PDA

View Full Version : Worst RPG mechanics - combine them into something worse!



Quertus
2018-01-09, 08:52 AM
Some RPGs feel like the developers had some good ideas, and shoved them together into a game with little thought as to overall coherence.

For this silly little thread, instead take some of the worst rules you've ever heard of, and cobble them together into an unholy Frankenstein.

So, for example, imagine a game with all the options and splat-diving and range of capabilities between builds of 3e D&D*, but with the random character generation of, say, Traveler. So I'm a (roll) plains elf (roll) barbarian (roll) from Myth Dranor (roll) with (roll) unreactive, (roll) dodge and (roll) aberation heritage, trained in (roll) history and (roll) Arcana, and (roll) Kukri? Then I (roll) discovered my Sorcerous blood and (roll) learned True Naming? Well, at least I didn't die during character creation this time.

Next, imagine that actions took heaping piles of rolls to resolve (like 4e D&D skill challenges & padded sumo combat), but with the pile of dice and counting of White Wolf systems, and the failure rate of, say, Warhammer. Plus lots of ever-changing fiddly bits. So, we know from the start that we'll beat this gargoyle eventually, as soon as we accumulate 20 unsoaked damage successes, but I need to roll 7d10, +1 for flanking, -1 for airborne target, +1 for battle blessing, -1 for unfamiliar enemy, +1 for rage, against a difficulty of 6, needing 5 successes to score a hit, then rerool any extra successes, +2 for strength, +1 for my kukri, target number 5 because of rage, and then the gargoyles subtracts from my successes however many successes it gets on its 5d10 soak, +1 because of looking up kukri vs stone in the weapon vs materials table, difficulty 5 because aerial roll with it.

What unholy abominations can y'all dream up by combining horrible mechanics?

* which I personally mostly love

Lord Raziere
2018-01-09, 09:03 AM
Exalted 3e crafting with Mage: the Awakening's paradox rules for magic items.

Cluedrew
2018-01-09, 09:07 AM
Isn't the system that should not be named already this?

Different Resolution Systems: Attack uses some table based hit-rate system like THAC0, most skills use dice pools, except internal skills (like knowledge or magic) which use a percentile dice system and things that center on equipment, like driving and animal skills (broad definition of equipment here) that use a role and keep system.

Anonymouswizard
2018-01-09, 10:32 AM
So, for example, imagine a game with all the options and splat-diving and range of capabilities between builds of 3e D&D*, but with the random character generation of, say, Traveler. So I'm a (roll) plains elf (roll) barbarian (roll) from Myth Dranor (roll) with (roll) unreactive, (roll) dodge and (roll) aberation heritage, trained in (roll) history and (roll) Arcana, and (roll) Kukri? Then I (roll) discovered my Sorcerous blood and (roll) learned True Naming? Well, at least I didn't die during character creation this time.

Next, imagine that actions took heaping piles of rolls to resolve (like 4e D&D skill challenges & padded sumo combat), but with the pile of dice and counting of White Wolf systems, and the failure rate of, say, Warhammer. Plus lots of ever-changing fiddly bits. So, we know from the start that we'll beat this gargoyle eventually, as soon as we accumulate 20 unsoaked damage successes, but I need to roll 7d10, +1 for flanking, -1 for airborne target, +1 for battle blessing, -1 for unfamiliar enemy, +1 for rage, against a difficulty of 6, needing 5 successes to score a hit, then rerool any extra successes, +2 for strength, +1 for my kukri, target number 5 because of rage, and then the gargoyles subtracts from my successes however many successes it gets on its 5d10 soak, +1 because of looking up kukri vs stone in the weapon vs materials table, difficulty 5 because aerial roll with

You haven't been introduced to FATAL I take it? It manages to take random character generation to insanities Traveller can only dream of, and appart from not having the lifepath setup is depressingly similar to what you described. It is of course vital to know how many siblings your character has, what their order in the birth number is, if their birth was legitimate, if they're married, their most and least attractive features, what sexual acts they're willing to perform, their chest size, and so on. All to be rolled randomly, along with their race, age, stats (five each determined by four sub stats, and modified by age), social class, their parent's profession, and so on. You of course get to choose your characters gender, as otherwise you might be saddled with the worst thing of all, playing a woman!

Don't forget you can also randomly generate your head and foot size, as well as the size of your genitals, the infamous anal circumference, and hymen resistance. I mean, I got the authors weren't mature when they refused to use the word penis in the book, but it gets to the point where this obsessive random stat rolling for everything gets ridiculous, in a system more deadly than first level AD&D.

Don't forget the random miscast table, which has a chance of destroying the world (the best result, because you don't have to play FATAL anymore), as well as a chance of summoning randy gay ogres (no word on gender distribution).

Quertus
2018-01-09, 12:28 PM
Exalted 3e crafting with Mage: the Awakening's paradox rules for magic items.

Wait, what? Mage: the Ascension had creating magic items cost you, eh, from 5-100 sessions worth of XP per item created* - and those items couldn't do anything you couldn't do already, so they were worthless to you (but not to other characters). Whereas Exalted (edition?) crafting was the only way to make money in the game. So... How is Mage item creation possibly made worse by adding/using Exalted rules?

* for most of the items I wanted to make, at any rate. Although I did create one-shot "cyst of transformation" for, IIRC, half an XP each.


Isn't the system that should not be named already this?

Different Resolution Systems: Attack uses some table based hit-rate system like THAC0, most skills use dice pools, except internal skills (like knowledge or magic) which use a percentile dice system and things that center on equipment, like driving and animal skills (broad definition of equipment here) that use a role and keep system.


You haven't been introduced to FATAL I take it? It manages to take random character generation to insanities Traveller can only dream of, and appart from not having the lifepath setup is depressingly similar to what you described. It is of course vital to know how many siblings your character has, what their order in the birth number is, if their birth was legitimate, if they're married, their most and least attractive features, what sexual acts they're willing to perform, their chest size, and so on. All to be rolled randomly, along with their race, age, stats (five each determined by four sub stats, and modified by age), social class, their parent's profession, and so on. You of course get to choose your characters gender, as otherwise you might be saddled with the worst thing of all, playing a woman!

Don't forget you can also randomly generate your head and foot size, as well as the size of your genitals, the infamous anal circumference, and hymen resistance. I mean, I got the authors weren't mature when they refused to use the word penis in the book, but it gets to the point where this obsessive random stat rolling for everything gets ridiculous, in a system more deadly than first level AD&D.

Don't forget the random miscast table, which has a chance of destroying the world (the best result, because you don't have to play FATAL anymore), as well as a chance of summoning randy gay ogres (no word on gender distribution).

Are the two of you talking about the same system? If so, that might actually be worse than what we can cobble together, intentionally trying to make a bad game...

Knaight
2018-01-09, 12:40 PM
Are the two of you talking about the same system? If so, that might actually be worse than what we can cobble together, intentionally trying to make a bad game...

It is. They* haven't even touched on the worst aspects of it - the mechanics of FATAL are the best thing about it, not because they're good mechanics in any way (I've never seen worse), but because the rest of it is so incredibly vile as to be worse.

Said mechanics include 20 attributes, each of which is randomly generated by rolling (10d100/5)-1, as a first step. Later steps include taking various averaged for composite attributes, and then going through table after table about how attributes change other attributes. These tables bring up some of the worse aspects of FATAL, which is where you get things like the "Retard Strength" table for getting a strength boost for low values in intelligence. Both of the stats are named a bit differently than that, the table name is verbatim. It's also restrained and inoffensive by FATAL standards, which says nothing good about those standards.

*I don't think the different resolutions post was actually about FATAL, but it still applies to it.

Pex
2018-01-09, 12:47 PM
While taking damage because you are being attacked by a monster with at least three attacks to your one, you want to use a class ability such as cast a spell. To use your class ability you have to spend some of your hit points, taking more damage. After using your ability, for which you may miss the monster if you roll to hit or the monster makes the saving throw or you fail to get through Ability Resistance, you need to roll a die to hit some target number. Failure means you take penalties to game statistics, more hit point damage, and/or the inability to take further actions for at least a round.

All in the name of "balance".

