant, though it's still very unclear writing. The obvious referent of "This number" isn't the difference between the difficulty and your level; that number hasn't been used or referenced before; the obvious referent is the exact value of your stat. The fact that this would mean critical successes are impossible is a bug of a level that's extremely common, even in professionally-published systems.

If you have time and you want to keep neutral failures, I'd say to playtest it in all ways. Try with neutral failures and rationing rolls, try with all failures having consequences but no roll rationing, try with all failures having consequences and roll rationing, maybe even with neutral failures and no rationing, and see which dynamic you like best.

I also wouldn't lead with "bog-standard dungeon crawling" for a system I'm trying to do something else with. Lead with your hook, rather than trying to contort your mechanics to do one thing for your critics and another for you game.

A bit of advice I was given was to, when laying out a system for a team-based adventure RPG where every character has a unique thing*, start by figuring out what the PCs are going to do (a horse tracking chase over 600 square miles of desert is a vastly different situation from a dungeon crawl is a vastly different situation from a court intrigue); a sketch of an adventure and a loose sketch of a short campaign. Then propose six PCs (in class-based systems, six classes); more if you're personally expecting to run this for a larger group but six is the largest most ppl find practical. Demonstrate that they are all distinct; that they all bring something different to the team, that no player is going to feel like the one they picked doesn't do anything someone else can't do, that every class has something to do in every adventure (a fighter class implies fighting is a big part of the game. a carpenter class implies the same for carpentry). Then split the group in half, and demonstrate that each half can nonetheless do everything necessary to complete an adventure (because sometimes, even if you have a big group, only three ppl will show). This gives a way clearer picture of your system and what you're trying to accomplish than your core die mechanic

*An unstated assumption is a constraint you're unaware of. A stated assumption is a design decision. Therefore I'm naming team-based adventure RPGs as that rather than leaving it unstated. Likewise the assumption for every character having a unique thing, as opposed to games like say Dogs in the Vineyard, where the characters are fundamentally similar and the big difference has to do with their relationships to NPCs and their personalities.

vgunn
2016-11-16, 05:40 PM
What would the consequence of running out of dice be? That is an interesting idea, for certain; somewhat like Torchbearer's turns, though a little backloaded (if there aren't any consequences until you run out of dice). Also Torchbearer works on the assumption that every PC is trying to help with every roll.

I didn't mention it in the OP, but there are negative conditions similar to Torchbearer.

Thirst, Hunger, Fatigue, Exposure, Filth, Pain, Stress--each with three boxes. If any of them get to the third box, you're out.

Immediate impact from failing certain saves is that a box could be ticked.

Also in order to to refill the pool, you've got to check one of the boxes (depending on the situation) as well.

Certainly I'd playtest it with a couple of groups.

Beneath
2016-11-17, 02:45 AM
The conditions system is definitely a way more interesting part of your game than the dice mechanic. Although if dice are shared by the party, I take it that more than one person would have to take a hit to refresh the pool. Reminiscent of how Torchbearer uses their conditions track (first you become hungry, and then...). I take it then the total available dice before conditions start to get you would be small?

Although, if you're going with that approach, you need an aid mechanic. Torchbearer's shared ration of turns eaten up by making checks works with the assumption that everyone's helping on every check.

Do you also have a hit point system, or does the "Pain" track cover injury? Also how does being conditioned out work? Is that instant death or does it just mean you can't contribute dice?

Anyway, as for your core resolution system, it's a little confusingly written but that's easily fixed. The switching between low-good and high-good might be a little bit weird, but I think most players can manage, and the arithmetic is simple (the only operations you have to do are comparison and one subtraction, but for the subtraction you're subtracting a number that's basically constant from a number that's usually slightly larger than it, plus there's an addition for saves but that's a small number + a number on your character sheet), and the roll-in-the-middle system has a certain elegance; you can easily tell at a glance whether you hit your margin of critical failure, or succeeded, critically succeeded, or failed. It has the slight downside that consecutive numbers can be wildly different (critical failure borders success borders critical success borders failure), but that's not much of a downside.

