My Own RPG Mechanics

[Cap'n Gravelock]

I've already made posts for some RPGs but I was wondering about making my own gaming system...

Does the following sound okay?

For this game engine, you need 1d12 (or 3d12 if you're the lazy type) and 1d10.
So this is how you play:

Example:

PC wants to concoct a healing potion with a synthesis skill (or talent) of 6

She rolls 1d12 once and adds the result (7) to her first roll: 7+6=13
She rolls 1d12 twice (the outcome is 9)and does the same thing: 9+6=15
She rolls 1d12 a third and last time (the outcome is 3) and repeats the process: 3+6=9

Then the GM rolls against her with the game's current "difficulty" (or "odds") which is 5
He rolls 1d10 (5) and adds it to the roll: 5+5=10

The results are resolved as follows or at least something similar:

If all 3 rolls of the PC is higher than the GM's roll, then she has made an EPIC or CRITICAL SUCCESS resulting in not just creating 1 healing potion but a BIG healing potion

If only 2 rolls of the PC is higher than the GM's, she has made a success resulting in the successful creation of a healing potion

If only 1 roll of the PC is higher than the GM's, she made a failure and has wasted resources in creating nothing

If none of the PC's rolls are higher than the GM's, she has made an EPIC or CRITICAL FAILURE resulting in her concoction exploding and dealing damage to her and anything unlucky enough to be in the immediate vicinity

Unfortunately, I still think it needs a lot of work and I don't know what happens when values somehow TIE (unlikely but possible) and that's why I need help on what to do...

I plan to use this system for the following games I have in mind:

Hominid (something I've already posted about)
Soulfinder (a setting based on Pathfinder the same way Order of the Stick is based on D&D 3.5)
And a few more settings I'm cooking up

[Knaight]

First things first - you've got 3 different d12 rolls, any of which could tie with the d10. Ties are basically guaranteed, so you should have a way to deal with them. My immediate inclination would be to have ties lose, which both fits your current description in the example and which sets up the d10 and d12 against each other nicely, where at +0 vs +0 (the baseline) the d12 is basically a bunch of d10 values plus one that is always under and two that are always over.

Beyond that the general structure of multiple rolls here the number that succeed matters is solid. This particular implementation has some weirdness though, starting with how the standard roll involves four dice rolls, four addition steps, and four comparison steps. It's potentially a bit much, and if your system uses opposed or extended rolls at all it can get out of hand quickly.

There's also a bit of wasted design space here, starting with how each d12 has the same bonus - if you're throwing down several dice and adding modifiers to each anyways you might as well leave room to add different modifiers.

As an example of a system that does this better, take Chronica Feudalis. There you are also rolling multiple dice and resolving them individually. However, instead of every die requiring an addition step you just change the size of the die instead. The dice also can reflect different things, with a guaranteed skill die, a tool die if applicable, and an Aspect die if you pay for it, with some edge cases where a second skill or tool sees use instead.

[Cap'n Gravelock]

First things first - you've got 3 different d12 rolls, any of which could tie with the d10. Ties are basically guaranteed, so you should have a way to deal with them. My immediate inclination would be to have ties lose, which both fits your current description in the example and which sets up the d10 and d12 against each other nicely, where at +0 vs +0 (the baseline) the d12 is basically a bunch of d10 values plus one that is always under and two that are always over.

Beyond that the general structure of multiple rolls here the number that succeed matters is solid. This particular implementation has some weirdness though, starting with how the standard roll involves four dice rolls, four addition steps, and four comparison steps. It's potentially a bit much, and if your system uses opposed or extended rolls at all it can get out of hand quickly.

There's also a bit of wasted design space here, starting with how each d12 has the same bonus - if you're throwing down several dice and adding modifiers to each anyways you might as well leave room to add different modifiers.

As an example of a system that does this better, take Chronica Feudalis. There you are also rolling multiple dice and resolving them individually. However, instead of every die requiring an addition step you just change the size of the die instead. The dice also can reflect different things, with a guaranteed skill die, a tool die if applicable, and an Aspect die if you pay for it, with some edge cases where a second skill or tool sees use instead.