Lalliman
2018-01-09, 01:00 PM
It is of course vital to know how many siblings your character has,
But can you be the 8th of 5 children, as in Ninjas and Superspies?

The atrocity that is FATAL aside (bringing that game up in a discussion about bad mechanics is almost cheating), most Paladium systems (to which the aforementioned Ninjas and Superspies belongs) are also hilariously bad. If you love hearing about bad mechanics, this guy (https://megadumbcast.podbean.com/) did an in-depth analysis of it. It's not technically as bad as FATAL, but it's made much funnier by the fact that the author actually tried, and by the fact that these systems are somehow in use.

Knaight
2018-01-09, 01:09 PM
But can you be the 8th of 5 children, as in Ninjas and Superspies?

The atrocity that is FATAL aside (bringing that game up in a discussion about bad mechanics is almost cheating), most Paladium systems (to which the aforementioned Ninjas and Superspies belongs) are also hilariously bad. If you love hearing about bad mechanics, this guy (https://megadumbcast.podbean.com/) did an in-depth analysis of it. It's not technically as bad as FATAL, but it's made much funnier by the fact that the author actually tried, and by the fact that these systems are somehow in use.

Plus, Megadumbcast is absolutely hilarious.

Cluedrew
2018-01-09, 03:22 PM
To Pex: Of course if we are to capture both sides of that issue, that long, complex and self-hurting subsystem must be more effective than straight forward option. Oh wait that suggests there is a straight forward option. Never mind comment withdrawn. I will tack on: has semi-random and not always helpful effect even when it does work.

To Lalliman: Is there a filter or some pointer to the episodes you are talking about? I'm not sure what ones you mean.

Fumble Rules: Because of course we need fumble rules. And not just any fumble rules, it should combine automatic failure of the task, secondary negative fallout and an occurrence system that either is not effected by your skill or (for bonus points) gets higher as you get better.

Knaight
2018-01-09, 05:02 PM
To Lalliman: Is there a filter or some pointer to the episodes you are talking about? I'm not sure what ones you mean.

Pick an episode, any episde (the first few are a bit thin). The conceit of the show is that every episode analyses one page of Ninjas and Superspies and identifies the dumbest thing on it. Just about every page there's something really dumb.

Anonymouswizard
2018-01-09, 05:09 PM
Are the two of you talking about the same system? If so, that might actually be worse than what we can cobble together, intentionally trying to make a bad game...

Oh, that's not even the worst mechanics in it. There's one roll that requires a million sided dice, and then the infamous quadratic equations (which annoyingly can easily be put so that you just need to do arithmetic, but aren't). Then you get to the fluff, which stops being hilariously bad and just becomes bad.


It is. They* haven't even touched on the worst aspects of it - the mechanics of FATAL are the best thing about it, not because they're good mechanics in any way (I've never seen worse), but because the rest of it is so incredibly vile as to be worse.

Said mechanics include 20 attributes, each of which is randomly generated by rolling (10d100/5)-1, as a first step. Later steps include taking various averaged for composite attributes, and then going through table after table about how attributes change other attributes. These tables bring up some of the worse aspects of FATAL, which is where you get things like the "Retard Strength" table for getting a strength boost for low values in intelligence. Both of the stats are named a bit differently than that, the table name is verbatim. It's also restrained and inoffensive by FATAL standards, which says nothing good about those standards.

*I don't think the different resolutions post was actually about FATAL, but it still applies to it.

Let's be honest, any attempt we make to design a bad game will still be better than FATAL and RaHoWa (opinions vary on which is worse, both have terrible fluff, FATAL has horrific mechanics and RaHoWa has gigantic holes in it's mechanics) purely through succeeding at it's design goal of being a bad game.

Knaight
2018-01-09, 05:18 PM
Oh, that's not even the worst mechanics in it. There's one roll that requires a million sided dice, and then the infamous quadratic equations (which annoyingly can easily be put so that you just need to do arithmetic, but aren't). Then you get to the fluff, which stops being hilariously bad and just becomes bad.
The infamous review is hilarious. The actual source material...not so much. I'd recommend reading the review, and stopping right there.


Let's be honest, any attempt we make to design a bad game will still be better than FATAL and RaHoWa (opinions vary on which is worse, both have terrible fluff, FATAL has horrific mechanics and RaHoWa has gigantic holes in it's mechanics) purely through succeeding at it's design goal of being a bad game.
Plus, I doubt anyone here's best hateful scumbag impression can match the actual belief systems, senses of humor, and points of fascination of the authors of those items. I've got source materials (some real douchebags I've dealt with, trying to keep abreast of extremist jerks, heck, experience playing NPCs who were terrible people as villains), but the sort of research it would take to grok the mindset well enough to ape it just seems deeply unpleasant.

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-09, 05:20 PM
Plus, I doubt anyone here's best hateful scumbag impression can match the actual belief systems, senses of humor, and points of fascination of the authors of those items. I've got source materials (some real douchebags I've dealt with, trying to keep abreast of extremist jerks, heck, experience playing NPCs who were terrible people as villains), but the sort of research it would take to grok the mindset well enough to ape it just seems deeply unpleasant.


Once in a while, it really is better to just use a caricature of a villain and move on. :smalleek:

Cluedrew
2018-01-09, 05:46 PM
To Knaight: (and Lalliman) Might try a few.

I suppose we could have the most socially enlightened RPG with terrible mechanics. (Role for your gender only a much larger than necessary table, and role for your sexuality separately.) ... But somehow I don't think it would be worth the effort... or the irony.

Honest Tiefling
2018-01-09, 06:23 PM
Are the two of you talking about the same system? If so, that might actually be worse than what we can cobble together, intentionally trying to make a bad game...

They are. For a quicker look, An Enemy Spy made a character ("http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?511095-An-Enemy-Spy-Plays-F-A-T-A-L!). I don't think they got any farther than that because 1) forum rules regarding decency 2) their own sanity.

I think combining this with any system would result in pain and misery. Let's do it!

Anonymouswizard
2018-01-10, 04:46 AM
The infamous review is hilarious. The actual source material...not so much. I'd recommend reading the review, and stopping right there.

I have a strange sense of humour, I actually do find the insane rolling hilarious, with the stats optimised for completely average characters in a way even early D&D didn't try to enforce, the fact you have to roll a d1000000 at one point, and the simple fact that the number of skill points you get is based on how much the author likes your randomly generated species.


Plus, I doubt anyone here's best hateful scumbag impression can match the actual belief systems, senses of humor, and points of fascination of the authors of those items. I've got source materials (some real douchebags I've dealt with, trying to keep abreast of extremist jerks, heck, experience playing NPCs who were terrible people as villains), but the sort of research it would take to grok the mindset well enough to ape it just seems deeply unpleasant.

Sure, this is why we'd utterly fail. Sure, we could make a game that it mechanically worse than FATAL, but we couldn't drag the mechanics down through the most offensive fluff anybody could write.


They are. For a quicker look, An Enemy Spy made a character ("http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?511095-An-Enemy-Spy-Plays-F-A-T-A-L!). I don't think they got any farther than that because 1) forum rules regarding decency 2) their own sanity.

I think combining this with any system would result in pain and misery. Let's do it!

Alright, let's start by moving things around.

First roll for your sex on a d100, 1-50 is male, 51-99 is female, and the rare 00 means you're intersex in some fashion. Then roll for your gender, for this we need a big table including male, female, agender, attack helicopter, genderfluid, and other identities. Each sex-gender combination has a percentage chance for your culture to accept that combination, roll it now. While we're at it let's roll our sexuality, we can work out proportions later.

Now roll for your genre. You see we're going one better than FATAL, our game isn't limited to fantasy. Once you've rolled your genre you can then go to the genre species table and roll your species, applying modifiers for sex, gender, and sexuality. Then roll for your height and weight, as this will provide modifiers to your physical stats.

Now we can roll our stats, the formula is to roll one of every polyhedral die in a standard D&D set and take the average (or (1d4+1d6+1d8+1d10+1d12)/6). Don't forget to apply modifiers for height, weight, and species. Next roll for your age according to your species, and apply the percentile modifier for your species. If you rolled elf I hope you have a ten thousand sided die.

