Game Mechanics

I'm a big fan of the Strings and Conditions system from MonsterHearts as a way of tracking social situations.

>Strings - how much power one character has over another
>Conditions - how a character is vulnerable to the people around them

and then every mechanic in the game affects one or both of these so create an interesting and shifting social situation which is also very clear for the players in terms of how it works out both in the fiction and mechanically.

File: 1475908045764.gif (993KB, 540x540px) Image search: [Google]

993KB, 540x540px

>>50378612
>tfw old Shadowrun's delicious, delicious secondary pool mechanics giving the player a large amount of control by letting them allocate based on what they want done and how reliably they want it done
Shadowrun is a clunky piece of shit but that mechanic, or at least the basic idea behind it, has always stuck out as an incredibly good idea.

>>50379166

Can you expand on that? It sounds interesting.

What are your favourite insanity mechanics? I've been looking for a system that does them well.

>>50379195
Characters got several 'floating' pools of dice based on the rest of their stats that they could allocate to tasks related to the pool in question and refresh at a certain time.

For instance, if I'm playing a Street Sam with a gun, let's say I've got a combat pool of 8 and an Assault Rifles skill of 6. Normally I'd be rolling 6 dice, but I can allocate any number of dice from my combat pool to that roll to augment it - and the pool refreshes at the end of the round, so it's a constant, fluid thing, so I might want to allocate all 8 of them to offense on round 1 to shoot the enemy mage in the fucking head before he gets a chance to do anything, and on round 2 I might want to allocate them all to defense to dodge the bullets his buddies are sending our way, and on round 3 I might want to split it between them because I'm not getting through their armor or it's too easy to dodge/soak their bullets, or etc. A mage would use his magic pool to augment his spells/drain checks/etc, a decker would use his decking pool to deal with Matrix stuff, and riggers for driving and the like.

It was a very fluid mechanic and I got extremely butthurt when D&D 5E's playtest had a mechanic almost exactly like it, complete with per-round dice refresh, only to toss it out for the fucking bullshit that we actually got because Fighters didn't want options.

>>50379166
>>50379273
Speaking of shadowrun, I do really like the new Shadowrun initiative rules, where each turn takes up a bunch of initiative points - 10 every turn, and you can take defensive actions at the cost of initiative points, too.

I find it pretty sleek.

>>50378612
That picture annoys me because it doesn't consider anything I studied about Optimal experience.

Otherwise I really like D100.

For all it's flaws it's hilarious at low levels.

>>50379273

That's actually a really awesome mechanical concept, although I can also understand why they might've dropped it, it sounds like it'd be difficult to evaluate and balance.

Although yes, fighters losing their expertise dice was just part of them ruining the 5e playtests and removing literally every good, interesting and new mechanic they had in favour of grog appeal. Such a fucking waste.

>>50378612
I fucking love meta currencies that allow you to influence the game. I really like it when I can spend points to ensure that something is in the scene when I need it for some crazy idea, or when I can spend points to give me an edge so I have a better chance to pull off that one in a million chance.
Best way to handle it is if the DM hands them out when he's having fun with something a player did, that way it's pretty much a cycle of trying to be fun at the table.
Everything within reason and in the hand of the DM, of course.

>>50379273
To be fair, some of the stuff you can do with the Fighter's Superiority dice are pretty crazy to consider using every round. I think it should've been on a gradual recharge system.

As in, "You get 6 dice to work with at the start of an encounter. You get 2 back at the start of your turn each round, up to your maximum of 6." This would encourage use of the martial prowess shit but also keep you from spamming too hard.

>>50378612
It may seem small, but I really really enjoy random rolled stat generations, especially if they have a point system to help you influence or reattempt rolls. Having to deal with bum rolls makes it more interesting and gives more value to the times you DON'T roll shit and roll amazing. Point-buy systems for stats are neat and all, but they feel stale and predictable.

>>50379683
>"You get 6 dice to work with at the start of an encounter. You get 2 back at the start of your turn each round, up to your maximum of 6."
I use a variant mana system like this (well, this and FFTA2 I think) when I run Savage Worlds, except it starts at half-full pool, so you need to power up for your most powerful moves.

>>50378612
For class based systems, I really like modular classes like in Rule of Cool's Legend and Strike!.

>>50379743

>Rule of Cool's Legend

Ffffff. I hate being reminded of that. Such an awesome foundation with so many cool mechanical ideas but it will never get proper support or extra content. Such a fucking shame.

>>50379683
I consider that where a martial should be at *minimum*, with what I actually expect being somewhere around ToB levels, so it didn't bother me at all. The Fighter we ended up getting? Now that bothered me, and anyone who okayed it can go fuck themselves.

>>50379743
Well, for martials, the idea would be that Superiority dice would represent the Fighter's stamina and ability to execute strenuous moves in rapid succession.

>>50379544
Can you explain for a relative noob GM?

>>50379754
I have been thinking of trying to make a 5e conversion, taking ideas from that and some other fav games.

>>50379166
Rolemaster/MERP did a similar thing. It's a d100+skill system and in melee combat, you can divide your skill between offense and defense, having to calculate how much incoming you're likely to get during the next round.

>>50379273
I had a pretty similar mechanic to this at one point, but it was a light fatigue system. You had pools called Vigors that represent exertion. They were finite pools of dice you could draw from to add to checks. There was Stamina and Focus. Most rolls were pretty dodgy if you didn't add ANY vigor, so things would get gnarlier and gnarlier as you got more and more tired. Diet, exercise, and sleep would replenish and advance your Vigors.

