This the the discussion thread for my new gaming system, which can be found here (http://thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?42599.0#post_42600). Please post any comments, questions, critiques, or suggestions in this thread.
So, finally I got to take a look at the ideas for your system.
First, what I like...
#1: Settingless. While some systems that are deeply tied into their settings (like Earthdawn, Shadowrun, Lot5R, etc) are really good, this connection makes it very hard to introduce houserules for certain aspects of the game. Therefore I'm a huge fan of systems that are not tied into a particular setting (like GURPS, d20, etc).
#2: Classless. In my opinion classes are too restrictive for advanced players ("I need 2 levels in class A plus 2 levels in class B plus 5 levels in class C plus prestige classes X and Y to make a character fitting my concept.") while not necessarily making things easier for new players ("Why can't I take a level in class F as an elf?" or "Why don't I get new class I spells if I take a level in class J"). A skillbased system, however, can easily emulate classes by providing a sort of template with a predefined selection of skills and advantages (or whatever those perks are called in a system).
Now, what I don't like so much...
#1: Attributes. While I myself are a fan of systems that don't swarm the player with an unnecessary amount of attributes (*cough*The Black Eye*cough*), simplifying things too much is in my opinion also contraproductiv. For example, I don't like that the only mental attribute is "Intelligence". This means that the character is either all of...
- smart
- observative
- strong willed
- mathematically apt
...or he is all of...
- dumb
- unobservative
- weak willed
- unable to calculate "2+2"
...but there is no middle ground. Concepts like the "confused professor" or "naive but highly observative teenager" or "strong willed simpleton" are unable to be made with your system.
Further, I don't like the emphasis and importance you place in the attribute "Durability". It has similar problems to "Intelligence". A character can either have a high stamina, be resitant to diseases or poisons, have many hitpoints, have a large energy reserve, etc, or he has none of that. Also, I just cannot see how the ability of being able to perform multiple demanding mental or coordinative tasks in a row should be related to one's physical condition. Just look at Stephen Hawking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking) as an example of how the physical condition has no influence of one's mental capabilities.
#2: Diceless. This is more a personal thing, but is somewhat related to point #3 (see below). While I find your approach interesting, it takes away a lot of fun. In my opinion, rolling dice is part of a classical roleplaying game. Also, removing dicerolls from the system presents some interesting challenges regarding damage and combat. I'm really curious to see how you handle these situations.
#3: Skill mechanics. I just don't like them. There is no random chance with them. For example, a character has skill A at 4 ranks. However, the task he attempts has difficulty 5. No matter what, the character can NEVER succeed at that task. Also, what happens if you attempt easy tasks (with difficulty 1 or 2) after you exhausted all your energy? Like trying to drive a vehicle through the rush-hour traffic after you escaped some assassins?
~~~
Ok, that's all for now. I hope my comments are not too much of a mess. :D
Quote from: Ra-TielSo, finally I got to take a look at the ideas for your system.
First, what I like...
#1: Settingless. While some systems that are deeply tied into their settings (like Earthdawn, Shadowrun, Lot5R, etc) are really good, this connection makes it very hard to introduce houserules for certain aspects of the game. Therefore I'm a huge fan of systems that are not tied into a particular setting (like GURPS, d20, etc).
#2: Classless. In my opinion classes are too restrictive for advanced players ("I need 2 levels in class A plus 2 levels in class B plus 5 levels in class C plus prestige classes X and Y to make a character fitting my concept.") while not necessarily making things easier for new players ("Why can't I take a level in class F as an elf?" or "Why don't I get new class I spells if I take a level in class J"). A skillbased system, however, can easily emulate classes by providing a sort of template with a predefined selection of skills and advantages (or whatever those perks are called in a system).
Thank you, on both accounts. Those are actually the reasons I went with those choices.
QuoteNow, what I don't like so much...
#1: Attributes. While I myself are a fan of systems that don't swarm the player with an unnecessary amount of attributes (*cough*The Black Eye*cough*), simplifying things too much is in my opinion also contraproductiv. For example, I don't like that the only mental attribute is "Intelligence". This means that the character is either all of...
- smart
- observative
- strong willed
- mathematically apt
...or he is all of...
- dumb
- unobservative
- weak willed
- unable to calculate "2+2"
...but there is no middle ground. Concepts like the "confused professor" or "naive but highly observative teenager" or "strong willed simpleton" are unable to be made with your system.
Further, I don't like the emphasis and importance you place in the attribute "Durability". It has similar problems to "Intelligence". A character can either have a high stamina, be resitant to diseases or poisons, have many hitpoints, have a large energy reserve, etc, or he has none of that. Also, I just cannot see how the ability of being able to perform multiple demanding mental or coordinative tasks in a row should be related to one's physical condition. Just look at Stephen Hawking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking) as an example of how the physical condition has no influence of one's mental capabilities.
For the most part, I intend to have these differences reflected by various skills and advantages/disadvantages. For example, the naive but observant teen might not have an exceptionally high INT score, but he has a pretty decent Investigation skill, possibly even with an automatic bonus granted from an Advantage. Another thing is that Advantages, Disadvantages, and even Skills will have various options specific to them (the Defense advantage will be a prime example, once I get it written out).
The issue you gave with mental tasks being assigned to a physical attribute is, indeed, a problem, and I think it's closely linked to the fact that there's a blanket reserve of Energy, for all tasks (you addressed that problem later on, too). While most scenarios are understandable (spending all your Energy on Swimming, then not being able to climb), there are some oddities that I'd like to work out of the system, such as the ones you've pointed out.
Quote#2: Diceless. This is more a personal thing, but is somewhat related to point #3 (see below). While I find your approach interesting, it takes away a lot of fun. In my opinion, rolling dice is part of a classical roleplaying game. Also, removing dicerolls from the system presents some interesting challenges regarding damage and combat. I'm really curious to see how you handle these situations.
I do have an idea about combat and damage, but it's being very slowly refined in my head. Once I feel the idea is good enough for posting, it will be.
Quote#3: Skill mechanics. I just don't like them. There is no random chance with them. For example, a character has skill A at 4 ranks. However, the task he attempts has difficulty 5. No matter what, the character can NEVER succeed at that task. Also, what happens if you attempt easy tasks (with difficulty 1 or 2) after you exhausted all your energy? Like trying to drive a vehicle through the rush-hour traffic after you escaped some assassins?
The lack of random chance is exactly why I decided to go diceless. In a traditional system (say, d20), you could have the party meathead roll a natural 1 STR check to try to tear down an iron door that he otherwise could have easily torn down. Next up to the door, the mage rolls a natural 20, and off the hinges the door goes. This sort of randomness doesn't seem very realistic to me.
However, with my system, an average person with 5 ranks in Swimming (assuming 5 to be the average, which I haven't quite settled on), couldn't manage swimming across the Atlantic without some serious training. It's not that it's humanly impossible (it
has been done before), just that it's a very difficult task that not many people are physically up to. On the other hand, if a character has advanced his Swimming skill to the point where he knows he can swim across the Atlantic (okay, maybe with quite a bit of effort, preparation, and rest afterwards, but still), then why give him the chance to "roll a natural 1" when doing a single lap in his backyard pool?