Now we need to give this character their classes. Of course, why limit ourselves to ideas from one system, every class is Gesalt! (http://irolledazero.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/classes-in-sue-system.html) This means that you first have to roll on the upbringing table, to determine the base benefits that every year of life has brought you. Don't apply them yet though, because you then have to take your genre, find the correct professions table, roll on it and apply the modifiers for your species, upbringing, and stats. Then for each year of your life roll on the profession's d% events table to discover what happened (remember to apply any modifiers!), which will then send you to the correct skills table to roll on twice, once with your skill die from your species and once with your skill die from your upbringing, to generate two skills your character improved this year. Also make note of any equipment you get from events, as this is free. Finally, once you have generated your starting skills, roll the listed money dice for your upbringing and profession to determine how much you have to spend on additional equipment.

That's me done with character creation for today. I will note that the profession events tables can cause you to change professions, because of course they can.

Ignimortis
2018-01-10, 04:52 AM
Add VtM Humanity into the mix. Roll for it every time you do something that can remotely resemble anything on the hierarchy of sins. Disallow Paths of Enlightenment.

Cosi
2018-01-10, 08:09 AM
I think mechanics that are offensive are distinct from mechanics that are bad. You can make an arbitrarily bad game by layering on references to increasingly taboo or disturbing topics (for the sake of good taste, I would avoid actually doing that, but you can -- see FATAL). But that's not really mechanically bad. Yes, FATAL has you roll for stuff that is dumb and offensive and not something you want to talk about with your friends. But the ultimate result of that is just that you have a bunch of extra stats with stupid names and minimal relevance. The roleplaying implications are bad, but it's easy to get something just as bad (if not worse) on that front with less work. For example, you could have a random heroic backstory table that gave each first level character a direct oppositional relationship with an epic level NPC (and also determined things like their family status, gender, and life story).

Knaight
2018-01-10, 10:37 PM
I think mechanics that are offensive are distinct from mechanics that are bad. You can make an arbitrarily bad game by layering on references to increasingly taboo or disturbing topics (for the sake of good taste, I would avoid actually doing that, but you can -- see FATAL). But that's not really mechanically bad.

FATAL is infamous for having both. Attribute generation by rolling 10d100/5-1 twenty times as the first of several steps is a bad mechanic all by its lonesome. "Retard strength" makes it worse.

Guizonde
2018-01-10, 10:56 PM
FATAL is infamous for having both. Attribute generation by rolling 10d100/5-1 twenty times as the first of several steps is a bad mechanic all by its lonesome. "Retard strength" makes it worse.

with the exception of exploding dice (which i like), i find having to roll many dice one after the other a poor mechanic. it's ok with d100's, but in dnd it got brutally annoying. d20 for this, d20 again to confirm, d8 +d6 + modifier for that, add in a d4 because the dm forgot my character had a bonus...

one example that i'll never live down was turning undead in dnd 3.5... i swear, when you start with the channeling of pf, turning undead takes ages to get used to. that said, i think i remember reading that the original dnd 3.0 rules were changed because turn undead was even more unpleasant and was frequently houseruled on these boards.

Anymage
2018-01-10, 11:02 PM
Ripping on FATAL will almost inevitably lead to ripping on its more board unsafe issues, which in turn tends to get topics closed. Plus, densely packed singularities of badness tend not to allow broader discussion as to rule ideas that are specifically bad wherever they pop up.

Some of my favorite bad rules actually popped up in some of the earlier White Wolf supplements. Both oddly specific merits that had no direct connection to what should be obviously associated game traits (you had to spend build points to own a mansion, but there was no necessary tie between the "owns a mansion" merit and the "how rich are you" background trait), and oddly specific skills being regularly brought out. It's a reasonable assumption that if a skill exists in a game but you don't have said skill on your character sheet, you're unskilled at doing that task. If skills like "research", "botany" and "history" all exist, they carve out space (and eat up build resources) that used to be bundled under "academics".

The only remotely modern gameline to still use oddly specific skills combined with a limited number of lifetime skill picks is, unsurprisingly. the palladium line.

Eldan
2018-01-11, 03:56 AM
Exalted 3e crafting with Mage: the Awakening's paradox rules for magic items.

You monster.

Lord Raziere
2018-01-11, 04:02 AM
You monster.

Yup. you spend all that time doing pointless crafting on things you don't want to get silver points to get gold points until you can get an artifact weapon to try and use- only for using it to make all its magic disappear from people seeing the magic you worked so hard to craft.

Eldan
2018-01-11, 04:16 AM
And then you get time-fragged by narcissists. Just because.

Guizonde
2018-01-11, 06:50 AM
ok, so sleep really does bring counsel, it seems. i just thought up something that made my wargaming days shiver in horror.

dice pool mechanics with multiple dice types. my friend always ragged on shadowrun due to certain builds needing to roll 12+ d6's for attacks or evasion (something about an elf street sam? it was a long time ago). now imagine that you get a 12d6 pool, on 4+ you roll d8's for beating dr, on 3 or less you roll d4's and add the total each time. naturally, this would be an opposed roll versus successes achieved by both sides. exploding dice mechanics are in full effect, allowing you to stack and reroll successes with no hard cap. this would get very tiresome very fast, methinks.

this is in direct response to quertus' original thread idea. it's clunky, it's slow, it serves probably very little mechanical purpose, and even if you like rolling dice, bookkeeping will become a nightmare without at least some loose-leaf paper. i've never used roll20, but i don't know if roll20 would even allow that.

Knaight
2018-01-11, 01:12 PM
One of the worst mechanics I've ever seen was a needlessly convoluted way of doing something simpler. In this case it was a luck roll that was basically flipping a coin (technically the success odds were 50.5%).

This luck roll was handled with two sequential d100 rolls. The first one was rolled, and set the difficulty for the second one. Then the second one was rolled to determine success or failure. Unless that 0.5% chance was supposed to actually matter you could literally just flip a coin. The principle behind this, specifically making needlessly convoluted ways of doing something similar that are also relatively opaque in terms of probability (mathematical intuition will get you 50%, which is close, but that 50.5% involved being decent with summations) could be widely applied. Even the specifics of the double roll could be applied elsewhere, although most of the time doing that without warping the probability in actually meaningful ways will be tricky.

Lalliman
2018-01-12, 05:56 AM
In addition to needlessly-specific skills, I like the idea of having stats that are so specific that you can't intuitively determine the difference. I used to run a homebrew system that had Dexterity and Agility as separate stats. It worked well, but it took some explaining before the players could consistently figure out which applied to what.

Now imagine having Agility, Dexterity, Swiftness and Nimbleness all as separate stats on your sheet.

Agility is your full body coordination.
Dexterity is your fine motor skills.
Swiftness is the speed at which you can move your body.
Nimbleness is the flexibility of your body.

Naturally, these different stats apply to different things, but also commonly overlap. You use Dexterity and Swiftness for attacking, but Agility and Swiftness for dodging. You use Agility and Nimbleness for climbing, in addition to one of the several strength-like stats. Sneaking uses Agility and Dexterity, and doing a back flip uses Agility, Swiftness and Nimbleness.

Then you just add your highly-specific skill bonus from one or multiple sources, and you're good to go.

RazorChain
2018-01-12, 06:27 AM
In addition to needlessly-specific skills, I like the idea of having stats that are so specific that you can't intuitively determine the difference. I used to run a homebrew system that had Dexterity and Agility as separate stats. It worked well, but it took some explaining before the players could consistently figure out which applied to what.

Now imagine having Agility, Dexterity, Swiftness and Nimbleness all as separate stats on your sheet.

Agility is your full body coordination.
Dexterity is your fine motor skills.
Swiftness is the speed at which you can move your body.
Nimbleness is the flexibility of your body.

Naturally, these different stats apply to different things, but also commonly overlap. You use Dexterity and Swiftness for attacking, but Agility and Swiftness for dodging. You use Agility and Nimbleness for climbing, in addition to one of the several strength-like stats. Sneaking uses Agility and Dexterity, and doing a back flip uses Agility, Swiftness and Nimbleness.

Then you just add your highly-specific skill bonus from one or multiple sources, and you're good to go.

I think you can do better

Agility
Coordination
Dexterity
Manual Dexterity
Nimbleness
Swiftness
Speed
Reflexes

Then you explain in very vague terms what's the difference between the stats.