Turned out a really simple way of having pretty meaningful survival mechanics.

>>50379941
Let's try it system agnostic.

Let's say you have a currency called "Fatepoints"
Whenver the players do something with their characters that the GM particularly likes, he awards them Fatepoints.

Players can then spend these Fatepoints whenever they want to gain certain benifits, for example
>Spend 1 Point before a roll to gain +1 on the roll
>Spend 5 Points after a roll to gain a reroll
>Spend 10 Points to "spawn" an object at the scene that has already been there, but nobody noticed (at the GM's discretion)


It's a flexible mechanic. Players can gain a certain amount at the start of a session, they could get a random amount whenver they are awarded and what you can actually DO with them is up to the writers.

>>50380059
Funny, that's the basis of the dungeon crawling system I'm currently writing. You have a pool of dice representing your fatigue and every time you want to roll on anything even slightly psychically exhausting you choose how many dice from your pool you want to spend on that roll, representing the effort and amount of energy put into doing something. Management of all forms of resources is generally supposed to be a main focus of this system.

That graph doesn't make any goddamn sense.

>>50380218
I was briefly working on a similar system. A characters physical stats were added up to form their stamina pool while their mental stats determined their willpower pool. These STA and WIL points were spent to perform actions and reactions.

There was no limit on the number of actions a character could take during their turn, but the pools only refreshed at a rate equal to two specific stats (Endurance and Instinct). Burning through an entire pool on their turn was inviting an asskicking, as they'd have no points to spare for reactions.

>>50379249
Unknown Armies (while not being at my cup of tea for most other respects) has an awesome "insanity" system you can pretty much tag anywhere since it has little to nothing to do with the rest of the rules.

>>50380173
Right. Like making D&D "Inspiration" actually interesting. Maybe I will try this. Thanks!

>>50380370
The UA system always seemed interesting, yet way too involved to me. Something that looks great on paper, but is too much hassle in practice.

I always liked the simple, but effective way of CoC, you get a number that tells you more or less how far gone you are and lasting mental disabilities to give it more details when necessary.

File: Dice Gun.png (778KB, 851x468px) Image search: [Google]

778KB, 851x468px

Has anyone read Fireborn? Their way of rolling stats is amazing in theory.

You have 4 base stats, each paired off. Fire is Physical Active, Water is Physical Reactive, Air is Mental Active, Earth is Mental Reactive. So if you want to punch someone, you roll your Fire pool (d6 based game, 4+ is a success) against their Water; to avoid being tricked, you roll Earth against their Air.

However, you can 'move' dice from one attribute to another with your skills. So if you have Melee 4, you can move 4 dice from any attribute into Fire, so you punch with Fire+4 dice in total. But if you moved those out of Earth, you're now vulnerable if someone makes a mental attack against you.

It's very dynamic in play, similar to old SR like >>50379273 described. too bad Fireborn falls at every final hurdle at every stage of the system

File: 1479962682159.jpg (129KB, 670x515px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 670x515px

I've recently been obsessed with how to determine initiative. I'd love to see some innovative ways of handling it.

>>50381934
opposed skill check - high roll goes first

>>50381934
I was thinking of having it based on a characters speed stat, but characters can spend points from their stamina pool to increase their effective speed for initiative (buying their way into acting first).

File: 1453305823652.gif (97KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 256x256px

>>50381934

>Legends of the Wulin
>Round Begins
>all players roll their dice pool
>find dice pairs
>i.e. 3, 3, 5, 7, 7, 7 would give you a 23, 37 and a 15
>because 23 & 37 are dice sets, which allow special things
>spend any pair or die on your Initiative
>Can use extra dice sets for shaping the environment, performing any sort of non-combat action
>Actions then happen according to their initiative score

>Riddle of Steel, Song of Swords, Band of Bastards
>Combat Begins
>Determine if you're being Aggressive, Cautious or Defensive
>the more Aggressive gets Initiative
>All actions occur at the same time
>Initiative makes your action resolve before everyone else
>Initiative is passed around on successful defenses and landed hits

>>50381934

Simultaneous resolution. Standard formula goes:

Everyone secretly submits their actions
Actions resolved as though they occurred at the same time

Usually requires a ruleset built around it though, and it's easy to get wrong by introducing mechanics that get messy

I love burning wheel's social combat.

>>50381985
>I was thinking of having it based on a characters speed stat, but characters can spend points from their stamina pool to increase their effective speed for initiative (buying their way into acting first).

Hmmmmm, now that's a good idea. A fixed, stat-based initiative that can be changed up by using points from your awesomeness pool... That ain't bad. Nice idea!

>>50378612
I like 5e's Advantage mechanic, and I have yet to see anyone disagree. Would anyone who disagrees please post and explain why.

>>50383780
Advantage and disadvantage don't stack, which means players have no incentive to strategize beyond the weakest mechanical justification for advantage.

>>50383607
That sounds like determining initiative would take longer than the actual battle.

>>50383797
Well, that's not entirely true. That's all the strategizing they have to do in regard to advantage, there's still the entire rest of the battle to consider.

Also, the GM decides if you get an Advantage or not, and I would argue that only a bad GM gives it up like a ten dollar whore working for twenty.

>>50383819
It is entirely true. There is no depth to 5e combat, and the nonstacking of advantage is part of it. 90% of the time the optimal course of action for martials is standing still and attacking.