Thanks for the read and advice.

[bookguy]

I noticed that if the player loses ties, she has a 1/2 chance of success on each roll if the player and DM bonuses are the same.

[jqavins]

What you've got is:

Each side has a bonus;
Roll some dice;
There are four possible outcomes.

There is a specific probability for each of the ossiblr outcomes. The four probabilities vary together, based on the difference between the two sides' bonuses.

I'm pretty sure there's a simpler way to implement this than by four die rolls, four addition oprations, and three comparrisons. It can probably be reduced to a single multi-die roll to which both bonuses are applied (one plus and the other minus) and the result compared to three threshholds. I'm not in a position to do the analysis at the moment, but I'm confidant that with 3d12 (maybe 4d12) plus this minus that and the right threshholds, the resulting probabilities could be the same or darn near the same in an easier mechanic.

[Gorum]

For this game engine, you need 1d12 (or 3d12 if you're the lazy type) and 1d10.
So this is how you play:

Example:

PC wants to concoct a healing potion with a synthesis skill (or talent) of 6

She rolls 1d12 once and adds the result (7) to her first roll: 7+6=13
She rolls 1d12 twice (the outcome is 9)and does the same thing: 9+6=15
She rolls 1d12 a third and last time (the outcome is 3) and repeats the process: 3+6=9

Then the GM rolls against her with the game's current "difficulty" (or "odds") which is 5
He rolls 1d10 (5) and adds it to the roll: 5+5=10

The results are resolved as follows or at least something similar:

If all 3 rolls of the PC is higher than the GM's roll, then she has made an EPIC or CRITICAL SUCCESS resulting in not just creating 1 healing potion but a BIG healing potion

If only 2 rolls of the PC is higher than the GM's, she has made a success resulting in the successful creation of a healing potion

If only 1 roll of the PC is higher than the GM's, she made a failure and has wasted resources in creating nothing

If none of the PC's rolls are higher than the GM's, she has made an EPIC or CRITICAL FAILURE resulting in her concoction exploding and dealing damage to her and anything unlucky enough to be in the immediate vicinity

Unfortunately, I still think it needs a lot of work and I don't know what happens when values somehow TIE (unlikely but possible) and that's why I need help on what to do...

I plan to use this system for the following games I have in mind:

Hominid (something I've already posted about)
Soulfinder (a setting based on Pathfinder the same way Order of the Stick is based on D&D 3.5)
And a few more settings I'm cooking up

1. Random target numbers makes no sense in the given example. If the player can have control over his conditions (quality of ingredients, cleanliness, etc.) he should be given a static DC. He might not be aware of the set DC, but the DC should nonetheless be set.

2. Your system actually seems awesome when it comes to fighting, though. Rolling defense has always been something I liked, but you might want a bell curve on the defender's side too. Let's say the guy has + 2d6 and the lazy attacker has an equivalent attack bonus and roll 3 times 1d12. The defender will have a stronger chance of getting X + 7 or 8 and a much lower chance of granting the attacker a critical fail (which would happen when Defense rolled is X+12) or a critical hit (X+2).

In facts, to reduce lethality, I would even go as far as allowing the defender to roll 4d3, for a steeper bell curve (playing safe and avoiding mistakes), 2d6 or 1d12 (reckless). This way, when facing overwhelming odds, one can decide to take a greater risk. If you're going to be critted anyways, rolling a 1 on 1d12 isn't that much worse.

[B]Edit your OP for an example in actual battle, it'll sounds MUCH better.

EDIT: Being able to score as high when not taking any extra risk might be bad design. 1d12 / 2d5 / 3d3 would have your average result drop from 6.5 to 5 to 4.5 could be a reasonable trade-off to being 100% certain not scoring a defense roll of 1 or 2 and have a MUCH greater chance to roll at least 4. Maybe having ALSO your max result go from 12 to 10 to 9 could be too punitive tho. Food for thoughts.