Florian
2018-01-12, 06:51 AM
Well, ok, challenge accepted. This is based on a game system that I actually own the core rules and tries to marry the swingyness of SaWo with the precision of FATE aspects.

Scripten
2018-01-12, 10:02 AM
I think you can do better

Agility
Coordination
Dexterity
Manual Dexterity
Nimbleness
Swiftness
Speed
Reflexes

Then you explain in very vague terms what's the difference between the stats.

Even better, make the skill system "gestalt" (and make sure you use the term as much as possible) and force the player to put together several of the skills for every single action they need to take. Oh, and make levels in each skill affect the levels in other skills so that when one changes, the rest also change. If they aren't taking three or more passes through their character sheet when they level, you aren't trying hard enough.

Quertus
2018-01-12, 10:11 AM
dice pool mechanics with multiple dice types. my friend always ragged on shadowrun due to certain builds needing to roll 12+ d6's for attacks or evasion (something about an elf street sam? it was a long time ago). now imagine that you get a 12d6 pool, on 4+ you roll d8's for beating dr, on 3 or less you roll d4's and add the total each time. naturally, this would be an opposed roll versus successes achieved by both sides. exploding dice mechanics are in full effect, allowing you to stack and reroll successes with no hard cap. this would get very tiresome very fast, methinks.

this is in direct response to quertus' original thread idea. it's clunky, it's slow, it serves probably very little mechanical purpose, and even if you like rolling dice, bookkeeping will become a nightmare without at least some loose-leaf paper. i've never used roll20, but i don't know if roll20 would even allow that.

Ok, let me get this straight - you need to own fistfulls of multiple dice types, and record the results of your massive exploding rolls vs similarly horrible opposed rolls? You monster.


One of the worst mechanics I've ever seen was a needlessly convoluted way of doing something simpler. In this case it was a luck roll that was basically flipping a coin (technically the success odds were 50.5%).

This luck roll was handled with two sequential d100 rolls. The first one was rolled, and set the difficulty for the second one. Then the second one was rolled to determine success or failure. Unless that 0.5% chance was supposed to actually matter you could literally just flip a coin. The principle behind this, specifically making needlessly convoluted ways of doing something similar that are also relatively opaque in terms of probability (mathematical intuition will get you 50%, which is close, but that 50.5% involved being decent with summations) could be widely applied. Even the specifics of the double roll could be applied elsewhere, although most of the time doing that without warping the probability in actually meaningful ways will be tricky.

I will say, this mechanic seems to remove the bias of weighted coins / dice. Although a d100 that always rolls 42 will always win...


In addition to needlessly-specific skills, I like the idea of having stats that are so specific that you can't intuitively determine the difference. I used to run a homebrew system that had Dexterity and Agility as separate stats. It worked well, but it took some explaining before the players could consistently figure out which applied to what.

Now imagine having Agility, Dexterity, Swiftness and Nimbleness all as separate stats on your sheet.

Agility is your full body coordination.
Dexterity is your fine motor skills.
Swiftness is the speed at which you can move your body.
Nimbleness is the flexibility of your body.

Naturally, these different stats apply to different things, but also commonly overlap. You use Dexterity and Swiftness for attacking, but Agility and Swiftness for dodging. You use Agility and Nimbleness for climbing, in addition to one of the several strength-like stats. Sneaking uses Agility and Dexterity, and doing a back flip uses Agility, Swiftness and Nimbleness.

Then you just add your highly-specific skill bonus from one or multiple sources, and you're good to go.

Ah, yes, the "mother may I" add this and this and this and this fiddly bit...


Well, ok, challenge accepted. This is based on a game system that I actually own the core rules and tries to marry the swingyness of SaWo with the precision of FATE aspects.

While I wait on the horrifying results, what's SaWo?

Eldan
2018-01-12, 10:19 AM
Even better, make the skill system "gestalt" (and make sure you use the term as much as possible) and force the player to put together several of the skills for every single action they need to take. Oh, and make levels in each skill affect the levels in other skills so that when one changes, the rest also change. If they aren't taking three or more passes through their character sheet when they level, you aren't trying hard enough.

Oh, you mean The Dark Eye? :smalltongue: (Skill checks in the dark eye are done by rolling three different attributes each against the same DC, so every check is 3d20 and you need all three to succeed.)

Scripten
2018-01-12, 11:37 AM
Oh, you mean The Dark Eye? :smalltongue: (Skill checks in the dark eye are done by rolling three different attributes each against the same DC, so every check is 3d20 and you need all three to succeed.)

That's pretty good, but let's go one step beyond and make the player calculate their own DC based off of which skills are rolled. So if you need to use skill A and skill B for a task, you would base the DC on the bonuses each of those skills give you. That way, no matter what you do to increase those bonuses, you'll never actually get better at anything. Oh, and the higher your skill bonuses, the more other skills you need to add to the skill roll.

Just because.

Florian
2018-01-12, 12:32 PM
While I wait on the horrifying results, what's SaWo?

The Savage Worlds game system.

Similar to the earlier Earthdawn game system, this system uses dice instead of skill ranks. So a rookie skill would be 1d4, while a proven crack uses 1d12 for it. Now it also uses an "exploding dice" mechanic and mostly fixed target numbers, so do the math and you'll find the flaw here, as itīs often better to be "lucky than good".

Combine that with an Aspect-based system like FATE, but with the rolls governing how "true" the aspects work.

What you get is your "Quertus" being a tactical genius out of sheer luck (Small Unit Tactics 1d4) with pretty lackluster performance as an actual archmage (Arcana 1d12+2).

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-12, 12:43 PM
The Savage Worlds game system.

Similar to the earlier Earthdawn game system, this system uses dice instead of skill ranks. So a rookie skill would be 1d4, while a proven crack uses 1d12 for it. Now it also uses an "exploding dice" mechanic and mostly fixed target numbers, so do the math and you'll find the flaw here, as itīs often better to be "lucky than good".

Combine that with an Aspect-based system like FATE, but with the rolls governing how "true" the aspects work.

What you get is your "Quertus" being a tactical genius out of sheer luck (Small Unit Tactics 1d4) with pretty lackluster performance as an actual archmage (Arcana 1d12+2).


I sometimes get the sense that developers fell in love with a dice system they thought was unique, cool, and/or fun, and didn't let the nitty-gritty "boring" mathematical effects get in the way of running with it.

Florian
2018-01-12, 03:12 PM
I sometimes get the sense that developers fell in love with a dice system they thought was unique, cool, and/or fun, and didn't let the nitty-gritty "boring" mathematical effects get in the way of running with it.

Itīs sad, yes. Trying to create a "system" instead of offering a bunch of "rulings" should be based on actually having a clue on what and how to model and at least having a grip on probabilities.

Knaight
2018-01-12, 03:28 PM
I sometimes get the sense that developers fell in love with a dice system they thought was unique, cool, and/or fun, and didn't let the nitty-gritty "boring" mathematical effects get in the way of running with it.

If you actually run the numbers for SW the basic skill resolution works fine. It's a pretty straightforward arithmetic sum for average dice behaviors, and increasing die size does still increase output with exploding dice.

Florian
2018-01-12, 03:46 PM
If you actually run the numbers for SW the basic skill resolution works fine. It's a pretty straightforward arithmetic sum for average dice behaviors, and increasing die size does still increase output with exploding dice.

The problem is less the escalating dice than the fixed DCs.