>>50383655
>Everyone secretly submits their actions
>Actions resolved as though they occurred at the same time

I do kinda like that method... although that's a recipe for rrreallly slowing down a game, though.

>>50383607
>Legends of the Wulin

Yeah, read up on that in another thread. Sorta blurry, though it has potential.

>Riddle of Steel, Song of Swords, Band of Bastards

Hmmmm. That's interesting. I'll have to read up on that one. Thank you!

>>50383709
>I love burning wheel's social combat.

Explain please?

>>50378844
Until they use the narrative mechanics to reinforce cliches of YA, urban-fantasy rather than spin them off into something interesting.

However, that's not a complaint specific to MH

>>50383914
Duel of Wits

The basic goal in DoW is to reduce the opponent’s Body of Argument (BoA) to zero, before he/she reduces yours to zero, through a series of verbal jabs and parries. By doing so, you prove your argument was the correct one, and your opponent has no idea what he’s talking about. A DoW is not about who is telling the truth; it’s about convincing everyone within earshot that you are.

Before a DoW, both players should state clearly their case and what is at stake. This is mostly a meta-game issue, to avoid confusion later. The stakes here are a social contract between the players that basically says, “My character will do this if I win and this if I lose.” It does not necessarily mean that both characters suddenly stop discussing and clearly state their case.

However, DoW is not mind control. If you cannot agree to the stakes being offered, you are free to walk away. A glib peasant couldn’t talk a king out of his kingdom, because no king would enter into such a deal! On the other hand, remember that BW conflicts are built on how much you’re willing to risk against what you hope to get out of them. Don’t be scared of big risks and desperate acts, because that’s the road to fortune and glory!

Social combat takes place in turns off three rounds, that all parties decide upon before they are resolved. It's sort of like paper rock scissors in a best of three, where you decide what you throw before you throw anything, and the relationships between rock, paper, and scissors change each time.

>>50379166
>Anime pedophile thinks something bad is good
WOW people of color me surprised

I have a question.

I am building an array of stats for a game I'm working on.

I have 8 attributes and at the start they need to be between 10 and 18...BUT they must all have the same total value(all 8 attributes total up to some value in all cases)

attributes are(Vitality, Endurance, Strength, Dexterity, Perception, Arcane, Social, and Intelligence) I'd like to have a bunch of fair starter-builds that work and don't suck but I'm crap and spontaneously generating semi-random numbers

>>50379273
is that a 5e thing?

I might need to look more into that system...
but I also really really HATE the priority gen system it comes standard with...

>>50380257
it does actually, granted it uses qualitative variables as opposed to quantitative ones.

even the janks in the graph make sense cause at the earliest stages many players are willing to put up with more frustration early in overall time playing, but unwilling to deal with frustrations later

>>50383968
what game is this in?

>>50384382
>>50383968 is from burning wheel.

>>50384405
thanks

>>50383798
For Wulin the dice mechanic is universal in the combat as well.
Not to mention it's just as much as a combat resolution mechanic as it is a narrative tool to do more than just fight while fighting and brings your descriptions into the crunch.

For Song of Swords it excels at 1v1s and tracking initiative is rather simple.
Even in multiple bouts it doesn't become more than a 2 second process.
Though tracking actions and when they resolve can be a chore when there's more than 2 or 4 in a fight

>>50379402
I don't understand exactly what you mean by this. Could you elaborate please?

I love the concept of dice pools but they often just end up shit that players don't actually have an idea of they will succeed a task or not, especially if they are allowed to remove dice from their pool/increase the number of successes needed. Also due to the bell curve produced just a few dice of difference will make the average contested roll between two characters a lopsided affair to the point of not needing a roll in some systems (mostly half die + successes). I really want a dice pool to be neat and exciting and have some reason for being rolled but fear that in the end it'd just be faster and more easily resolved with a d100 system.

Liking lots of dice said, I hate bellcurved XdY systems. Why would you want a quarter of the probability space occupy half the results? It's not even the interesting quarter of the probability space.

>>50384816
Not him but

5E Shadowrun works like this, players roll Xd6 and add a modifier. Goes from the top of the results to the bottom of the results. When it reaches the bottom of the initiative order all initiatives are decremented by 10 and goes over all remaining positive initiatives until there is no positive initiatives left. Taking damage reduces your initiative and certain actions also decrease it by say -5 a use. Most of the -5 a use actions are defensive ones that allow you to roll more dice on your defensive action. It's pretty nice, it has a weird balance of "faster" people getting more actions after everyone acts but that's mostly trying to ease off on the initive being even more of a god stat in the system like the old days where street sam were truly horrifying by able to get multiple actions before any normal person got 1 in combat every fucking round.

File: 1466735686243.png (95KB, 990x556px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 990x556px

I am thinking of making a 2d6-roll-under system similar to GURPS, with character points being spent and all of that. I figured I'd go with Strength Dexterity Intellect Fortitude Perception and Willpower for stats, though I also considered Brawn Agility Spirit Intellect and Charm (BASIC). Average stat would be 6, and skills would work similarly to GURPS, except stuff would have triangular costs. So a hero would have like 20 character points, an average joe would have 10. Stats would be:

> 4 costs -2
> 5 costs -1
> 6 costs 0
> 7 costs 1
> 8 costs 3
> 9 costs 6
> 10 costs 10
> 11 costs 15

And so on, triangularly.