3. "Big healing potion" means nothing, except that big is instinctively better than little. Have the player choose Higher Potency, Faster Progress, etc. In the same vein, Critical Success in battle could lead to gaining a major advantage in battle instead of "killing faster". Weapons, or at least damage types, might have charts of possible results. This could be a set of choices the player has to debilitate his foes, or it could be dependent on the opponent's defense roll, having much more serious effects if the defender is critted while rolling recklessly.

EX. 1:
When attacking with a bashing weapon and a critical success occurs, you inflict damage normally and might:

Stun the opponent for 1 turn, making him waste his next action (head bashed silly).
Hinder the opponent's defense roll (cracked ribs, caved in armor, warped shield) by 1, cumulative.
Hinder the opponent's attack roll (cracked attack arm's bone, warped weapon) by 1, cumulative.
Lower your opponent's move speed by 1 (cracked leg)


This with a slashing weapon

Cause a heavy loss of blood (target will lose HP over time).
Stock 1 Crit point.
Spend 2 Crit point and use this, sever a limb.


EX.2
Bashing weapon:
Opponent playing safe : Target has -1 to Def rolls (cumul.) until the end of your next turn. This adds to and renews any temp. -1 to Def rolls the target already had.
Opponent playing avg.: Target has -1 to Def rolls until end of the encounter. Cumulative.
Opponent is reckless: As average opponent, but the opponent is also stunned for 1 round.

Slashing:
Opponent playing safe : Minor painful cut means -1 to attack rolls until the end of your next turn, cumulative but not renewed.
Opponent playing avg.: Target loses blood and takes damage each turn.
Opponent is reckless: As average opponent, but the opponent also loses a limb.

4. What about allowing the player a "take 10" option (choosing an average result) when not threatened and treat his results as if he had 4, 7 and 10?

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I like how the system allows for different grades of succes and failure even if the skill is good/bad enough to win/lose at all, just with smaller odds. However I do agree that four roles and four additions for a single resolution seems to be on the high side. A very similar effect could be achieved for instance bu rolling a D12+skill vs the difficulty and having an extra D10 there where 10 + a regular succes is an epic succes, 10 + a failure is maybe an autosucces or a neutral outcome and 1 + a regular failure is an epic failure (1 + a succes does nothing, just a succes). Two rolls, one addition.

Or, you know, just D&D style "highest possible roll is always super good, no matter how good the skill'.

[Cap'n Gravelock]

1. Random target numbers makes no sense in the given example. If the player can have control over his conditions (quality of ingredients, cleanliness, etc.) he should be given a static DC. He might not be aware of the set DC, but the DC should nonetheless be set.

2. Your system actually seems awesome when it comes to fighting, though. Rolling defense has always been something I liked, but you might want a bell curve on the defender's side too. Let's say the guy has + 2d6 and the lazy attacker has an equivalent attack bonus and roll 3 times 1d12. The defender will have a stronger chance of getting X + 7 or 8 and a much lower chance of granting the attacker a critical fail (which would happen when Defense rolled is X+12) or a critical hit (X+2).

In facts, to reduce lethality, I would even go as far as allowing the defender to roll 4d3, for a steeper bell curve (playing safe and avoiding mistakes), 2d6 or 1d12 (reckless). This way, when facing overwhelming odds, one can decide to take a greater risk. If you're going to be critted anyways, rolling a 1 on 1d12 isn't that much worse.

[B]Edit your OP for an example in actual battle, it'll sounds MUCH better.

EDIT: Being able to score as high when not taking any extra risk might be bad design. 1d12 / 2d5 / 3d3 would have your average result drop from 6.5 to 5 to 4.5 could be a reasonable trade-off to being 100% certain not scoring a defense roll of 1 or 2 and have a MUCH greater chance to roll at least 4. Maybe having ALSO your max result go from 12 to 10 to 9 could be too punitive tho. Food for thoughts.

3. "Big healing potion" means nothing, except that big is instinctively better than little. Have the player choose Higher Potency, Faster Progress, etc. In the same vein, Critical Success in battle could lead to gaining a major advantage in battle instead of "killing faster". Weapons, or at least damage types, might have charts of possible results. This could be a set of choices the player has to debilitate his foes, or it could be dependent on the opponent's defense roll, having much more serious effects if the defender is critted while rolling recklessly.