QuoteOk, that's all for now. I hope my comments are not too much of a mess. :D
No problem, I appreciate the feedback :)
Quote from: Sdragon1984Thank you, on both accounts. Those are actually the reasons I went with those choices.
I see.
Quote from: Sdragon1984For the most part, I intend to have these differences reflected by various skills and advantages/disadvantages. For example, the naive but observant teen might not have an exceptionally high INT score, but he has a pretty decent Investigation skill, possibly even with an automatic bonus granted from an Advantage. Another thing is that Advantages, Disadvantages, and even Skills will have various options specific to them (the Defense advantage will be a prime example, once I get it written out).
Ok, now I get what you mean. However, I wonder why you'd need attributes at all then. ;)
Quote from: Sdragon1984The issue you gave with mental tasks being assigned to a physical attribute is, indeed, a problem, and I think it's closely linked to the fact that there's a blanket reserve of Energy, for all tasks (you addressed that problem later on, too). While most scenarios are understandable (spending all your Energy on Swimming, then not being able to climb), there are some oddities that I'd like to work out of the system, such as the ones you've pointed out.
How about giving each attribute it's own energy reserve, and make skills use the energy reserve of the associated attribute? Eg, Swim would use Durability energy, Firearms would use Dexterity energy, Cryptanalysis (eg. breaking a cipher) would use Intelligence energy, etc. You could then include advantages that allowed a character to use one type of energy for unassociated skills, like allowing Dexterity energy to power Durability based skills and so on.
Quote from: Sdragon1984I do have an idea about combat and damage, but it's being very slowly refined in my head. Once I feel the idea is good enough for posting, it will be.
Ahhh, ok. I wasn't sure about that, so I thought better mention it. :)
Quote from: Sdragon1984The lack of random chance is exactly why I decided to go diceless. In a traditional system (say, d20), you could have the party meathead roll a natural 1 STR check to try to tear down an iron door that he otherwise could have easily torn down. Next up to the door, the mage rolls a natural 20, and off the hinges the door goes. This sort of randomness doesn't seem very realistic to me.
I see somebody else has been watching "The Gamers". :D However, the situation you describe is exaggerated. First, natural 1 and natural 20 have no impact on things other than saves and attack rolls. This means, that even with a rolled natural 1 your Conan-style barbarian probably has a result of 7-10, while even with a rolled natural 20 your elderly mage has a result in the 18-21 range.
If you consider the typical break DCs for doors (last table at the bottom) (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm), even with the hightest possible result the mage would actually be unable to break down a "strong wooden door" or anything else, and by far would be unable to bend iron bars.
At most, the natural 1 result on the barbarians attempt should be treated as the "first try" to get his grip right before making the "real" attempt. ;) Another thing, why do most athletic competitions allow for two or three attempts and then take the best result? Because <gamespeek>the athlet can always roll below his abilities first and still get a really good result later</gamespeek>. :P
Quote from: Sdragon1984However, with my system, an average person with 5 ranks in Swimming (assuming 5 to be the average, which I haven't quite settled on), couldn't manage swimming across the Atlantic without some serious training. It's not that it's humanly impossible (it has been done before), just that it's a very difficult task that not many people are physically up to. On the other hand, if a character has advanced his Swimming skill to the point where he knows he can swim across the Atlantic (okay, maybe with quite a bit of effort, preparation, and rest afterwards, but still), then why give him the chance to "roll a natural 1" when doing a single lap in his backyard pool?
Well, in DnD movement related skills typically only cover about one move action worth of distance. It'd take an awful lot of swim checks to actually make it across the Atlantic ocean by the book. Add to that the option of circumstancial modifiers, weather influence, swim DC modifiers, weight modifiers, fatigue, and you quickly approach DCs that anyone with less than 15 ranks just can't handle.
But this still doesn't solve the problem of characters being faced with situations where they will never be able to actually succeed at the task because they have 1 rank too few in skill X. In a "normal" system you could always hope for a high roll and still make it (eg jumping over a collapsing bridge), but in your system a character with Jump 1 wouldn't even have to try, because he cannot spend more than 1 energy on that attempt and is automatically bound to fail the check.
QuoteThe lack of random chance is exactly why I decided to go diceless. In a traditional system (say, d20), you could have the party meathead roll a natural 1 STR check to try to tear down an iron door that he otherwise could have easily torn down. Next up to the door, the mage rolls a natural 20, and off the hinges the door goes. This sort of randomness doesn't seem very realistic to me.
I've encountered this problem before, but there are other solutions than total dicelessness. In my system, for example, characters trained (and especially specialized) in a given skill can autosucceed at one or two die tasks as of first level (circumventing the fighter with a +5 str modifier failing a DC10 str check to do fifty push ups... actually happened to me once).
If you do have your heart set on the diceless thing, though, you might consider checking out Amber. Might help you out a little.
In addition, are you going generic like GURPS did (where you try to account for almost everything in the core stuff) or like D20 did (specific games, bare minimum mechanics in the SRD, but OGL means that *somewhere* there's an awesome D20 variant of *exactly what you want to play)? Or maybe some combination of the two?
Quote from: beeblebroxI've encountered this problem before, but there are other solutions than total dicelessness. In my system, for example, characters trained (and especially specialized) in a given skill can autosucceed at one or two die tasks as of first level (circumventing the fighter with a +5 str modifier failing a DC10 str check to do fifty push ups... actually happened to me once). [...]
In my humble opinion... 50 push-ups are a
tad difficult. No way an average untrained person is able to do it. Therefore, the DC should imho be more something in the 15-20 range. ;)
Quote from: Ra-TielQuote from: beeblebroxI've encountered this problem before, but there are other solutions than total dicelessness. In my system, for example, characters trained (and especially specialized) in a given skill can autosucceed at one or two die tasks as of first level (circumventing the fighter with a +5 str modifier failing a DC10 str check to do fifty push ups... actually happened to me once). [...]
In my humble opinion... 50 push-ups are a tad difficult. No way an average untrained person is able to do it. Therefore, the DC should imho be more something in the 15-20 range. ;)
really? i can do it, and my arms are like toothpicks.
I guess my idea was just something along the lines of that if someone's got the maximum possible strength, rolling a 4 shouldn't screw them over on mundane tasks.
QuoteHow about giving each attribute it's own energy reserve, and make skills use the energy reserve of the associated attribute? Eg, Swim would use Durability energy, Firearms would use Dexterity energy, Cryptanalysis (eg. breaking a cipher) would use Intelligence energy, etc. You could then include advantages that allowed a character to use one type of energy for unassociated skills, like allowing Dexterity energy to power Durability based skills and so on.
Listen to your friend Ra-Tiel, for he is wise.
There are a number of ways you could go about this. For example, your attributes could represent your starting reserve points in an adventure, and your skill could represent the maximum you could spend on any one task.