DrMartin
2018-01-12, 05:15 PM
Good or interesting games can have very bad rules too. Let's make a horrible cocktail:

Enforce random generation of race and class with glaring disparities between the good and bad options, and no "consolation prize" or point-buy equivalent to balance things - so one player gets to play a Noble Superior Magical Elf of Doom with Demon Lackeys and Killer Looks, and another at the same table a One Legged, One Armed Halfling Beggar with Scurvy. Inspiration: Stormbringer

(For bonus points, some character options aren't just weaker, but have glaringly obvious built-in flaws, like a race so vulnerable to magic that has to roll a saving throw whenever is exposed to any kind of magic effect, to avoid being transformed into non sentient jelly. This of course in a world littered with magic and naturally occurring magical phenomena. Inspiration: the animal people from Feng Shui 2)

Combine this with some PvP undertones like you get xp only for killing monsters, and xp is not split among the party, but awarded entirely to the character dealing the killing blow. Inspiration: Diablo 1

Add some sprinkles of misery like an incredibly slow experience progression and completely nonviable character paths (which, again, you didn't pick, but were given to you randomly at creation). Inspiration: Chtulutech

Guizonde
2018-01-12, 06:31 PM
Ok, let me get this straight - you need to own fistfulls of multiple dice types, and record the results of your massive exploding rolls vs similarly horrible opposed rolls? You monster.


thank you. i may like exploding dice, but i'm kind of cursed with awesome with them. outside of d100, i'll rage quit and i know it. that said, i can't imagine a clunkier mechanic than what i've come up with for something that should objectively be clean, pretty, reliable, and fast.

star wars: edge of the empire kind of did that dice pool vs dice pool thing, but had a hard cap at 6 dice (and routinely used 4 or less). it may've been a bit clunky, but seeing how you only had 3 results possible, it was fast to roll.

some kind of cthulu system however does use multiple dice to resolve actions in a way that makes dnd seem fluid and easy to grasp. the inspiration came from there. i can't remember the system, since a friend homebrewed an scp intrigue with it, but yeah: d100 + accuracy bonus to hit, d20 for proficiency, opposed to a d100 dodge, add to that a d12 for a shotgun blast, plus d6 or d4 extra for the part hit (based on armor worn). it's kind of intuitive but it's slow.

Anonymouswizard
2018-01-13, 02:45 AM
d% dive pools. Imagine having to colour code 8+ sets of d% just so you can count successes.

DrMartin
2018-01-13, 02:53 AM
d% dive pools. Imagine having to colour code 8+ sets of d% just so you can count successes.

Have this kind of dice rolling be used only for a certain sub-system, and have this sub-system be grossly overpowered compared to the rest of the game.

Have a sidebar calling out that the pain in the neck necessary to use the sub-system is designed as the balancing factor.

Knaight
2018-01-13, 03:16 AM
d% dive pools. Imagine having to colour code 8+ sets of d% just so you can count successes.

That could be fun. The d% is too convenient though, and can be made tricky. As for how:

Essentially a d100, d1000, d10000 or whatever is made by setting each die as a base, and using d10s matches up with the standard base 10. Technically this isn't necessary - you could use d8s with a base 8 system, and reading in base eight using 2d8 get a d64.

Where this gets really fun is in that base not needing to be constant. As long as the base in use for a given die is represented by the previous die, you can cover the whole range, which superficially looks pretty in a way the d66 (which is actually a d36 which sporadically covers some numbers in the 11-66 range) doesn't.

Now, using a wide variety of polyhedrals is fun, right? D&D, Cortex, Savage Worlds, they all seem to think so. So we'll take the common set of the d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, and d20. Stringing all of them together makes a d460800, which can generate all of the numbers from 1 to 460800.

Specifically, you have (1d4-1)*115200+(1d6-1)*19200+(1d8-1)*2400*(1d10-1)*240+(1d12-1)*20+1d20, where all max numbers counts as 460800 instead of zeros.

Then you use these as a dice pool system, where you change the difficulty by changing both the number of successes needed, and the number you need to succeed, which can vary from 2 to 460800.

EDIT: It wouldn't be that hard to mix exploding dice into there at every step, for extra fun.

lesser_minion
2018-01-13, 04:23 PM
Specifically, you have (1d4-1)*115200+(1d6-1)*19200+(1d8-1)*2400*(1d10-1)*240+(1d12-1)*20+1d20, where all max numbers counts as 460800 instead of zeros.

I think you mean all zeroes (or all natural 1s), right?

Doesn't this have the problem that success or failure will usually have been decided by one of the first dice rolls, so if you use it in a dice pool system as proposed, most of the rolls will get "early exited"?

Another route might be to combine this with something like the skill checks from Das Schwarze Auge/The Dark Eye rather than dice pools. So you get to roll d460800 for a roll-under attribute check, then repeat the process however many times (DSA always sets it at three, but we can always be more creative than that), each time either succeeding or expending a number of skill points to convert the outcome to a success.

Of course, that still permits early exit. I think Trail of Cthulhu has a mechanic where you expend skill points, but they stay expended for more than one skill check instead of getting them all back the next time you use the same skill.

So we'll impose a skill point cost on a success in one of the attribute checks, equal to the natural result of the dice roll, with an additional skill point cost to modify the result if needed, and invent a suitably fun mechanic for determining how many expended skill points you get back at the end.

This ensures that the entire result is always important for all checks, even where a binary success/failure check would be appropriate, thus ensuring that players cannot optimise all the fun out.


One of the worst mechanics I've ever seen was a needlessly convoluted way of doing something simpler. In this case it was a luck roll that was basically flipping a coin (technically the success odds were 50.5%).

This luck roll was handled with two sequential d100 rolls. The first one was rolled, and set the difficulty for the second one. Then the second one was rolled to determine success or failure. Unless that 0.5% chance was supposed to actually matter you could literally just flip a coin. The principle behind this, specifically making needlessly convoluted ways of doing something similar that are also relatively opaque in terms of probability (mathematical intuition will get you 50%, which is close, but that 50.5% involved being decent with summations) could be widely applied. Even the specifics of the double roll could be applied elsewhere, although most of the time doing that without warping the probability in actually meaningful ways will be tricky.

I remember hearing that that was a Synnibar thing: https://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/classic/rev_4762.phtml

Knaight
2018-01-13, 04:51 PM
I think you mean all zeroes (or all natural 1s), right?

Doesn't this have the problem that success or failure will usually have been decided by one of the first dice rolls, so if you use it in a dice pool system as proposed, most of the rolls will get "early exited"?

I do mean all 1s, yes. It's the minimum that's supposed to loop.

Also you roll it backwards, from d20 down. There's no early exit here.

I do like the DSA technique though, particularly because having skills in the hundreds of thousands has the potential to be amazing. As for getting those skill points back, I don't think it's unreasonable to have a roll between current and max skill d460800 every time you use the skill, where if you succeed you set remaining skill points to the new roll, and if you fail you ignore it.

Now, as for how you get those skills originally - something like just splitting 50 million points between skills seems too straightforward. I'm thinking a life path system, where each life path corresponds to a month of the character's life.

Anonymouswizard
2018-01-13, 05:19 PM
An entire month? Surely we spills be going hour by hour, inflicting penalties for not spending enough hours asleep.

I suppose if we want this playable we should go day by day, with the choice to focus on working hard, relaxing, or mixing the two. Or maybe each day has three slots, and you start to penalties to take rolls if you don't make one of the periods sleep.


As another one, a magic system where magical power is tied directly to the number of legitimate children you have. Bastards actively subtract from power until legitimised. Power gain or loss begins at the moment of conception and increases in a linear fashion until birth.

lesser_minion
2018-01-13, 05:36 PM
Now, as for how you get those skills originally - something like just splitting 50 million points between skills seems too straightforward. I'm thinking a life path system, where each life path corresponds to a month of the character's life.

Apart from the larger numbers, that's not too far from the full version of Ars Magica 5th edition's character creation, where you have to decide every season what you did and what the consequences were. Can we work the curse of the pink dot in as well, once we get to the magic/mecha/whatever system?

Tiadoppler
2018-01-13, 05:53 PM
I think you can do better

Agility
Coordination
Dexterity
Manual Dexterity
Nimbleness
Swiftness
Speed
Reflexes

Then you explain in very vague terms what's the difference between the stats.

Instead, how about giving separate speed, strength, angles of rotation and dexterity values for each joint? Some people have stronger right arms than left, or vice versa, and leg stats should affect speed and balance more than arm stats. If someone has lost a finger, they need to compensate when using a bow. Isn't this system supposed to simulationist??

When you make a specific stat check, where the stat has value N, you role 1dN. So if you've got a Intelligence of 12, you role 1d12. If you've got a Charisma of 20, you role 1d20. It sounds perfect! And when you have a wisdom of 17, you role 1d17!

lesser_minion
2018-01-13, 06:15 PM
When you make a specific stat check, where the stat has value N, you role 1dN. So if you've got a Intelligence of 12, you role 1d12. If you've got a Charisma of 20, you role 1d20. It sounds perfect! And when you have a wisdom of 17, you role 1d17!