EX. 1:
When attacking with a bashing weapon and a critical success occurs, you inflict damage normally and might:

Stun the opponent for 1 turn, making him waste his next action (head bashed silly).
Hinder the opponent's defense roll (cracked ribs, caved in armor, warped shield) by 1, cumulative.
Hinder the opponent's attack roll (cracked attack arm's bone, warped weapon) by 1, cumulative.
Lower your opponent's move speed by 1 (cracked leg)


This with a slashing weapon

Cause a heavy loss of blood (target will lose HP over time).
Stock 1 Crit point.
Spend 2 Crit point and use this, sever a limb.


EX.2
Bashing weapon:
Opponent playing safe : Target has -1 to Def rolls (cumul.) until the end of your next turn. This adds to and renews any temp. -1 to Def rolls the target already had.
Opponent playing avg.: Target has -1 to Def rolls until end of the encounter. Cumulative.
Opponent is reckless: As average opponent, but the opponent is also stunned for 1 round.

Slashing:
Opponent playing safe : Minor painful cut means -1 to attack rolls until the end of your next turn, cumulative but not renewed.
Opponent playing avg.: Target loses blood and takes damage each turn.
Opponent is reckless: As average opponent, but the opponent also loses a limb.

4. What about allowing the player a "take 10" option (choosing an average result) when not threatened and treat his results as if he had 4, 7 and 10?

EXAMPLE OF COMBAT:

Omega Refugee attacks a slave driver with a shovel, his melee attack being +3 and the slave driver having +2 melee defense

Result(s):

Best Case Scenario

Omega Refugee
1st roll: 11+3=14
2nd roll: 8+3=11
3rd roll: 10+3=13
Slave Driver
4+2=6

Omega Refugee does double damage

Good Scenario

Omega Refugee
1st roll: 6+3=9
2nd roll: 9+3=12
3rd roll: 2+3=5
Slave Driver
6+2=8

Omega Refugee does normal damage

Bad Scenario

Omega Refugee
1st roll: 1+3=4
2nd roll: 12+3=15
3rd roll: 2+3=5
Slave Driver
8+2=10

Omega Refugee does half damage

Worst Case Scenario

Omega Refugee
1st roll: 2+3=5
2nd roll: 1+3=4
3rd roll: 4+3=7
Slave Driver
9+2=11

Next: Slave Driver Retaliates (Enemy Turn)

GM rolls first

Best Case Scenario
-Omega Refugee takes no damage

Good Scenario
-Omega Refugee takes half damage

Bad Scenario
-Omega Refugee takes full damage

Worst Case Scenario
-Omega Refugee takes double damage

[Gorum]

EXAMPLE OF COMBAT:

Omega Refugee attacks a slave driver with a shovel, his melee attack being +3 and the slave driver having +2 melee defense

Result(s):

Best Case Scenario

Omega Refugee
1st roll: 11+3=14
2nd roll: 8+3=11
3rd roll: 10+3=13
Slave Driver
4+2=6

Omega Refugee does double damage

Good Scenario

Omega Refugee
1st roll: 6+3=9
2nd roll: 9+3=12
3rd roll: 2+3=5
Slave Driver
6+2=8

Omega Refugee does normal damage

Bad Scenario

Omega Refugee
1st roll: 1+3=4
2nd roll: 12+3=15
3rd roll: 2+3=5
Slave Driver
8+2=10

Omega Refugee does half damage

Worst Case Scenario

Omega Refugee
1st roll: 2+3=5
2nd roll: 1+3=4
3rd roll: 4+3=7
Slave Driver
9+2=11

Next: Slave Driver Retaliates (Enemy Turn)

GM rolls first

Best Case Scenario
-Omega Refugee takes no damage

Good Scenario
-Omega Refugee takes half damage

Bad Scenario
-Omega Refugee takes full damage

Worst Case Scenario
-Omega Refugee takes double damage

Double / Simple / Half / Miss?
I am... disappointed. Oh well, still a better love story than D&D.