*Or* you could have a single pool of points. Skill+stat would (firstly) determine what tasks you could succeed at automatically (you don't have to spend points on a task of skill+stat or less difficulty) and (secondly) be multiplied by 1+points if you did spend points. Needless to say, give them fewer points in this system. Or apply some maximum to the number of points you can spend on a check.
In either case, you may need some way of getting new points as well.
Quote from: beeblebroxreally? i can do it, and my arms are like toothpicks.
Well, my arms are quite strong and I cannot. *shrug*
Quote from: beeblebroxI guess my idea was just something along the lines of that if someone's got the maximum possible strength, rolling a 4 shouldn't screw them over on mundane tasks.
Then perhaps something similar to the Tri20 system of my design could help here:
* skills have ranks and modifiers
* a skill's modifier is calculate from three attributes the skill is based on
* a skill's modifier is further added to each check made on that skill
* a skill's ranks is the measurement of training and can be improved by the player
* the final result of a skill check is d20 + skill modifier and then capped based on a "look up" table dependent on the skill's ranks
The skill's modifier is usually much higher than the skill's ranks, assuring success on relatively easy tasks, while the capping based on the ranks assure that only those with intensive training (== high ranks) are capable of getting a degree of success high enough to perform the really difficult/impressive tasks.
Quote from: beeblebroxQuote from: Ra-TielQuote from: beeblebroxI've encountered this problem before, but there are other solutions than total dicelessness. In my system, for example, characters trained (and especially specialized) in a given skill can autosucceed at one or two die tasks as of first level (circumventing the fighter with a +5 str modifier failing a DC10 str check to do fifty push ups... actually happened to me once). [...]
In my humble opinion... 50 push-ups are a tad difficult. No way an average untrained person is able to do it. Therefore, the DC should imho be more something in the 15-20 range. ;)
really? i can do it, and my arms are like toothpicks.
I guess my idea was just something along the lines of that if someone's got the maximum possible strength, rolling a 4 shouldn't screw them over on mundane tasks.
Especially when rolling a 6 would allow a lesser skilled character to succeed. Which is exactly what I'm trying to avoid.
[blockquote]
QuoteHow about giving each attribute it's own energy reserve, and make skills use the energy reserve of the associated attribute? Eg, Swim would use Durability energy, Firearms would use Dexterity energy, Cryptanalysis (eg. breaking a cipher) would use Intelligence energy, etc. You could then include advantages that allowed a character to use one type of energy for unassociated skills, like allowing Dexterity energy to power Durability based skills and so on.
Actually, that first option seems like it might be the best. It would grant an overall total of twice the EP that the system currently allows, but the selection would be more limited, depending on your selection of skills... I think I like it :)
Quote from: Sdragon1984Actually, that first option seems like it might be the best. It would grant an overall total of twice the EP that the system currently allows, but the selection would be more limited, depending on your selection of skills... I think I like it :)
Awesome.
I added another skill to the list, and I wrote out the description of another advantage.
This is the first I've seen of this system (I guess I missed the post before), so I'm going to comment on it as whole, rather than just the new stuff.
First of all, I like the diceless approach. I've always been more of a "freeform" player myself, and the luck of the dice can do strange things. However, since you've opted to go diceless, I have to ask, why do you need attribute scores at all?
It seems to me like a character could start off as a pretty much "average person," and various advantages and disadvantages would tell the tale of their unique traits. You could place advantages and disadvantages into various categories, to make it easier on the players to know what's up, of course: it somewhat reminds me of the system of using lists of adjectives to note your abilities used by V:tM's LARP system.
Now, about your new advantage, which I assume is "Radar/Sonar." I would suggest keeping abilities like this simple and generic, and modifying them as needed to fit the specific way the character uses-- for example, the core of this ability is "Perception." This can come in different forms. As a simple example, normal human eyesight would be the ability "Perception - Light-based, passive." Something like Sonar where 'pings' are sent out would be "Sound-based, active." You can get very complex with these modifiers, and how complex you want to get depends on how many different factors you feel balancing (and how much of a headache you want to give the GM) but my basic suggestion is to keep the mechanics as open-ended as possible, since you are going for a "settingless" system.
If you have never read GURPS Powers, I'd recommend it; you'll probably find a lot of inspiration and useful information in there. It does a very good job of breaking down various esoteric powers into their root effects, which is really what makes them work as a game mechanic.
[blockquote=Ra][blockquote=beeblebrox]
really? i can do it, and my arms are like toothpicks.[/blockquote]
Well, my arms are quite strong and I cannot. *shrug*[/blockquote]
Ah, the very best example of muscular enduance versus muscular strength I have seen in a while. Beeb here is pretty much describing muscular endurance (related to BUT DEFINITELY NOT the same thing as aerobic endurance). Otherwise known as the ability to push /exert at a sub maximal level (often 50% single max)for a certain amouint of time
Muscular strength deals with the the ability to push/exert a large amount once, or once or twice.
I only bother to bring it up because they really are 2 very seperate things that we lump together.
Quote from: sparkletwistThis is the first I've seen of this system (I guess I missed the post before), so I'm going to comment on it as whole, rather than just the new stuff.
That's perfectly fine by me. In fact, commenting on it as a whole is encouraged :)
QuoteFirst of all, I like the diceless approach. I've always been more of a "freeform" player myself, and the luck of the dice can do strange things. However, since you've opted to go diceless, I have to ask, why do you need attribute scores at all?
The primary reason I'm going diceless is to avoid the quirkiness of "the luck of the dice". Another reason, although to a lesser extent, is that actions require energy to do. In, say, d20 (and I continue to use that as an example simply because it's the system most people are familiar with), a 7th level Fighter could fight goblins for weeks straight, with no sleep, and incur very little penalties. In this system, it doesn't really matter if you're that powerful, you're eventually going to wear yourself out, even fighting goblins.
(please note that this was written before using another tab to read Vreeg's comment)
Why do I keep ability scores? Because everybody has some degree of physical strength, but not everybody is good at climbing. Just because you're not good at climbing doesn't mean you can't lift yourself up a bit and try for a foothold. Likewise, just because everybody has intelligence (despite seeming evidence to the contrary :p), not everybody has deductive skills.
By the way, after thinking about the whole Energy Pool per Attribute idea, I've decided against it for this very reason. Why bother buying levels in Climb when you can put Strength EP right back into Strength?
I do have a solution that I'm thinking of using, but I'm not quite sure exactly how I'm going to implement it yet.
QuoteIt seems to me like a character could start off as a pretty much "average person," and various advantages and disadvantages would tell the tale of their unique traits. You could place advantages and disadvantages into various categories, to make it easier on the players to know what's up, of course: it somewhat reminds me of the system of using lists of adjectives to note your abilities used by V:tM's LARP system.
In designing this system, I'm learning that class-based systems seem to start off with PC classes and their various unique talents, and then working backwards to the NPC classes, by taking away all of those talents and abilities. Skill-based systems seem to work more in the opposite direction, using the average human as a base, and then working to explain what makes a given character different.