So, Synnibar had a mechanic where you roll a d100 to determine what the percentage chance of something happening would be. How about rolling a die to determine how many sides the die you roll to get the actual outcome should have?

So instead of rolling 1dN for your stat check, make it N - 1d(1dN). If you've got a Charisma of 20, your charisma check is 20 - 1d(1d20), so if you roll a 13 on your d20, then you roll 20-1d13 for your check; and if you roll a 9 then you get to roll 20-1d9.

Although interestingly, this could be used legitimately, at least if you're rolling your dice electronically -- 1d(d12) can produce any result that a d12 could produce, but the expected value is only 3.75 (half that of a d14).

Also, dice with weird numbers of sides aren't impossible or unheard of -- Wikipedia says that 34-sided dice are an actual thing, as are "rolling pin dice".

Tiadoppler
2018-01-13, 07:06 PM
Although interestingly, this could be used legitimately, at least if you're rolling your dice electronically -- 1d(d12) can produce any result that a d12 could produce, but will be more likely to produce a lower number.

And while traditional dice rely on particular shapes, you can also extrude a regular polygon into a prism to get dice with unusual numbers of sides.

I'd say that any RPG mechanic that relies on the player extruding regular polygons at the table is a bad RPG mechanic. The idea isn't bad in and of itself, but it basically requires electronic dice rolling.

How about a real time tabletop RPG system, where players can announce actions and rolls simultaneously, while the GM determines results dynamically! We can finally be free of the tyranny of turns and artificial action restraints.

lesser_minion
2018-01-13, 07:20 PM
I'd say that any RPG mechanic that relies on the player extruding regular polygons at the table is a bad RPG mechanic. The idea isn't bad in and of itself, but it basically requires electronic dice rolling.

Well, you'd presumably have them all sorted out in advance, just like any other die type (aside from being a pain in the arse to procure). In addition to extruding regular polygons, the tricks we used to make d10s will actually work for almost any other number, in theory at least.

But you're right that this sort of mechanic is probably best left to the machines.


How about a real time tabletop RPG system, where players can announce actions and rolls simultaneously, while the GM determines results dynamically! We can finally be free of the tyranny of turns and artificial action restraints.

I think the Schlock Mercenary RPG already does that in part (initiative goes to whoever announces an action first).

gooddragon1
2018-01-13, 07:26 PM
Am I late to the party Richter?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f6/Psionics_Handbook_coverthumb.jpg/220px-Psionics_Handbook_coverthumb.jpg

3.0 psionics attack and defense modes for everyone (except the boss encounters who get them for free, but we don't want players accidentally missing out on the fun by choosing a monster with a level adjustment do we?).

Quertus
2018-01-14, 12:29 PM
Y'all are taking this thread even more seriously than I expected. I'm amazed by the efforts I've seen here.


3.0 psionics attack and defense modes for everyone (except the boss encounters who get them for free, but we don't want players accidentally missing out on the fun by choosing a monster with a level adjustment do we?).

I'm mildly confused by your intent. I'm now imagining a separate minigame of overly complex rock scissors paper to determine who gets advantage in any given situation, replayed on a round-by-round basis.

And, if this uses a finite resource, it discourages the PCs from interacting with the environment too much, else they run out of resources to spend.

It subtly forces the players to stay on the rails, and just let the GM read the story to them.

But what had you meant to do with this mechanic?

Quertus
2018-01-14, 12:43 PM
I will say, this mechanic seems to remove the bias of weighted coins / dice. Although a d100 that always rolls 42 will always win...

Given That this was a luck roll, would it be wrong of me to point out that a die that always rolled 69 meant you always got lucky?


What you get is your "Quertus" being a tactical genius out of sheer luck (Small Unit Tactics 1d4) with pretty lackluster performance as an actual archmage (Arcana 1d12+2).

Can't say I'm a fan of that resolution mechanic. Especially when you put it that way.


The problem is less the escalating dice than the fixed DCs.

... How are fixed DCs a problem?


Now, as for how you get those skills originally - something like just splitting 50 million points between skills seems too straightforward. I'm thinking a life path system, where each life path corresponds to a month of the character's life.

Yes, random life path generating your skills is the way to go. But how about adding in a complex skill system, where you don't actually learn the skills unless you meet the prereqs, to properly simulate how different people don't always take away the same thing from a given event?


As another one, a magic system where magical power is tied directly to the number of legitimate children you have. Bastards actively subtract from power until legitimised. Power gain or loss begins at the moment of conception and increases in a linear fashion until birth.

So, huge patriarchal families of incestuous polygamy become the magical ruling class? Who implement Prima Nocta, of course.


Can we work the curse of the pink dot in as well, once we get to the magic/mecha/whatever system?

And what is the curse of the pink dot?

Jormengand
2018-01-14, 01:09 PM
I think that if you want something to be truly awful, you have to make it look like a game that someone might actually want to play, and then disappoint them (this was the design philosophy behind the doombringer champion (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?542772-Making-an-innocuously-terrible-class)). So rolling 1d10000 for the size of some body part you'd rather not think of is far too obvious. Mechanics need to look good on paper but actually fail in practice - for example, skill systems that don't define what "Easy" or "Hard" means well enough to use, leading to massive arguments in play that don't look like the game designer's fault.

Quertus
2018-01-14, 02:12 PM
I think that if you want something to be truly awful, you have to make it look like a game that someone might actually want to play, and then disappoint them (this was the design philosophy behind the doombringer champion (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?542772-Making-an-innocuously-terrible-class)). So rolling 1d10000 for the size of some body part you'd rather not think of is far too obvious. Mechanics need to look good on paper but actually fail in practice - for example, skill systems that don't define what "Easy" or "Hard" means well enough to use, leading to massive arguments in play that don't look like the game designer's fault.

Ok, taken individually, things like random life path, skill trees, prerequisites, combining multiple stats / skills for rolls, dice pools, opposed rolls, multi-step rolls, and exploding dice are all things existing games do. Where would you draw the line here?

Florian
2018-01-14, 02:13 PM
... How are fixed DCs a problem?

Using the "dice step" mechanic to represent skill, when not having a talent that gives a static bonus, a roll will always generate a range of results starting with a "1". Even at the high epic skill level of 1d12+2, you still have a chance to fail at the standard DC of 4.

Lord Raziere
2018-01-14, 03:30 PM
I think that if you want something to be truly awful, you have to make it look like a game that someone might actually want to play, and then disappoint them (this was the design philosophy behind the doombringer champion (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?542772-Making-an-innocuously-terrible-class)). So rolling 1d10000 for the size of some body part you'd rather not think of is far too obvious. Mechanics need to look good on paper but actually fail in practice - for example, skill systems that don't define what "Easy" or "Hard" means well enough to use, leading to massive arguments in play that don't look like the game designer's fault.

Ok.

Dnd 3.5 alignment system plus Exalted 2e virtue system

DnD 3.5 class system plus Homestuck's Classpect system.

lesser_minion
2018-01-14, 04:04 PM
And what is the curse of the pink dot?

The curse of the pink dot is a theoretical exploit under the 5th edition Ars Magica rules for magic resistance. Basically, you could cast any spell on an enemy's weapon and it would have the side effect of making all attacks with the weapon bounce off of your magic resistance, even though such a side effect is actually more effective than most curses you could attempt to apply to the weapon. There's a FAQ discussing it here: https://web.archive.org/web/20071227050753/http://redcap.org:80/FAQ/FAQ2.html#parma_loopholes (interestingly, it looks like they knowingly included this because they suspected that a different formulation of the magic resistance rules could result in worse).

If we're bringing up questionable mechanics from Ars Magica, there's also 4th edition encumbrance rules, which were so crippling that a knight could actually be at his most dangerous and hardest to kill while stripped naked and armed with a stick.

If we also need catastrophic flaws that fly under the radar, as suggested by Jormengand, both of these are actually pretty decent candidates -- +12 to soak at the cost of -6 to initiative, attack, defence, and combat fatigue sounds better if you haven't realised that the defence penalty, in addition to meaning that you get hit way more often, means that you'll take an extra six points of damage from any attack that would have still hit you without the armour.