Default skill roll would be against stat - 2, so skill costs would be as follows:

> stat + 0 costs 1
> stat + 1 costs 3
> stat + 2 costs 6
> stat + 3 costs 10
> stat + 4 costs 15

And so on and so on.

So for example you could buy DX 8 and Shooting 10 (DX + 2) for 3 + 6 = 9 points.

Hit points (or "vitality") would probably be equal to Fortitude score. Maybe vitality will be a stat that is directly reduced by damage. And 0 will be a straight put down with possible death, although I might do something GURPS-y for staying up while at negative. But the point of this is to be uncomplicated.

Thoughts on this? I know it's not much but I figured I'd put the idea out there. I want to build a 2d6-based generic system, and while I have a skill-only one that works similarly to this, I like attributes because they add another dimension to the character.

>>50385040
>I am thinking of making a 2d6-roll-under system
>Average stat would be 6

Just keep in mind that the average roll on 2D6 is actually 7.

>>50384930
>I love the concept of dice pools but they often just end up shit

R. Talsorian's Fuzion and Interlock systems (Cyberpunk, Mekton, Teenagers from Outer Space, Bubblegum Crisis, VOTOMs, DBZ, etc) have a dedicated "Luck" Stat. Like all stats, it's from 1~10, and it's a pool of points you can use whenever for anything. So, like, you have a shot you NEED to make, you declare you're gonna dump half your luck into it, boosting the roll. Handy.

>>50385193
That doesn't help the main mechanic. It's a band-aid that could be replaced with a "Use a fate point to succeed" or even roll a luck die to turn a failure into a success. I want the dicepool to stand up on it's own not have a secondary system make you ignore it's rough edges cause you circumvent it somewhat, some of the time.

>>50385149
Yes. Well it'd actually be roll <=, so a roll of 6 or less would be a success. So, 42% chance of an average person succeeding an average ability check. I'm okay with that. As opposed to having average score be 7 which just feels weird. But then so does 6....I would like the 10-centered scores of D&D but I don't know how to make them work outside of a 2d10 or 1d20 system which according to /tg/ are invariably shit.

Though, I have been thinking about a d20 system where the modifiers are doubled, to make the game less swingy. I.E. an 11 is a +1, an 8 is a -2, etc etc so your modifier is just your score -10, instead of -10 divided by 2 round down. It would also be point-buy.

I think an 18 giving you a 40% advantage over a 10 would be better than the current D&D system where an 18 gives you a 20% advantage over a 10.

Can you guys tell me about cool social interaction mechanics? Is there such a thing as good "social combat" system? Most ones I've read seem pretty unwieldy and would seriously get in the way of roleplaying. Maybe you just have to get used to them. Anyway in most of the games I've played social mechanics ended with GM saying "eh, roll your social stat/skill/poll and we'll see" and that's pretty lame if you want to play a "face" character.

File: LotW01.png (196KB, 371x273px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 371x273px

>>50385700
I remember there was some Chinese system where you didn't have HP but you instead had Conditions you could put onto other characters either through combat or through social interaction and the dice mechanic for both was the same.

i.e. Your opponent could be a real stoic hard ass that teleports behind you and does the whole "nothin personell kid" bullshit

But if you're a doctor you could use your doctor skills to determine that he has a problem with his bladder, or if you're a Courtesan you can convince him that he just has some seriously repressed gay feelings.

And these then become conditions that are on the character that can be inflamed or soothed.

I think it also worked with the damage system, like you could beat up a dude with your fists and then use your social skills to make him afraid of coming around this part of town ever again.

>>50385844

That's Legends of the Wulin, it's been mentioned a few times before in this thread. It has so many cool mechanical ideas, if only it wasn't such a fucking nightmare to actually learn to play it.

>>50385872
>if only it wasn't such a fucking nightmare to actually learn to play it.

Can confirm, I've played several campaigns and run a bunch of solo sessions and the only thing anyone understands after a day of having the PDF is that weapons are on page 198, Externals & Internals are right after.

File: cfe03b2e696d90a29b97912de36b67cd-origin.jpg (70KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 640x360px

Some games give different players different numbers of action per turn, based on their stats and/or skills, or how well they roll, or whatever. While it makes sense, it is such a drastic advantage that it just sucks balls immensely for characters who don't get as many actions. I prefer it kept flat -- like 1 or 2 actions per turn.

>>50386599
>I prefer it kept flat -- like 1 or 2 actions per turn.

That's kinda the wors since the guy with two actions will be literally twice as effective as the guy with one. If you set it so everyone had like 5-6 actions the difference would be comparatively minimal (but would lead to more complex turns so not sure if worth).

>>50385355
Make it d6-d6 and then the average roll would be 0, which could be your average stat as well. Also, same curve.

>>50386599
I don't mind games where you can make a variable number of actions in one turn, but the more actions you take the less likely you are to succeed at each.

File: 29359768_p0.jpg (1MB, 1240x1754px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1240x1754px

>>50386623
Oh, whoops! I meant "games where everyone gets one action or games where everyone gets two actions."

>>50386646
Cool idea.

>>50386678
I do too, actually. Like, you can do one action at no penalty, you can do two actions at -2 to each, three actions at -3 to each, etc.

>>50387003
>I do too, actually. Like, you can do one action at no penalty, you can do two actions at -2 to each, three actions at -3 to each, etc.

Make ten million actions and fish for Nat 20s.

>>50387861
Nat 20 shouldn't be a thing in systems like that.