I'm not very familiar with V:tM, and know nothing about the LARP system they use, but if I'm not mistaken, isn't the system skill-based? Or are the various clans more like classes?
QuoteNow, about your new advantage, which I assume is "Radar/Sonar." I would suggest keeping abilities like this simple and generic, and modifying them as needed to fit the specific way the character uses-- for example, the core of this ability is "Perception." This can come in different forms. As a simple example, normal human eyesight would be the ability "Perception - Light-based, passive." Something like Sonar where 'pings' are sent out would be "Sound-based, active." You can get very complex with these modifiers, and how complex you want to get depends on how many different factors you feel balancing (and how much of a headache you want to give the GM) but my basic suggestion is to keep the mechanics as open-ended as possible, since you are going for a "settingless" system.
I'm not entirely sure what you're saying, here. Are you suggesting that I should make plain Sight an advantage?
QuoteIf you have never read GURPS Powers, I'd recommend it; you'll probably find a lot of inspiration and useful information in there. It does a very good job of breaking down various esoteric powers into their root effects, which is really what makes them work as a game mechanic.
I don't think I've read that yet, but I know that, out of all genres, support for the superhero genre is one of the priorities at this point in creation, so I may give that a look.
Quote from: Sdragon1984Why do I keep ability scores? Because everybody has some degree of physical strength, but not everybody is good at climbing.
I'm not entirely sure what you're saying, here. Are you suggesting that I should make plain Sight an advantage?[/quote]
No, I was just using plain sight as an example. What I'm saying is that it might help a lot in terms of structuring things (as well as giving options to players) break down your advantages to their component parts (that is, rather than describing it in terms of "Radar," describe what it actually DOES) to keep them as generic and flexible as possible.
I'll get to the rest later, but first...
Quote from: sparkletwistQuote from: Sdragon1984Why do I keep ability scores? Because everybody has some degree of physical strength, but not everybody is good at climbing.
Does that mean it'll manifest in a manner that properly represents the character? To use an example from the Marvel Universe, Reed Richards obviously has strength, but what strength-based skill should he have? Lifting mechanical duwhatzits?
Quote from: Sdragon1984Does that mean it'll manifest in a manner that properly represents the character? To use an example from the Marvel Universe, Reed Richards obviously has strength, but what strength-based skill should he have? Lifting mechanical duwhatzits?
Well, it will if the player playing the character has assigned the character the appropriate strength-based attributes, skills, and whatnot.
I don't know who Reed Richards is, but a quick google tells me that he's super stretchy. So his abilities would be in that realm... :)
Quote from: sparkletwistQuote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_GuyStrong Guy[/url].
Quote from: Sdragon1984My point, though, is that "super stretchy" isn't really something that'd be associated with strength.
ultimately, it's their advantages, disadvantages, and skills that really make them special.[/quote]
I agree with you there, which is why I advocated dumping the attributes completely. ;)
But just because the attributes aren't what make the character special doesn't mean that they don't have the attributes. My point with Reed Richards is that, even though it isn't crucial to his character, he obviously still has some strength. Everybody has strength to some degree. Since it isn't crucial to his character, though, how could it be represented in a manner other then attributes?
Anyway, I updated the Energy section to reflect my ideas on how to handle mental tasks. I should be updating the Attributes section to follow suit sometime soon.
Okay, I've updated Attributes, Disadvantages, and Skills. Skills still needs a bit more of an update, but that will come soon enough.
I think that skills and their development is going to help me get a better handle on the system. I use a very skill-intensive system. I'm going to need to know how atributes afect skills, as well.
I like your simple-but-elegant energy expenditure system. It looks very adaptable for all sorts of conditions. Should allow for multiple levels of ability as well, and truly heroic individuals will have more energy.
Though I am not a big advantages/disadvantes guy, I must say your Hulk argument is sound, for what you are using it for.
A few notes that are all over the place. Some based on your system, the rest from the comments:
In regards to energy: Does it require (precious) energy just to drive straight ahead? Of course, a person would have to rest if driving far enough, but is that what you want energy to represent? It sounds more like you expend your energy doing fancy/dangerous stuff (such as a car chase). Maybe some uses of a skill shouldn't cost energy (if the DC is a certain value below the skill level of the character?)
My opinion about advantages and disadvantages is that people can "min/max" with them and take disadvantages that does not affect their character much, while getting advantages that beef them up.
I would suggest either making disadvantages optional (making people pay for advantages in CP possibly? - or a combo) or making differences between advantages and disadvantages so that disadvantages weigh more heavily than advantages (or are worth less points).
I also don't like the "getting more CP by taking disadvantages". You are going to end up with super strong, but blind, crippled, one-armed characters (as an example).
Under "Radar/Sonar" - the "Extra source" seems somewhat expensive (though I am still not sure the value of a point). I would only take it if I felt the GM was out to screw me over with that ability.
In regards to skills costing either Mental or Physical energy: Why not either make the action decide which of those two is used, or just have the player pick (this could be used to beef up some skills if needed).
Attributes: I agree with Ra-Tiel that there might be too much focus on the physical attributes.
Dice/less: In regards to the dice discussion, if you did want dice, you could go with a 3d6 or 2d10 system, to create more average rolls - but it will never remove the problem totally. You could also have 3 rolls as I believe was mentioned.
In regards to the problem of missing 1 point to be able to do a skill: Maybe keep the skill and energy, but add a slight randomizer (which will make people use more than the exact needed energy in their actions). An option could be to roll 2d4, one being + and one being - to the total energy spent. Or just 1d4-2 (for instance).
That was it. Just ask if anything didn't make sense (likely!). :)
Quote from: NeubertA few notes that are all over the place. Some based on your system, the rest from the comments:
In regards to energy: Does it require (precious) energy just to drive straight ahead? Of course, a person would have to rest if driving far enough, but is that what you want energy to represent? It sounds more like you expend your energy doing fancy/dangerous stuff (such as a car chase). Maybe some uses of a skill shouldn't cost energy (if the DC is a certain value below the skill level of the character?)
You expend large amounts of energy doing the fancy, complicated stuff, but you still expend small amounts of energy doing more mundane stuff, too. Like you said, if you drive long enough, it will eventually take it's toll on you, even under ideal conditions. If, for example, the GM decides that one EP will allow a character to drive for, say, half an hour, and the character has 5 EP to spend in driving, then that character can drive for 3 1/2 hours straight before they have to pull over for a quick 30 minute power nap (which will allow them to drive for another half hour). If the character is Energetic, they can drive indefinitely, unless the conditions worsen enough to require more then one EP every half hour.
QuoteMy opinion about advantages and disadvantages is that people can "min/max" with them and take disadvantages that does not affect their character much, while getting advantages that beef them up.
...
I also don't like the "getting more CP by taking disadvantages". You are going to end up with super strong, but blind, crippled, one-armed characters (as an example).