Jormengand
2018-01-14, 04:24 PM
Ok, taken individually, things like random life path, skill trees, prerequisites, combining multiple stats / skills for rolls, dice pools, opposed rolls, multi-step rolls, and exploding dice are all things existing games do. Where would you draw the line here?

There's nothing wrong with any of those except for maybe multi-step rolls (though I don't think attack-damage is necessarily bad) unless they're used irresponsibly. And the trick is to use them irresponsibly while making them look responsible.

Anonymouswizard
2018-01-14, 04:34 PM
Using the "dice step" mechanic to represent skill, when not having a talent that gives a static bonus, a roll will always generate a range of results starting with a "1". Even at the high epic skill level of 1d12+2, you still have a chance to fail at the standard DC of 4.

This is more a style difference, some of us like that a chance of failure remains (and remember that PCs get a Wild Die, so the chance of failure is halved). It's one of the only things I like about Savage Worlds and one I'm considering streaking for a game of my own (which would go light on the Edges, and checks would involve rolling the due for the appropriate Attribute and Skill and using the higher).


How about instead of having a hp pool we record damage to each individual limb. Not in a nice 'four limbs, head, and torso' system, let's use the GURPS version. The eyes are a separate hit location, as is the groin, the torso is divided in two, you can take damage to the brain without damage to the head, and so on.

Also, like many bad games, we should insist it's realistic. Do we want to try building a ridiculous bibliography to go along with it?

lesser_minion
2018-01-14, 05:10 PM
There's nothing wrong with any of those except for maybe multi-step rolls (though I don't think attack-damage is necessarily bad) unless they're used irresponsibly. And the trick is to use them irresponsibly while making them look responsible.

I'm inclined to agree that making terrible mechanics that "fly under the radar" is more challenging than just mashing together bad mechanics from the FATAL and Synnibar tiers of RPG.

So far, I've got ArM4e encumbrance, and I guess we can include ArM4e's paper cuts rule or something similar (first paper cut = "hurt", second paper cut = "light wound", third paper cut = "moderate wound", fourth paper cut = "heavy wound", fifth paper cut = "incapacitated", sixth paper cut = "dead").

Cluedrew
2018-01-14, 05:21 PM
[...] most Paladium systems (to which the aforementioned Ninjas and Superspies belongs) are also hilariously bad. If you love hearing about bad mechanics, this guy (https://megadumbcast.podbean.com/) did an in-depth analysis of it.{Multiple days of continuous laugher.} I would second any recommendations for this that were given. I went all the way back to the start and went through all of season 1. And it was amazing. I will now be looking for excuses to refer to the inner ear as the shin bone of the head. Actually gave me a thread idea which you might see soon.

Jormengand
2018-01-14, 05:23 PM
Oh, and whatever you do, make sure that any turn has a high chance to be wasted - borrow D&D-style rules for readying equipment so if someone charges at you with sword drawn, you have to waste an entire turn getting your own sword ready. Make sure that combat is never more involved than rolling dice at each other until one or the other of you keels over, especially if your combat effectiveness diminishes with injuries but your defences don't, so you eventually either have a death spiral or two people trying to kill each other until the end of days. Make sure that PCs always have a chance to fail at their day job. Encourage multiple rolls in a way that makes sneaking past three guards or climbing up a tall enough cliff doomed to failure. Make sure that all the abilities have ill-defined effects: don't have any rules for being prone but have spells knock enemies off their feet, for example.

Anonymouswizard
2018-01-14, 05:40 PM
Rules for the four humors! As in you have Blood, Black Bile, Yellow Bile, and Phlegm stats that can raise or lower independently, and if they can't be kept balanced then characters start having negative effects.

Why is it a horrible mechanic? Because despite being rather simple it's easy to forget to track, but can be related to several subsystems (including potentially having, especially if you have low Blood) and is needlessly complex compared to just noting I'd your character is sick.

Sure, messing with humors in a medieval game is a fun bit of flavour, but only because it doesn't Mayer rules wise how you're curing a disease.

Arbane
2018-01-16, 01:56 AM
Using the "dice step" mechanic to represent skill, when not having a talent that gives a static bonus, a roll will always generate a range of results starting with a "1". Even at the high epic skill level of 1d12+2, you still have a chance to fail at the standard DC of 4.

If people are rolling dice, they WANT to fail occasionally.

Things this hypothetical system needs like another hole in its head:
Phoenix Command's damage system - I need to know exactly WHERE your spleen was perforated by that bullet!

The magic system has to use Pathfinder's Sacred Geometry (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/sacred-geometry/). Nothing says 'magic' like 'doing annoying number puzzles at the table'!

Let's make it a universal, multigenre system, so include the axiom/reality rules from TORG. Bonus points if you can make the cyborg even more useless outside their home universe!

Knaight
2018-01-16, 02:20 AM
A fun, flavorful mechanic we could use is leylines and similar - you've got different regions with different magical strengths. This on its own genuinely can be fun, so the goal is to subtly pile these on, one at a time, until every location needs a dozen magic strength stats.

Algeh
2018-01-16, 02:49 AM
A fun, flavorful mechanic we could use is leylines and similar - you've got different regions with different magical strengths. This on its own genuinely can be fun, so the goal is to subtly pile these on, one at a time, until every location needs a dozen magic strength stats.

On a related note, make sure there are lots of buff spells/effects/etc that each boost something for a variable amount of both time and amount. For example, a spell that would buff the Agility score of 1d6 allies for 1d4 points each (roll separately for each ally) for one 1d12 hours each (roll separately for each ally). Ideally, these spells should be really cheap to cast and come in lots of varieties, meaning that you probably have 2 or 3 different effects on any character at any time, more as they go up in power. Magic items should also commonly give bonuses of this type as something that can be activated once per week of game time, just to give even more petty timekeeping to keep track of.

Telok
2018-01-16, 12:48 PM
Ok.
D&D levels, with 2e differing xp requirements, 3e prestige class traps/boosts, 4e class tiers (randomly tied to prestige classes and prerequsites), and 5e subclasses. Plus point buy. Of course without enough points to buy your entire level.

Include equipment level restrictions, magic item christmas tree, out leveling your equipment, separate point buy for equipment each level, plus stuff costs money so WBL, np resale value, and upgrades/crafting costs more than buying new. Plus any special effects (fire damage, tripping, water breathing) have both a per-rest use limit, a recharge roll, and require active skill usage. Naturally we make entire sections of gameplay dependent on having the right gear at the right levels.

Psyren
2018-01-16, 01:19 PM
Am I late to the party Richter?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f6/Psionics_Handbook_coverthumb.jpg/220px-Psionics_Handbook_coverthumb.jpg

3.0 psionics attack and defense modes for everyone (except the boss encounters who get them for free, but we don't want players accidentally missing out on the fun by choosing a monster with a level adjustment do we?).

Came to suggest this. Relevant copypasta:


Originally Posted by AntiDjinn on the WotC Boards:

I have used this model before, but to really appreciate how this "class feature" worked you should see how it would apply if ported to mainstream D&D where they haven't been conditioned to accept inferior mechanics without question. Lets take the big sacred moo, a Cleric's undead turning ability:

DM: "Before we get started, Cleric, I just want you to know that I am instituting some changes in your turn undead class feature that will make your class more different and give it a unique divine mechanic."

Player: "OK. How does it work now?"

DM: "Well, for starters, when you attempt to turn undead you will now have to burn a spell."

Player: "A spell???? What level?"

DM: "Different levels. It depends on what turning mode you want to use. Sanctified Gesture takes a level 1, Divine Dance of Power takes a level 2, High Holly Homina Homina takes a level 3, and...."

Player: "Wait, I assume I will get a bonus on the roll based on the level of spell slot I sacrifice?"

DM: "Sometimes you will. Other times you will get a penalty based on the turning defense mode the opponent selects. Turning and turning defense modes will interact on a table. The table determines the actual DC of the roll, not the level of the spell slot burned. Choosing a given defense mode may actually mean you pay a spell to get a penalty on the save, but it will still be better than being defenseless."