Also, assuming it works like SW, you can't do the same action twice; i.e. you can't attack with the same weapon twice (unless it has rapid fire or you have some sort of special action that allows it), or move your speed twice, etc. because it'd get rather silly.

>>50381934

I have a modern fantasy system where initiative is entirerly determined on who has the lightest and smallest gun.

Snub nosed revolver? Shit accuracy and damage, but always goes first.
Heavy weapons drum barrel machine gun thing with a thick barrel and custom rounds? You'll destroy everyone, but you go last. That's the idea of it.

File: WW1 Lobster armor.jpg (103KB, 1193x696px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 1193x696px

So I'm trying to create a fantasy game with mostly guns being the primary weapons, with minor emphasis on armor and protecting yourself.

Essentially I wasn't sure what would be the best solution to including armor in a system where everyone had guns, but I thought about it.

How does something like this sound;
>Melee attack- Roll damage die vs armor. Subtract armor from damage
>Ranged attack- Roll to hit, armor adds to defense. If hit, roll full firearms damage.

The idea of this system would be that melee attacks are reliable, but not nearly as deadly as gunfire. Additionally, you can attempt to knock people's armor off or open with melee attacks, can suppress enemies with guns, and do a few other combat tactics so its not quite as simple as this; but that's the gist.

Will this work? I want players to choose between being agile and quick vs being armored and a bit slower. I'd also like to do something with armor being able to take a number of hits or gunshot wounds maybe instead of the above, but I'm not sure.

>>50385297
needing luck isn't due to bad systems. it's an integral part of the hero's journey.

File: Screenshot_20161125-082722.png (250KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 1440x2560px

>>50387959
What do I do if I fire the Big Gustav?

Do I just come by the day after the session to inform them that they've lost?

>>50388560
So your melee would always hit, it just might not hit hard enough?

>>50381934
Everyone rolls initiative based on their stat.
Then, using weapon and gear modifiers determine who is slowest and who is the quickest and declare actions in reverse order, so the quickest guy gets to see what everyone else is doing first but also gets to act first with that knowledge.

>>50388658

Yes, it's not unreasonable for untrained fighters in street fights and bar brawls using improvised and very short ranged weapons like tools and knives instead of polearms, shields, and plate armor to assume that basically every attack 'will hit', but the attacks that don't penetrate armor are not necessarily automatic hits, it could easily be fluffed as a miss as well.

>>50387959
Not bad at all, reminds me of the Doctor Who rpg where the type of action you do determines your initiative - talkers get to act before runners who get to act before fighters.

>>50381934
I prefer totally non-innovative "the fastest goes first".

The Batman miniature game has some pretty fun game rules.

File: Challenge_vs_skill.png (40KB, 300x292px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 300x292px

>>50378612
Why do people bother with that graph when there is a much better one

>>50387003
> Like, you can do one action at no penalty, you can do two actions at -2 to each, three actions at -3 to each, etc.
I, too, enjoy arbitrary math puzzles that can be solved using an excel sheet and basic knowledge of probability math, as opposed to games in which people who don't have those things. I feel that not having that extra complication robs people of the opportunity to shoot themselves in the foot by accidentally making mathematically inferior choices without knowing any better - and that's a fundamental feature of the kind of game I'm just strictly better at than others.

It's the kind of great design that brought us D&D 3.X Power Attack and Two-Weapon Fighting rules, or OWoD action splitting rules.

File: tmp_26717-Challenge_vs_skill.svg1649790965.png (47KB, 300x292px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 300x292px

>>50378612
My preferred version of the graph.

>>50389018
>>50388983
OP seems to be implying that your desire for complexity increases with playtime.

That's not represented in that chart.

>>50389018
The sides of this graph disappear when I open it

File: mantis-steel.png (259KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 1024x768px

>>50381934
The system I am currently developing has a unique initiative system which has done great in play-testing (although I am concerned that the novelty will wear off after a while and all that will remain shall be its tedium, we shall see).

All players have an Action Point pool determined by their stats.

When combat starts, every participant chooses a certain amount to move into their Active AP pool, based on what they want to accomplish with their first turn (every kind of action has a cost).

The GM finds the participent with the highest current AP (not active AP) and they take their turn, spending their active AP. When they are done, and before the turn is passed, they set aside a new amount of active AP for their next turn. There is also a robust reaction system through which you can spend AP from either your current pool or your active pool to take instant reactions out of turn, at the cost of lowering your place on the initiative order or having less AP to spend on your turn respectively.

Once all participants hit 0 AP, the round ends, everyone regains their full AP and re-wagers a new amount of available AP, and certain effects tick (such as blood loss or magic DoTs)

It has a lot of moving parts, which worries me (and frustrates me when there are more than a handful of npcs to control). But so far friends have found it very engaging. There is a contest every round to seize the upper hand on the initiative sequence and keep it until the people at the bottom hit zero, so you can spend your last few hoarded points to make actions they have no way to react to or defend against.

>>50378612
Technoir has interesting condition-based mechanics. You have verbs and adjectives. Verbs let you apply adjectives on the target, whether they're positive or negative. So you can Coax someone to make him Embarassed, or Shoot to make someone Covered.

>>50385355
Do we think that 2d10 are shit? is 2d10 in this context not 1d100? what do we all think of 1d100? since im making a game built around that im curious to hear what thoughts about it are out there

>>50391130
With a d100, unless you have some sort of secondary function for the second digit, it's literally 9 times out of 10 doing nothing. Which makes it kinda wasted, in my opinion.