Hm. I'm not really sure what you're saying, here. On the one hand, you seem to be worried about min/maxing, but on the other hand, you seem to be worried that the disadvantages might conflict with the advantages. The reason Disadvantages allow extra CP is balance issues. If a drawback doesn't allow a way to make up for it elsewhere, then there's no point to it, since it only nerfs the character.
QuoteI would suggest either making disadvantages optional (making people pay for advantages in CP possibly? - or a combo) or making differences between advantages and disadvantages so that disadvantages weigh more heavily than advantages (or are worth less points).
I might not have been clear on this, but that's how it is at character creation. You only need to get a disadvantage if you want to add a new advantage to an already established character.
QuoteUnder "Radar/Sonar" - the "Extra source" seems somewhat expensive (though I am still not sure the value of a point). I would only take it if I felt the GM was out to screw me over with that ability.
In the end result, I doubt any of the costs will be what they originally were. I chose that for the cost of that advantage simply because it's cheaper then trying to take the advantage twice with two different sources, but ultimately has the same effect. The main reason I have that ability is base on my personal complaint of the Speak Language skill in d20; no matter how many different languages your character can fluently speak-- or, for that matter, how many languages can be understood by the entire party-- it still doesn't stop the GM fiat of the locals into speaking Foo. This option helps prevent that.
QuoteIn regards to skills costing either Mental or Physical energy: Why not either make the action decide which of those two is used, or just have the player pick (this could be used to beef up some skills if needed).
I'd have to have it so that that decision could only be made once for each skill. Otherwise, I might as well just use one Energy Pool, equal to INT + DUR. Right now, the player choose which pool they want to associate with that skill when they get the skill, and the character keeps that Pool for the skill.
In other words, you can choose tracking as a mental skill, and say that your character knows how to interpret footprints and animal droppings, or you can choose it as a physical skill and say that you're part bloodhound.
QuoteAttributes: I agree with Ra-Tiel that there might be too much focus on the physical attributes.
A big part of his argument of a physical emphasis was, at the time, Energy was strictly based on the Durability Attribute. Now that I've changed that, I'm hoping to get a few more opinions, and maybe even a revised opinion from Ra-Tiel. Thank you for mentioning this. Is there any way you could elaborate?
QuoteDice/less: In regards to the dice discussion, if you did want dice, you could go with a 3d6 or 2d10 system, to create more average rolls - but it will never remove the problem totally. You could also have 3 rolls as I believe was mentioned.
In regards to the problem of missing 1 point to be able to do a skill: Maybe keep the skill and energy, but add a slight randomizer (which will make people use more than the exact needed energy in their actions). An option could be to roll 2d4, one being + and one being - to the total energy spent. Or just 1d4-2 (for instance).
So far, the only real argument I've heard against the diceless approach is that it's not traditional. I feel that it is a working solution to several problems. Yes, it's possible that there are other decent solutions to these problems, and those solutions might be able to exist in a more traditional dice-based system, but I haven't really heard any problems inherent in a diceless system.
I think the problem of highly skilled characters failing simple tasks has been handled in dice-based systems (out of the three I've looked at, d20 handles it the worst, GURPS handles it quite a bit better, and Old WOD handles it the best), but like you said, the problem would never be removed totally in a dice-based system.
QuoteThat was it. Just ask if anything didn't make sense (likely!). :)
It wasn't too bad, actually. I had to reread a couple places to be sure of what you meant, but I could follow a lot of what you were trying to say. Hopefully my responses cleared up some of the issues :)
QuoteSo far, the only real argument I've heard against the diceless approach is that it's not traditional. I feel that it is a working solution to several problems. Yes, it's possible that there are other decent solutions to these problems, and those solutions might be able to exist in a more traditional dice-based system, but I haven't really heard any problems inherent in a diceless system.
I think the problem of highly skilled characters failing simple tasks has been handled in dice-based systems (out of the three I've looked at, d20 handles it the worst, GURPS handles it quite a bit better, and Old WOD handles it the best), but like you said, the problem would never be removed totally in a dice-based system.
against[/i] the dice approach is "it's non-standard." ;)
What I mean is that it's entirely possible to eliminate the problem of failing simple tasks without excising dice completely. For example, a while ago I was working on a more "realistic" system for an alternate world history campaign - very un-heroic, death is really easy, etcetera. I had nine "levels" of expertise in every skill, from Untrained to Master. If your character's skill level was equal to or greater than the level of the task, it was an automatic success; if the level of the task was higher than your own, dice were called in depending on your attributes and other factors, and if it was much higher level than your failure was automatic.
At any rate it
is very possible to design systems where dice are only involved if, and only if, a situation arises in which failure is feasible. I removed critical failures on routine tasks in the system I just mentioned precisely because I agree with all the critics of critical fumbles. I just don't think that
dice are the problem, but rather the critical fumbles themselves.
At some point it may just come to a need for DM adjudication, especially if the game system is extremely simple, and thus lacking mechanics to describe and handle every contingency. DMs step in all the time to say "yeah, you don't need to roll for that, it's a given" or "I can definitely see a chance for failure in this situation, roll it." I think many gamers (and world-builders?) are of a "lawful" mindset about this, where they feel awkward substituting judgment for actual rules, but sometimes you have to just roll with it (pardon the pun).
I'm ultimately for the inclusion of some dice because of the importance of randomness in
non-marginal encounters, where success is quite plausible and so is failure. The best example is two combatants of roughly equal skill and ability. Without using randomness, how do you determine who wins? Who has the most energy left? The equal contest is to diceless systems as the "failure on a routine task" is to dice systems. I would argue that a compromise is the best solution, where diceless methods decide the marginal cases and dice mechanics resolve the close contests.
But I am looking forward to seeing where you go with this regardless of where dice end up, including the garbage heap where they're currently located. :)
Quote[blockquote]My opinion about advantages and disadvantages is that people can "min/max" with them and take disadvantages that does not affect their character much, while getting advantages that beef them up.
...
I also don't like the "getting more CP by taking disadvantages". You are going to end up with super strong, but blind, crippled, one-armed characters (as an example).
Hm. I'm not really sure what you're saying, here. On the one hand, you seem to be worried about min/maxing, but on the other hand, you seem to be worried that the disadvantages might conflict with the advantages. The reason Disadvantages allow extra CP is balance issues. If a drawback doesn't allow a way to make up for it elsewhere, then there's no point to it, since it only nerfs the character.[/blockquote]
and
Quote[blockquote]I would suggest either making disadvantages optional (making people pay for advantages in CP possibly? - or a combo) or making differences between advantages and disadvantages so that disadvantages weigh more heavily than advantages (or are worth less points).
I might not have been clear on this, but that's how it is at character creation. You only need to get a disadvantage if you want to add a new advantage to an already established character.[/blockquote]
My point with the example of the strong, but blind character was that (if I understood you correctly) taking disadvantages gives you CP which can either be used for advantages or be spent on attributes. This means I can make a character with a bunch of disadvantages, but with very high attributes. I would counter this (and the first problem with min/maxing), by making disadvantages worth less points (example: an advantage that gives +2 to an energy pool might cost 4 CP and a disadvantage that gives -2 to an energy pool will only give 2 CP).