It does imply a rapid growth power curve where you do outright outgrow lower-level challenges, as in D&D3 (which also implies the need for a bunch of steadily-more-powerful recolors of the same monster, as in wraith/spectre/dread wraith), and also implies that NPC and PC levels are not symmetric (a level 4 NPC watchman forces a level 2 PC thief to roll to sneak past; a level 4 NPC thief forces a level 2 PC watchman to roll to remain alert; a level 4 PC watchman automatically catches a level 2 NPC thief, and a level 4 PC thief automatically eludes a level 2 NPC watchman). I am not sure how much of this is deliberate.

vgunn
2016-11-17, 11:55 AM
The conditions system is definitely a way more interesting part of your game than the dice mechanic. Although if dice are shared by the party, I take it that more than one person would have to take a hit to refresh the pool. Reminiscent of how Torchbearer uses their conditions track (first you become hungry, and then...). I take it then the total available dice before conditions start to get you would be small?

Not sure. I will probably test it a few ways to see what works best. My thought was the person rolling the die is hit with the impact.

As far as the pool size, that is a great question. I'm not sure what it should be. Perhaps 1 per party member or a minimum of 6 to begin each session.


Although, if you're going with that approach, you need an aid mechanic. Torchbearer's shared ration of turns eaten up by making checks works with the assumption that everyone's helping on every check.

If going this route, I'd probably have a number of ways to refresh the pool. Of course a critical success on the die roll should have that reward.


Do you also have a hit point system, or does the "Pain" track cover injury? Also how does being conditioned out work? Is that instant death or does it just mean you can't contribute dice?

Right now I am thinking of a Morale/Effort/Adrenaline system. A lot depends on the complexity of combat.

Let's say you go into combat these scores. These change over the course of combat depending on how successful you are and how long the fight lasts. How much armor you are carrying and the weight of your weapon, while offering more protection and dealing more damage, burns through your effort faster.

You can attempt a number of different maneuvers, more complex maneuvers require more energy pull off and with some of the more difficult maneuvers, a failed attempt could result in leaving you tired, demoralized, or exposed.

The goal is to gain an advantage on your enemy through a series of maneuvers and deliver killing blows.

I could keep it as one score HP, which takes into account morale, effort, and adrenaline. Though I like the idea that each maneuver requires effort. Hitting or missing effects morale, and burning adrenaline can help you in the short term, but hurt in the long run.

Perhaps your effort points can be used first before having to dip into the d20 pool. Things to think about for sure!

Now a couple things can come into play if you go with the pool. One, you'll want to get the fight over ASAP. The longer it goes the more dangerous it gets not just for you, but the whole party. Two, if you drain the pool and you still need to check a box. You could take it from fatigue, stress, or even pain.


Anyway, as for your core resolution system, it's a little confusingly written but that's easily fixed.

Yeah, I've got to clean that up!


The switching between low-good and high-good might be a little bit weird, but I think most players can manage, and the arithmetic is simple (the only operations you have to do are comparison and one subtraction, but for the subtraction you're subtracting a number that's basically constant from a number that's usually slightly larger than it, plus there's an addition for saves but that's a small number + a number on your character sheet), and the roll-in-the-middle system has a certain elegance; you can easily tell at a glance whether you hit your margin of critical failure, or succeeded, critically succeeded, or failed. It has the slight downside that consecutive numbers can be wildly different (critical failure borders success borders critical success borders failure), but that's not much of a downside.

This core mechanic is something I've toyed with for a long time and I really like it.


It does imply a rapid growth power curve where you do outright outgrow lower-level challenges, as in D&D3 (which also implies the need for a bunch of steadily-more-powerful recolors of the same monster, as in wraith/spectre/dread wraith), and also implies that NPC and PC levels are not symmetric (a level 4 NPC watchman forces a level 2 PC thief to roll to sneak past; a level 4 NPC thief forces a level 2 PC watchman to roll to remain alert; a level 4 PC watchman automatically catches a level 2 NPC thief, and a level 4 PC thief automatically eludes a level 2 NPC watchman). I am not sure how much of this is deliberate.

That is deliberate. I believe this advances plays without having to bog it down with too many rolls.

Great stuff from you!