>>50389702
It's not unlike the new exalted combat

>>50381934
Everyone secretly picks an Initiative number. Highest number goes first, but the higher the number, the higher the fumble threshold.

>>50378612
I'm infatuated with the idea of a balance mechanic wherein the road to advancement is also the road to eventual character death/removal.

As an example, I have a rules-light game system I use with a few friends where the best way to gain EXP also increases "Gloom" (a setting-specific stat which in a nutshell is how much of your soul is bound to minor demons). When a character reaches the Gloom cap, they get spirited away and you need a new PC. I enjoy the sense of inevitability it gives to character death, but speaking in more mechanical terms I have combined this with a leveling system where you need steadily increasing amount of EXP to buy up to the next level and when you mix those two elements you get new PCs quickly leveling up to catch up with the rest of the party, a forced elimination of any PC that's been around too long/is getting too strong, and a soft plateau of power level for PCs.

Along a similar vein, PCs can get extra boosts to their power that are independent of their character level in the form of Talents, but every Talent you take leaves you more vulnerable to Gloom accumulation (and the only way to lose Gloom is basically DM fiat). Even with lots of Talents, losing your PC in just a few sessions isn't a real possibility, but taking that easy shortcut to power WILL shorten your character's life span (or at least their time as a PC, since capping on Gloom doesn't necessarily mean death, it just means your PC gets taken out of the picture) by some amount in the long run.

>>50391477
there's something similar to this for orcs in Burning Wheel

They have a stat called Hatred, as bad things happen to them their hatred increases, hatred is the base stat for a bunch of their unique skills, meaning that as it increases you get better at doing orc stuff. If it gets too high though you either go berserk and die violently or you retreat from the world and go live in the wilderness, either way retire character.

>>50391477

There's an interesting game which uses this concept, Dawn Command. The players are Phoenixborn, reincarnated heroes who gain strength with each death. However, you can only die seven times and remain mortal, after that you return to the flame and act as a mentor and advisor to future Phoenixborn.

It's an interesting dynamic, since it's a game all about heroic sacrifice- You get abilities entirely about dying in awesome ways. But you also need to be careful, as your character is on a set timeline.

D100 is just a more granular d20. I don't think getting +1% or +3% a good thing when you can work with 5% steps.

Changing subject, using advantage and disadvantage from D&D 5e in a 3d6 roll mechanic good, bad or overpower? I mean rolling 4d6 and dropping the higher/lower one.

File: Bloodborne System Notes.png (98KB, 661x531px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 661x531px

Since there's no Game Design General, I'm going to repost this Bloodborne/DaS inspired stuff I've been working on.

The game is d20 roll under, and is basically a d% system (think Dark Heresy et al) shaved to 5%. Higher numbers are better, though, provided they don't go over your target number.
>If your TN is 12 you succeed on 3, 7, 10, but fail on 13
In combat, you roll 1d20 plus the dice of your weapon's damage and if the d20 roll is less than your target number, you're treated as if you succeeded with a roll of d20+damage dice.
>1d20+1d6 that comes up 10 and 4 will still pass a TN 12, but still be treated as if you rolled 14.
I am thinking of figuring out some way to make that less swingy, though, like having only half the d20 contribute to damage. Otherwise successful hits can still end up dealing only 2 damage. Though hit locations can possibly fix that.

Weapons also have stances, which are basically the trick weapon stuff.
>Just to test things out:
Daggers are AP 3 and add 1d4 damage. When they change stance, they're AP 4, but add 1d4 per flurry.
Swords are AP 4 and +1d6, and become AP 6 and +2d6 in their second stance.
Axes are AP5 with +1d8; second stance is AP8 with 2d8 and treats armour as two less when Cleaving.

>>50392152
>>50392515
These two posts aren't by the same poster, but touch on the same thing with d20/d100. Neat.

>>50391153
T-that's a good point, anon....basically any %ile system can be reduced to a single d10 roll with very little difference - thank you for opening my eyes to such an elegantly simple observation that i've missed for years and years!! Fuck i'm dumb.
Any other interesting observations?

File: 4859909-battle_royale_v15_154_155.jpg (274KB, 1456x1070px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 1456x1070px

>>50387959

Interesting... But that's gonna get complicated in a battle where there are multiple different types of weapons. Or where everyone's the same kinda weapons. What happens in a martial arts battle? A swordfight? Do fists go before derringers? Do derringers go before switchblades? Do pistols go before swords? What about a vehicular battle?

File: cCy8GLp.jpg (147KB, 800x1142px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 800x1142px

>>50387861
>Make ten million actions and fish for Nat 20s.

Nah, there'd be a cap on the number of extra actions you can take. Based on your reflexes stat or something.

>>50387875
>Nat 20 shouldn't be a thing in systems like that.

Why not?

>Also, assuming it works like SW, you can't do the same action twice; i.e. you can't attack with the same weapon twice (unless it has rapid fire or you have some sort of special action that allows it), or move your speed twice, etc. because it'd get rather silly.

Depends on the weapon. A semiautomatic pistol can be fired several times per second... all the shots are gonna have shit accuracy though. (Which is how the "penaties for multiple actions" idea works.)

>>50388692

Yeah, I've never been comfortable with this kind of system. It gives everyone ESP -- they all know what everyone else is gonna do. It robs the fight of a hell of a lot of drama.