I know in some systems, disadvantages are not required, but simply an option for players to take if they want to give their character some flavor.
----
I think we might also be talking a bit past each other in the second part. Is it correctly understood that in your system, I can take a disadvantage and either spend the CP it gives on raising my attributes or to buy advantages? Does it also go the other way around so that I can buy advantages with the CP I would normally use to buy attributes?
Quote[blockquote]Attributes: I agree with Ra-Tiel that there might be too much focus on the physical attributes.
A big part of his argument of a physical emphasis was, at the time, Energy was strictly based on the Durability Attribute. Now that I've changed that, I'm hoping to get a few more opinions, and maybe even a revised opinion from Ra-Tiel. Thank you for mentioning this. Is there any way you could elaborate?[/blockquote]
It seems like there are 3 stats governing physical and only 1 for mental. If I want to make a smart character (assuming extremes here), I can pool lots of points into one stat, whereas a character focusing in the physical department would have to spend points in 3 attributes (where one of them is the most expensive one, at 4 CP/point). Of course, I am not sure what your strength and dexterity attributes cover, but this was my initial thought.
@Vreeg: "simple yet elegant" is, I think, my own personal design philosophy. I think there are ways to cover many scenarios that don't use a million and ten tables and charts.
@Polycarp: I have a few "pre-alpha" ideas in my head about how to handle those situations. In short, two balanced-but-different characters are each going to have their own strengths and weaknesses. A wrestler would easily out-grapple a boxer, even if they were equally skilled fighters. Likewise, the boxer would out-hit the wrestler.
@Neubert: I suppose there is an issue of unclarity here. In the example you gave, I'd definitely have the cost of the advantage and disadvantage as balanced as possible. When I have Charisma and Repulsiveness worked out, you'll see what I mean. As for the rest, I think you're right, we probably are talking over each other's heads, and possibly about two ever-so-slightly different issues. Maybe we should put this one on the back burner for a bit?
Sure, looking forward to your updates :)
No problem :)
But in the meantime, does anybody else have any questions or suggestions?
I like your Energy (EP) concept, but I'm not sure if 5-10 EP points would be enough to perform a full day of actions? Maybe I'm not quite getting how one would spend EP points: every few seconds (e.g. combat) ? or do the effects skill check last say an hour or so?
That's actually an area that's a work in progress. I haven't decided how long specific actions last, and as of right now, all numeric values are approximate placeholders. It may end up so that the average person has a maximum of 5 physical EP, or it may end up so that the average maximum is 100. For the sake of bookkeeping (and for what I call Yu-Gi-Oh Power Syndrome, although it could just as easily be called DBZ Power Syndrome), I'm hoping to not have the numeric values needlessly high.
Good idea, so different skills would have different timelines. Something like Animal Training could provide hours of work for 1 EP while perhaps Climbing would give you 10 minutes per 1 EP? I agree keeping the maximum EP fairly low would be a good idea as it would make certain skills "special cases" rather than commonly used.
Have you given any though to spellcasting? Would a similar point system be used? Perhaps the same point system, so both skills and spells draw some the same source of EP?
That actually might be a good idea. As of right now, it's GMs choice, and it might stay that way for awhile, but different timelines sounds like a good way of handling it.
Spellcasting I have had thoughts on, and I'm not perfectly sure what to do. If I don't include it, then I'm limiting the versatility of the system, but if I do include it, my implementation could arguably be limiting the system just as much. I'm going to try to figure out the most generic way to handle this, but it may take a little while. Don't expect magic as the next advancement in the system ;)
Question:
Should I make initiative directly equal to DEX?
I like the simplicity, but it would mean that characters pretty much always go in the same order. Since you're striving for diceless, maybe add a skill (React, Aware, or Initiative?) that allows players to spend EP and be able to get a heads up more often in battle?
That could work. I can also see advantages working in that way, too....
So, after the longest day in history, I'm posting like I promised. I warn you that I'm writing these comments as I read, and I haven't yet read all of the discussion posts:
- I'm worried about the diceless method. Unless there's some sort of "extra effort" mechanic, people will run into stuff that they just can't do, and stuff that they can do they will succeed at without a problem unless their energy is low. I don't know if this simulates reality better than dice, but I know I've gotten Fs on Essays (I'm probably quite skilled at the presumed Writing skill) or burnt rice (I'm a decent enough cook).
- Class vs. Skill based systems aren't inherrently easier to balance than each other. L5R is a skill based system that only uses "classes" to determine some bonuses you get as you advance, and from my experience that system was impossible to balance. Class or Skill isn't what makes things balance-able, it is Level which allows you to balance a game. Without a level cap, you WILL run into characters who focus solely on what makes them strong and will end up stronger than characters who develop organically. Many MMOs, for example, have skills which go up as you use them, but there are still caps to the skills based on your level. Mutants and Masterminds is a point based system that has level-caps, so everything is (too) balanced with each other.
- For making a system setting-less, I feel the most important quality is having a diverse "FX" system. With enough work, non-magical character options can be crafted to allow for any archetypical and atypical non-magical character. Fundamentally, magic differs many settings from others. The traditional D&D classes don't work 100% in my setting anymore because of my setting's take on magic, for instance.
- I'm not 100% sold on your ability scores. Making Intelligence a catch-all mental stat sounds like it will be a must-have, and I don't believe it allows for all of the personality and mental diversity found amongst people. I'm sure you intend for such diversity to be created with skills, and that might be fine. If you do that, though, I would recommend to change "Intelligence" to "Mind" or something. But, about Charisma: Charisma isn't about "showing people you know what you're talking about", that would be what someone without charisma would have to resort to; someone with Charisma is simply liked and trusted, and what they say is taken in the best light generally. I could get into a long list of terrible but charismatic people, but there isn't much agreement.
I'm not really sure what else to say here. I'm not certain how you're going to have the other ability scores come into play, or how conflict resolution is really going to work out. Will players know how much energy a task is going to take to succeed? Will they be encouraged to spend the maximum amount every time?
Xev, I will get around to responding, but there's just so much to respond to! I'll probably end up quoting your post, breaking it apart, and responding to it in piecework. I hope you don't mind that.
In the meantime, I'd like to announce that I'm planning on adding not one, but three magic systems! They'll be similar in design, but I'm hoping that they'll be different in effects.
Also, does anybody have much experience with copyleft / "open" licenses? I don't want to make this system entirely libre, but if this ever becomes commercial, I do want to allow and encourage third party development...
This looks extremely interesting. I was kind of turned off of it by the diceless system, however. If you're trying to make it very flexible and people not having to purchase dice just to play a system, use the bell curve method. All D6 dice. Everybody has some six-sided dice lying around their house, in board games and stuff.
If all skills rely on energy points, what about skills that don't require a good amount of energy. For example, searching for a book on a bookshelf does not require a small amount of physical and mental energy, this amount of energy is very small. Are you giving a great amount of these energy points, because if you are, how would you keep it balanced and everything? Sorry for my rambling.