Player: "The undead will get defense modes?"

DM: "Sure, so will you. Each round you will select a turning attack mode and a defense mode. In fact, you will need to select a defense mode against each undead opponent each and every round and each will cost you spell slots."

Player: "Wwwwwwhat????!!!!!! What if I am facing undead who do not cast spells, I assume they won't get to mount a defense?"

DM: "It doesn't matter if you face undead without casting ability because their turning and turning defense modes are free."

Player: "Wait a minute! This is stupid! One of my 3rd level spell slots could be spent on Searing Light which fries undead; why would I ever spend it on an attack mode that might help me on a turning attempt? And why would I ever take a turning defense mode, much less a separate one vs. each undead opponent? I would simply choose to ignore undead or cast spells against them or go at them with weapons. I would have to have brain damage to choose to turn with these rules!"

DM: "If you fail to mount a defense then each unblocked undead gets a special +8 bonus to hit you for having this wonderful class feature and choosing not to use it. They also get to drain your stats if they hit. This will apply also to anyone who adds a level of Cleric; multiclassing will be very flavorful."

Player: "But I am a spellcaster, I need to be able to cast spells. How can I do my job if my spell slots get sucked away every time we run into undead?"

DM: "Well, how can you do your job if you are dead or reduced to a mindless state? You need to use your spells this way or you may not live long enough to cast them anyway."

Player: *Head down, silently weeping into his hands.*

DM: "I should mention too that you will be able to make turn undead attempts vs. nonundead; if you succeed they will be stunned for a few rounds. Of course, everyone who does not have this feature will get a huge bonus on the save DC. The best part: If you blow a 5th level spell to use High Holy Hokey Pokey then everyone in a large area could be stunned for a long while and they don't get a bonus vs. this one mode -- that makes the entire system usable and balanced."

Player: "They should all be stunned if they ever see me willingly use these rules. This is preposterous! I need my spells to heal and buff and perform all the functions of a Cleric. How am I going to be of any use to the party if I hemorrhage spell slots every time we run into undead?"

DM: "That is the beauty of it: You get to choose whether to use your spell slots as they were intended or save your own hide by using them to turn. Come on and at least give it a chance. It will be a mechanic unique to your class so it must be a benefit. You don't want to be just another spellcaster do you? This will add so much flavor and.... Hey! Get him off of me!"

Player: "How ya like that fist flavor?"

Anonymouswizard
2018-01-16, 01:42 PM
Honestly, Psychic Combat wasn't a bad thing in theory. If it had been built into the system at the start, potentially as the primary method of hurting people supernaturally, it would have been fine.

Imagine a game where all supernatural powers are utility, and the only way to harm somebody is to use one of five Attack Modes, which can be defended against with one of five Defence Modes. This cost resources the same as any power, but are about specifically harming your opponent or protecting yourself from supernatural harm. I suggest Defence Modes should be cheap, so that psychic opponents can't easily beat you by teaming up and battering at you until you run out of PP, but the core idea is a solid one.

That brings up a big point, in many cases with 3.0 psionics it wasn't that engaging in psychic combat was inherently bad, there were just much better things you could be doing with your PP in the same situation. Why go to the hassle of using Psychic Combat when a Metacreativity or Psychokinesis power would be more useful? Sure, the opponents can still engage you in it to drain your PP, which is a massive problem, but at the same time most of them would be discouraged from doing so because almost anything with Attack and Defence modes would also have access to powers, which would generally be a better use of their time than draining the reserves of one opponent.

Celestia
2018-01-16, 03:38 PM
A push your luck mechanic on all rolls. Whenever a player rolls for an action, before learning if they succeeded, they can choose to reroll. In addition, they gain a geometrically increasing bonus on each subsequent roll: +2, +4, +6, +10, +16. However, when a player attempts a reroll, the GM secretly rolls 1d6-1 to determine how many times the player can reroll. If the player tries rerolling more than that, they automatically fail whatever they were doing. The kicker is that the difficulty of the entire system is set with the expectation that the players will reroll to gain the bonuses. Thus, all target numbers are 5 points higher than they reasonably should be. That means that if you don't push your luck, you have to consistently roll natural ~15 on everything, and if you do, you risk auto failing.

N810
2018-01-16, 03:45 PM
Make the player roll for absolutely everything.
want to walk across the room Dex Roll,
want to say hi to a villager, Cha roll.
want to draw you sword Str roll.

and of course auto fail on a nat 1. :nale:

Knaight
2018-01-16, 06:27 PM
We could also take solid, functional, usable models that work great in videogames where the computers roll all your dice. I'm thinking of Dominion here - every roll is opposed, and a standard attack is morale vs. repel, attack vs. defense, crit check, damage vs. protection. Notable characters (e.g. PCs) will likely add in another few layers. It works great when you're not actually rolling for it, it's a decent high level model, and it can be made to sound good.

That you're rolling 12 opposed dice per attack, most of which do nothing is something that comes up in play.

Tohron
2018-01-16, 09:59 PM
We could also take solid, functional, usable models that work great in videogames where the computers roll all your dice. I'm thinking of Dominion here - every roll is opposed, and a standard attack is morale vs. repel, attack vs. defense, crit check, damage vs. protection. Notable characters (e.g. PCs) will likely add in another few layers. It works great when you're not actually rolling for it, it's a decent high level model, and it can be made to sound good.

That you're rolling 12 opposed dice per attack, most of which do nothing is something that comes up in play.

Let's take that further - if we're converting computerized modeling directly to tabletop games, have every ranged attack start by the player declaring their attack vector, then calculate a random offset based on their stats, followed by calculating the shot's trajectory by hand. For every attack.

Knaight
2018-01-16, 10:22 PM
Let's take that further - if we're converting computerized modeling directly to tabletop games, have every ranged attack start by the player declaring their attack vector, then calculate a random offset based on their stats, followed by calculating the shot's trajectory by hand. For every attack.

This is basically how Phoenix Command Combat System did things. I'm all for taking that, welding it to the Chain Reaction morale system, and tossing it in. Those are wargames and not videogames, but the same idea works.

Florian
2018-01-17, 04:32 AM
To stay in the realm of the still playable: How about combining "5E style roll-under skill checks", "Exploding Dice" and "Critical Fumble" rolls, maybe add a "dice pool" mechanic to it?

Anonymouswizard
2018-01-17, 06:22 AM
This is basically how Phoenix Command Combat System did things. I'm all for taking that, welding it to the Chain Reaction morale system, and tossing it in. Those are wargames and not videogames, but the same idea works.

Ah yes, Chain Reaction, the first wargame I played where players spent a lot of their movement time making abolutely certain that the enemy couldn't see them, because that would lead to reaction fire. It worked really well, but I can see it becoming an absolute mess if using more than about twenty people a side.

Oh yes, we should make sure that ability scores are generated randomly via a convoluted and unfair method that looks simple and fun on the surface. How about: assign each of the seven standard dice to one of the seven stats. Then to generate the stat itself roll the die.

Guizonde
2018-01-17, 07:12 AM
To stay in the realm of the still playable: How about combining "5E style roll-under skill checks", "Exploding Dice" and "Critical Fumble" rolls, maybe add a "dice pool" mechanic to it?

that's called the warhammer way, and it's not a bug, it's a feature.

... that's stretching the definition of dice pool, i think only heavy weapons get to roll 2 keep the best dice, and psykers can go up to 3. but yeah it gets silly. still fun, though.

that said, my homebrew does use dice pools for large explosive damage. it gets silly with things bigger than anti-tank mines (5d10 raw damage, reroll and stack 10's).

gooddragon1
2018-01-17, 08:52 AM
Make the player roll for absolutely everything.
want to walk across the room Dex Roll,
want to say hi to a villager, Cha roll.
want to draw you sword Str roll.

and of course auto fail on a nat 1. :nale:

Qwop, the p&p version...

N810
2018-01-17, 10:06 AM
Speaking of Warhammer...

Add in their opposed rules for casting,
and if you roll a crit your spell goes though ...
As you use way too much power and then roll of a chart
to see how bad the result is ... it ranged from forgetting the spell,
to exploding (lethal) and dealing massive damage to everyone around you (friend and foe).