File: 87c287c781d686ebc70d66ff3057e944d87a3428_hq.jpg (14KB, 440x268px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 440x268px

>>50388733
>Not bad at all, reminds me of the Doctor Who rpg where the type of action you do determines your initiative - talkers get to act before runners who get to act before fighters.

Ohhhh, that's good! It favors the talkers, which is a VERY Doctor Who idea.

File: TF Ginrai - Go On Please.jpg (92KB, 768x576px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 768x576px

>>50388973

(No sarcasm meant. I'm listening.)

>>50388987
>excel sheet
>knowledge of probability math

Dude.

"I'm gonna shoot my gun three times, while running. That's four actions, so that's -4 to everything."

You think that's a math puzzle? Phew. I feel bad for you, son.

>>50389702

Sounds clever, but too complicated. I mean, for my taste. If you're enjoying it, it sounds cool. An old giant robot game called "Mecha!" used action points like that, kinda. But without the contest to seize the upper hand during initiative. I think.

Sounds innovative, I'd like to try it.

>>50390024

That's kinda clever. I assume your Punch someone to make them Unconscious?

>>50391381
>Everyone secretly picks an Initiative number. Highest number goes first, but the higher the number, the higher the fumble threshold.

!!! Now THAT is clever.

>>50393048
Actually, most d% systems are grades of 5% jumps, so d20 is better (which is why I do that >>50392515 )

>>50393276
>>50387959
Chronicles of Darkness (nWoD 2e) does that. Bigger weapons have bigger initiative penalties, generally. If you want to be fast, just straight up drop your weapon and punch a guy.
People bitch about it, though. Not often, but there are people who complain that aiming a gun means staying still, so you shouldn't have an initiative penalty.

>>50393311
Nat 20s would mean every one of those high penalty actions still has a 5% chance to automatically succeed. Also, the other anon just said "unless it has rapid fire or you have some sort of special action that allows it".

>>50393048
Well, there's still the granularity for bonuses, but yeah, I really don't see a mechanical reason to use a d100 for a system, unless, as said, it has some sort of secondary mechanic tied into it. I remember some lightweight system using matching digits for crit pass/fail; not something I'd endorse, to be honest (I find crits attached to special numbers rolled instead of beating or failing the TN by some number to lead to all kinds of silly results) but it's an idea.

Oh, and some groggy types seem to love it for some reason.

>>50393459
It is. You could (and if you optimize, should) calculate the estimated damage a shot does, multiplied by your chance for hitting. Doing this mid-game could be annoying (although, depending on the numbers involved, not that hard).

Say, if that's a d10 system and the target number is 6 or more (so 50% hit chance). That means running and shooting once. If the weapon's average damage is 10, shooting once while running has the expected damage of 10 x (50%-20%) = 3.

Shooting 2 times is 2x( 10 x (50%-30%) ) = 6.

Shooting 3 times is 3x( 10 x (50%-40%) ) = 3.

So with these numbers, you actually would want to shoot 2 times instead of 3, but I would not call that intuitive (especially since 3 shots have the same expected damage as 1).

Of course, these are random numbers, but I think they illustrate my point.

>>50393600
It's Shinobigami's initiative system.
There is a bit more to it, as the difference between initiative numbers also acts as distance and the initiative itself doubles as the cost limit for Ninpo, but the basic idea is great.

>>50393670
I like the sound of it, but have no idea what you meant by distance and Ninpo.

Is it something like "pick an initiative of X, get -X to your rolls"?

>>50394290
If you pick 4 as your initiative and want to use a Close Combat Attack (Range: 1, Cost: 0), you can only attack opponents with an initiative count of 3, 4 or 5.
With Surefire (Range: 2, Cost: 3), you can reach opponents on initiative counts 2 and 6 as well. But you only have enough initiative left for a Cost: 1 Support Ninpo. So you could augment your damage with Crushing Blow (Cost: 1), but not repeat your attack with Wind Dancer (Cost: 2).

What is your thought on Numenera's "the player always roll, never the Narrator".

I quite like it. Literally puts the results in the player's hands, giving much agency and attracting attention to the roll.

>>50394633

Love it.

>>50393583
There isn't a strict correlation between the verb and the adjective. Look at Fight: you can make someone Shielded (positive adjective), or make someone Stunned (negative adjective). Verbs are really general concepts, the adjectives determine the result and the narrative.

File: look.png (62KB, 578x435px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 578x435px

>>50394962
Sorry, here's an example.

>>50394633
I feel it's very liberating. I also really like to roll the dice so I get a bit sad. At least all of my random tables are still with me.

I'll also mention Symbaroum which has the same thing, but it feels a bit awkward to back-engineer modificators to player's roll from monster statistics. It's probably nothing and I'll get used to it after a session or two. Haven't had chance to run the game yet.

I liked Agon's DM point buy system, which dealt with the issue of creating balanced challenges by giving the DM points he can spend on challenges and encouraging him to be aggressive and antagonistic. That, along with the fate system* to avoid stupid rocks-fall player death, meant there's no fear of ruining the game with overpowered challenges and you don't feel the need to pull your punches or fudge things in favor of the PCs.

PCs were heroes and had a pseudo-HP stat that measured their destiny. Success and failure both lower fate and when a PC hits zero he has to die on his next adventure, though the details are up to the players and DM.

It was a cool idea but I never actually got a chance to play the game, so maybe it sucked in practice.