For the skills, what I recomend is making a template. Here's a rough example.
Skill Name
{Ability Used}
Skill Type: just a basic thing, like fighting, talking, just something to show the main category of the skill to give an idea about it.
Use: What happens when the character uses the skill.
Effect: What technical thing happen {loss of hitpoints to enemy, a lock picked succesfully, Armore Class beat.
You wouldn't even have to write out skills, you could just show this template to your players, and they could use their character creation points to get as many skills as you will let them. They can create them themselves, monitored by you of course, and limited to the power and number of skills they get.
Just ideas and rambling.
Quote from: DrizztrocksThis looks extremely interesting. I was kind of turned off of it by the diceless system, however. If you're trying to make it very flexible and people not having to purchase dice just to play a system, use the bell curve method. All D6 dice. Everybody has some six-sided dice lying around their house, in board games and stuff.
At that point, Why not just play GURPS?
QuoteIf all skills rely on energy points, what about skills that don't require a good amount of energy. For example, searching for a book on a bookshelf does not require a small amount of physical and mental energy, this amount of energy is very small.
Are you giving a great amount of these energy points, because if you are, how would you keep it balanced and everything? Sorry for my rambling.[/quote]For the skills, what I recomend is making a template. Here's a rough example.
Skill Name
{Ability Used}
Skill Type: just a basic thing, like fighting, talking, just something to show the main category of the skill to give an idea about it.
Use: What happens when the character uses the skill.
Effect: What technical thing happen {loss of hitpoints to enemy, a lock picked succesfully, Armore Class beat. [/quote]You wouldn't even have to write out skills, you could just show this template to your players, and they could use their character creation points to get as many skills as you will let them. They can create them themselves, monitored by you of course, and limited to the power and number of skills they get. [/quote]Just ideas and rambling. [/quote]
Thanks!
I'n looking for a free system similar enough to this to help inspire me to find ways to solve some problems, I ran into this (http://www.pigames.net/store/default.php?cPath=21). It also seems to be licensed similar to how I want to eventually license this system. In other words, it might be damned close to what I was aiming for. If it is, it may slow down development on this system. It may speed it up, but I think slowing it down is more likely.
I do, ultimately, want to finish this system. I simply don't see it as being as much of a priority as it once was.
I'm pretty sure you can get Active Exploits for free on RPGdrivethru/RPGnow. At least, i found it there.
Wish I had known beforehand. The site I linked to only allows three free downloads without a paid download.
Before I officially post the pre-alpha combat system, I'd like to run the basic idea to you guys. The premise is that, in combat, all you need to do is allocate EP into a combat-related skill (close combat, ranged combat, and I may include more, but I don't see the point yet), and then can reallocate some of those EP into defense, and your opponent does the same. If your opponent has more EP remaining in their combat skill then you have in your defense, then damage is dealt equal to the excess. In other words, damage = (EP originally allocated to combat - EP reallocated into defense) - (EP allocated in opponent's defense). At first glance, this seems like it might just be a battle of who has more EP to spend, but once modifiers (weapons, shields, armor, advantages, disadvantages, etc.) are considered, it gets pretty strategic. The modifiers probably end up being an even bigger factor then expendable EP. Of course, in extraordinarily extended combat, factors like the Luck and Energetic advantages might come into play, too.
okay, so I've decided to quote you in one big chunk, with minimal response (EG, no substantial response whatsoever), and then edit my response in. If I end up missing anything, let me know.
Quote from: Kapn XeviatSo, after the longest day in history, I'm posting like I promised. I warn you that I'm writing these comments as I read, and I haven't yet read all of the discussion posts:
No problem. Long days are understandable. I will say, though, the discussions might help clarify some of the issues you bring up.
Quote- I'm worried about the diceless method. Unless there's some sort of "extra effort" mechanic, people will run into stuff that they just can't do,
and stuff that they can do they will succeed at without a problem unless their energy is low. I don't know if this simulates reality better than dice, but I know I've gotten Fs on Essays (I'm probably quite skilled at the presumed Writing skill) or burnt rice (I'm a decent enough cook).[/quote]- Class vs. Skill based systems aren't inherrently easier to balance than each other. L5R is a skill based system that only uses "classes" to determine some bonuses you get as you advance, and from my experience that system was impossible to balance. Class or Skill isn't what makes things balance-able, it is Level which allows you to balance a game. Without a level cap, you WILL run into characters who focus solely on what makes them strong and will end up stronger than characters who develop organically. Many MMOs, for example, have skills which go up as you use them, but there are still caps to the skills based on your level. Mutants and Masterminds is a point based system that has level-caps, so everything is (too) balanced with each other.[/quote]- For making a system setting-less, I feel the most important quality is having a diverse "FX" system. With enough work, non-magical character options can be crafted to allow for any archetypical and atypical non-magical character. Fundamentally, magic differs many settings from others. The traditional D&D classes don't work 100% in my setting anymore because of my setting's take on magic, for instance.[/quote]- I'm not 100% sold on your ability scores. Making Intelligence a catch-all mental stat sounds like it will be a must-have, and I don't believe it allows for all of the personality and mental diversity found amongst people. I'm sure you intend for such diversity to be created with skills, and that might be fine. If you do that, though, I would recommend to change "Intelligence" to "Mind" or something.[/quote]But, about Charisma: Charisma isn't about "showing people you know what you're talking about", that would be what someone without charisma would have to resort to; someone with Charisma is simply liked and trusted, and what they say is taken in the best light generally. I could get into a long list of terrible but charismatic people, but there isn't much agreement.[/quote]I'm not really sure what else to say here. I'm not certain how you're going to have the other ability scores come into play, or how conflict resolution is really going to work out.[/quote]Will players know how much energy a task is going to take to succeed?[/quote]Will they be encouraged to spend the maximum amount every time?[/quote]
Good god, no! They'd tire in no time at all if that happened. Can you imagine going to make a sandwich, rushing as fast as you possibly can to the kitchen, opening the fridge door as hard as you can, using all of your perception to find the ham and provolone (or whatever meat/cheese combo you like :p), taking it, slamming the fridge door as hard as you can, and going on making the sandwich with this much force? Certainly, it's better to save your strength for more important things.
a couple new skills are added to the list, and I've started explaining one.
problem I'm having: I want to have it so each EP equals an equivalent amount of power no matter what task you're doing, but the skills might not be comparable in that manner. Should I just let each skill go off and do it's own thing?
Big bump, with a question that, surprisingly, isn't quite as superficial as it seems: Just what should I name this thing?
"New Gaming System" isn't as descriptive nor as evocative as a proper name should be, and at this point, it's no longer all that accurate, either. So what should I call it?
I'm contemplating having an upper limit of 20 for skills levels, at least for developmental purposes. I can scale to taste later on, right?
Also, still looking for some sort of name...
Still having trouble with diceless.
Can you call it, " Grunt with Effort"?