One mechanic I've really been digging from Japanese RPGs, Tenra Bansho Zero in particular, is the idea of other players awarding XP instead of the GM.

>>50392152
This can be true but there is other parts of rolling a d100 that give you in a single dice roll. Dark Heresy used this a fair bit, first off using the reverse of 1s and 10s for hit location I believe(it could just be the 1s) or some abilities allowing swap of the 10s and 1s dice to turn a failure into a success or in some cases turn a hit to an arm into a hit to the head. You don't get that so much with a single die system.

>>50395264
Tell me more.

>>50384973
Wait damage pulls off initiative? Like the hit pulls off or do the wound modifiers pull off of initiative?

>>50396108
Basically instead of the GM awarding XP due to whatever, like combats or discoveries, the players award XP to their fellow players based on good roleplay. When one player roleplays well, the other players can choose to award them with one XP apiece.

>>50397068
The system breaks down if there's a female involved.

File: ohnoyoudidnt.jpg (23KB, 449x314px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 449x314px

>>50399212

>>50383872

To be fair, at least 5e recognized that players want to be able to move around without losing all their attacks besides the first. Rogues can hit and run like crazy in 5e compared to the poor shuffling bastards in 3.PF.

Is it best to have multiple movement scales, or just one?

Like, let's say there are soldiers on the battlefield, AFVs on the battlefield, and jets strafing the battlefield. How does one handle their movement?

>>50379166
Which edition of Shadowrun is this, exactly? I'd like to use something like it in a game I'm learning to code to make. Having a pool that you can bump your rolls by every so often seems like it's pretty much in line with what I'd like to do with the game, and I'd like to know the recharge rates for each individual skill so I can figure out where the balance point is.

I´m making a fantasy system for a one player party, because everything I find is either way too narrative or way too mathy and "here´s several lists with hundreds of traits to pick from" style.

Goal is to have very fast paced action that allows both for interesting duels and interesting 1 vs group fights while keeping simple mechanics and relying heavily on fluff. After all, having only one player I don´t need a lot of different mechanics to make different classes feel that much different mechanically.

>1d12+1d6 for challenges. Average difficulty is 10 (50%). Others: 7 (75% chance), 13-14 (about 25%), 16 (10%)
>rolls get modifiers from aspects and skills. There´s three aspects, Warrior, Thief and Mage. They govern everything brawn-y, everything dexterous-y and everything brain-y. Every 2 levels in one gives a +1 to the roll (expected +2 average, +3 only for specialists)
>aspects also govern skills. Most weapon skills are in Warrior, miscelanea in Thief, and magic/knowledge in Mage. Again, 2 levels = +1 to the roll (accumulative with the aspects bonus). Skills can´t be higher than their governing aspect
>aspects also give you your HP. Warrior gives you the most, thief less, and mage almost nothing

This way characters tend to stick to a theme instead of being all over the place, but full overspecialization is heavily discouraged by diminishing returns. A single player needs plenty of flexibility after, but it´s still nice to force him to have weaknesses.

>NPCs have wounds. Average human is 1-2, 3 is exceptional. Big monsters can go up to 4-5, but 1-3 is also the norm
>PC has both wounds and HP. Every 5 HP allows for another wound. Averages should be 1-2-4 wounds (specialist mage, normal, specialist warrior). Most common "classes" would be around 2 wounds and 10-14 HP

>player rolls in combat for hitting (challenge roll + weapon skill + its aspect), damage, and not being hit (challenge + armor skill + its aspect). GM rolls for NPC damage
1/2

File: Capture.png (35KB, 515x609px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 515x609px

>>50402276
>Cont.

>HP is more energy/luck than actual health. PCs lose HP upon being hit (scratches mostly), but they can also spend it themselves to buff rolls. Once all HP is gone, they start getting wounds
>damage is simple. If PC has HP left, die value (-armor) is damage to said HP. If no HP, or if attacking an NPC, it´s about wounds. Pic related

Standoff means simply that the fight goes on. This means that it´s possible to pass an attack roll but still deal no damage, which help fights not being a one-hit affair. Also help make things tense when you need to kill someone fast before reinforcements arrive. Still, rolling a Standoff would benefit you somehow, probably by giving the opponent a minus to his next attack roll or something.

In theory, you can kill anything with one lucky hit. But here is were armor comes in:

>armor reduces damage received
>light armor: -1 wounds, but only against attacks that would deal only one wound. This makes it quite helpful (a longsword is dangerous on 6-8 instead of 4-8), but it´s still useless against strong attacks or heavier weapons. -2HP loss
>medium: -1 wound to everything. -3 HP loss
>heavy: -2 wounds. -4 HP loss

>armor is weight and overall stops dancing around a little, so it reduces your maximum HP. Medium: -2. Heavy, -4. Plus it might hinder other activities, GM fiat

This way light characters can go around doing high risk high reward kung fu, or they can be a solid as fuck guy in plate. Both work, both have their problems

>NPCs are simple. A bandit is -1, -1, 1 (-1 to PC defend roll, -1 to PC attack roll, 1 wound). A dragon is -5, -4, 4
>also a tag system to help GMing behavior: Terrifying, Flying, Messy, Heavy armor, Large, Solitary/Group/Horde... Usually 2-3 tags, just a little help. Rely more on narrative to determine modifiers and stuff
>NPCs have no armor unless specifically stated (only the nastiest ones do), as it´s considered to be included into their -x/-x stats


Opinions?