That could be decent for a working name, anyway. Once I get some more development underway, hopefully the weirdness of the lack of dice will work itself out.
So, I've definitely settled on having the max skill level for humans be 20, with average humans ranging from 1-4, and average adventurers ranging from 5 to about 15. I might allow godlike beings to go up to 100, or maybe even more, but that's for future work. This way, I can use push-ups as an example use of strength, with 1 EP equal to five push-ups.
Of course, I'd probably have to change the EP level to two times-- maybe even three times-- DUR, just so that not everything is expended all in one go.
Thoughts?
Is the system really that bland?
Anyway, I've settled (for now) on calling this DUGS-- Diceless Universal Game System. I'm currently working on combat, and might have something up on that by the end of next week.
First new material posted to the CBG in over a year!
For those who are wondering, I am still working on this. Right now, my efforts are directed toward the main mechanics, but I thought I'd put in a couple of ideas for some optional mechanics:
A stress system. I'm not entirely sure what this could be used for, but it might be fun to eventually develop, nonetheless.
A sanity system. Lovecraft galore!
Anyway, I'll probably post some new material sometime soon. Please feel free to let me know what you think of what's up here!
Glad I saw this. I'm making my own diceless system (hidden among the posts on my wizard thread) and I'm currently playing around with an energy expenditure mechanic.
I don't know what advice I can offer at this point given how fast and loose we play, except to say to say that "how about [a variant that is not entirely diceless]" comments don't help at all. Every diceless system I've ever seen (especially my favourite of all systems, Nobilis) requires a great deal of interpretation. That, to me, is a feature. Not a bug.
EDIT: Two other things.
Awesome name. DUGS.
Is combat damage narrative like in Fudge/FATE, so that a single success/failure might represent a change in tactical position, distraction, disarmament etc.?
EDIT 2: Also, this (http://www.dyasdesigns.com/roleplay/decision_driven.html).
Quote from: Salacious AngelGlad I saw this. I'm making my own diceless system (hidden among the posts on my wizard thread) and I'm currently playing around with an energy expenditure mechanic.
I'll have to try to remember to check that out sometime. Remind me, if I don't remember myself.
I like the energy expenditure approach, personally. The idea, I think, is that you have to put something in, in order to get something done.
Quote from: http://www.dyasdesigns.com/roleplay/decision_driven.htmlthis[/url].
That actually looks pretty cool! I can only give it so much attention at 12:41am, but it looks pretty decent.
New material. This is slowly closing in on a workable state!
Your system seems quite elegant so far. I do have a question (really just a request for clarification) about action resolution.
So there are two Energy Pools, physical and mental, equal to Durability and Intelligence respectively, and then there are skills which determine how many points one can spend on a particular task. I take it that skills (costing less than abilities) are always going to be higher numerically than attributes, unless they're at 0 (i.e. if you have the Climb skill it should always makes sense to use your skill instead of Strength to climb, so it only pays to have skills so long as they're higher than your abilities).
So let's say I'm climbing a cliff and I have an Energy score of 12 (physical) and a Climb skill of 7. The difficulty of the cliff, if I'm reading the system correctly, is known only to the GM. Let's say that difficulty is 5.
If I attempt to climb the cliff, do I decide how much Energy I want to spend? Do I "bid" a certain number of EP in order to attempt to the cliff? And I lose those EP but do not succeed at the task, do I have to spend the full amount to complete the task? Let's say I bid 4 EP to climb the cliff and thus fail since the difficulty is 5. Do I have to spend another 5 EP to complete the task? Is there any way to ascertain a difficulty rating?
Quote from: SteerpikeYour system seems quite elegant so far. I do have a question (really just a request for clarification) about action resolution.
So there are two Energy Pools, physical and mental, equal to Durability and Intelligence respectively, and then there are skills which determine how many points one can spend on a particular task. I take it that skills (costing less than abilities) are always going to be higher numerically than attributes, unless they're at 0 (i.e. if you have the Climb skill it should always makes sense to use your skill instead of Strength to climb, so it only pays to have skills so long as they're higher than your abilities).
So let's say I'm climbing a cliff and I have an Energy score of 12 (physical) and a Climb skill of 7. The difficulty of the cliff, if I'm reading the system correctly, is known only to the GM. Let's say that difficulty is 5.
If I attempt to climb the cliff, do I decide how much Energy I want to spend? Do I "bid" a certain number of EP in order to attempt to the cliff? And I lose those EP but do not succeed at the task, do I have to spend the full amount to complete the task? Let's say I bid 4 EP to climb the cliff and thus fail since the difficulty is 5. Do I have to spend another 5 EP to complete the task? Is there any way to ascertain a difficulty rating?
experience in a skill should enable an ability to ascertain the difficulty, or some amount of it...
Generally, the best way to figure out a difficulty is trial and error. In a situation like your climb example-- and I'm going to assume that it's a ground start-- you simply wouldn't be able to lift yourself up. You can then give it another try, knowing that you have to put in more effort. If you then put in 7, you succeed at climbing, and you know that the cliff has a climb difficulty somewhere from 5-7. Maybe next time you might try to put in 6, and hope that the difficulty wasn't 7. (with only 12 physical EP, you wouldn't be able to make a second attempt right away.)
As of right now, skills become increasingly harder to improve, while attributes do not. This will be changed, as soon as I figure out how I want to handle it. The problem with the current set-up is that it quickly becomes easier to just take another level in an attribute than in a skill.
Actually, writing this, I think I figured out how I want to handle advancing level costs. I think I'll let skills keep the Fibonacci curve, and give the attributes a +x curve, where x is equal to the current level. Up until levels 9-10, it'll be easier to add a new level in a skill than in an equal attribute. After ten levels, things switch around, though...
Edit--
Vreeg, that's a fair enough point. I might make it so that if the difficulty is less than half your skill level, you can know the difficulty. Of course, that also gives skills a bit of an edge-up on advantages, when it comes to action resolution. Hm...
Edit #2--
My apologies. I just double checked my math, and the two curves would actually converge at levels 7-9, not 9 and 10. In order to get them to converge at levels 9 and 10, I'd need a slightly steeper curve. Also, I probably should let the attributes have the early advantage, and let skills improve better in the higher levels. More to think about...
Just a short question: How does DUGS handle the inevitable event where a player has spent all of his energy during e.g. a chase scene. Let's say he is an acrobat for good measure. Can he then not jump across a chasm he is suddenly faced with? Would the master acrobat be stuck because he has run out of a meta-resource?
(if this is covered elsewhere just point me in the right direction :) )
Quote from: Conundrum CrowJust a short question: How does DUGS handle the inevitable event where a player has spent all of his energy during e.g. a chase scene. Let's say he is an acrobat for good measure. Can he then not jump across a chasm he is suddenly faced with? Would the master acrobat be stuck because he has run out of a meta-resource?
(if this is covered elsewhere just point me in the right direction :) )
At that point, he'd be too fatigued to continue. While he might normally be able to make that jump, the exertion would take it's toll in this case.