The Campaign Builder's Guild

Okay, so some stuff on character, armor, and weapon stats:

Ability scores start at seven each. Three points to distribute freely.

Light armor requires two successes and has a 1AP penalty.
Medium armor requires three successes and has a 2AP penalty.
Heavy armor requires four successes and has a 3AP penalty.

Low damage weapons (three dice) cost 3 AP to attack.
Mid damage weapons (five dice) cost 5 AP to attack.
High damage weapons (seven dice) cost 7 AP to attack.

Just some thoughts, really. Maybe there could be a buyable ability that would reduce attack costs by one for a weapon group (to a minimum of 2 of course)... Just a thought.

Also, weapon damage and armor DR could scale in proportion to tech level? Maybe?

And for starts 10 hp.

Okay, we'll try this then for our first combat scenario:

Two chumps, unarmored, beating each other with fists. Assume all stats are average. Assuming one success needed for unarmored? Anyway, the exact values of stats won't matter here as long as everyone is the same.

Also I'll assume that basically unskilled they'll get 4d10 attack pools? And damage for untrained unarmed is 2d10?

Anyway, given that, they'll need 5's to hit, and one success, so that gives them a 97% chance to hit.

They'll also need 5's for damage, so with 2d6 damage pool, they'll average 1.2 damage a round. Although maybe 2d10 is too generous for unarmed damage?

I'm wondering if maybe the base target required here should be 7? Or maybe 6? To reduce slightly the base chance to hit. If the base target was 7, then characters with the same stats would have the following chance to hit with 5d10 pools:
unarmored (1 success): 92%
light armor (2 successes): 66%
medium armor (3 successes): 32%
heavy armor (4 successes): 9%

*shrug* It's hard to say what is best. Need to just pick something and stick with it for the rest of the sims.

Just out of curiosity here...but why exactly are we reinventing the wheel? The WoD has a nice generic d10 based system that just so happens to be the second most used gaming system in the world (right behind D20).

From personal experience, I can say it works well enough as it is (not without its flaws mind you, but fewer than D&D IMO), and I would think it would be much easier to use that as the framework for your excercise. WoD rules can in fact be used to run a fantasy game (I have done so), if you prefer a more lethal, gritty, and dangerous type of setting. Heck Exalted already is a medeival wuxia/fantasy game using a similar system (though I HATE the setting).

I applaud your efforts here, but what precisely is the reason for this approach (as opposed to tweaking a system that already does this, to suit the flavor of your game)? Seems to me like you are making more work than is actually necessary, or am I missing something?

-Nasty-

P.S. this is not criticism, it is a sincere inquiry.

Not sure about exalted or WoD, but I've heard Exalted uses too many dice (as in the above request for 30d10 pool from Kalos Mer). We've pretty much done this from the ground up, I without any knowledge of anything outside DnD and GURPS.

As for why use a new system? Why not?

Hell, we could even include new supplemental rules in the CBGuide.

Anyway, even if the CBG doesn't use it, I know I will.

Also, you might put this in the discussion thread... this one's for number crunching. Yay numbers.

So, snakefing... no rush, but how's that combat sim coming along?

Sorry, but you know the only real reason I'm so impatient at this stage is 'cause I can't really do anything till I know what I'm doing. Seriously, I've got ideas just swimming in my head about mech games, horror games, supers games, variant rules, and all kinds of stuff...

Can't do much till the basics are hammered out though.

I hear you.

Unfortunately, our company just signed a large deal to deliver some software for some portable devices, to be delivered at end of year. That's on top of our normal release cycle, and a research project we're doing. Since we only have three developers, it is really really keeping me busy.

On top of that, the one-year-olds are keeping me busy - up at 6 am to get them dressed and off to day care, work for an hour, shower and get dressed, go to work, home at 5, make dinner for the boys, play with them for an hour, bathe them and read a story, finally get some time for myself around 8 pm. Answer emails, 50% chance my project manager is on IM asking me questions, well, you get the picture.

It will get done, just can't say when.

Okay. Just making sure I'm not the only one left...
But, man, kids... I've got sisters so I know what you mean... and it doesn't get any easier.

Okay, let's try some combat between armed and armored opponents.

I'll assume a couple of basic guard types, armed with some kind of gladius or other short sword (3d10 damage pools) and armored with some kind of cuirass or studded leather (light armor, 2 successes required).

For the first pass, I'll assume that neither of them is out of the ordinary in STR, COORD, REACT, TOUGH. So no net bonuses on any attacks. I'll also assume they have basic training (5d10 attack pools).

Based on the last posted formulas, this would require a 5+ for success, 2 successes, on 5d10 pool. A 91% probability. I'm thinking this is too high, so I'm going to assume 7+ for success instead. That's 66%.

I'm still assuming a 5+ for success to do damage. That's a 60% chance per die to do damage. Overall, they'll average 1.2 damage per round. If we assume the equivalent of 10 VP and 3 WP each, this means on average they'll go about 8 rounds before they get to WP, and 2-3 rounds after that to death.

To check the variability, I'm going to run 5 simulated combats between these two, to check the outcomes.

In the first sim, one combatant drops the other in round 9, and is left with 0 VP and full WP.
In the second sim, one combatant drops the other in round 10, and is left with 5 VP and full WP.
In the third sim, one combatant drops the other in round 7, and is left with 5 VP and full WP.
In the fourth sim, one combatant drops the other in round 14, and is left with 0 VP and 2 WP.
In the fifth sim, one combatant drops the other in round 8, and is left with 5 VP and full WP.

Don't know what to say, except this seems like an acceptable amount of variability. If you want a little more deadliness, you could either increase the damage potential, decrease the base target number to 6, or decrease total VP/WP. These changes could also affect the amount of variability, or course.

Duplicate post somehow

Wow... YUSS. It's crazy to see this actually working. This is just awesome.

 For number to hit, I think 6 would be good in both cases. It'll speed things up in hitting and slow things down in damage. Also, let's just work with hit points for now. We'll work with things like wound points later.

An alternative dice pool system:

Rolling the attempt
Non-opposed actions
Dice pool: 3 dice + skill dice + bonus/penalty dice
Target number: pretty much fixed around 8. Possibly this could be increased to as much as 10 for very extraordinary actions. For now, just assume it is fixed at 8. The target number does not represent the difficulty of success. Iâ,¬,,¢d only adjust it to represent certain types of classes of actions that are so unusual (like, perhaps, arcane or psionic manipulations?) that successes are harder to achieve.
Difficulty: The difficulty of the task is expressed in terms of number of successes needed. (Alternatively, you can imagine that this represents the number of successes cancelled out by the task difficulty.)
Results: If you meet or exceed the required successes, you are nominally successful in your task. If you do not, you nominally fail. Higher or lower number of successes can be used to further refine the outcome.

Opposed actions (including combat)
These are the same, except that the difficulty is always enhanced by the opponentâ,¬,,¢s results (number of successes) in a similar check.
For combat, the base difficulty is always 1 success required. The attacker rolls to hit, and the defender rolls to defend. The defenderâ,¬,,¢s successes effectively cancel out the attackerâ,¬,,¢s successes.

Damage
Dice pool determined by the weapon, with bonus dice for enchanted weapons, and Strength or similar characteristic. You must succeed in your attack to roll damage. Add a bonus die for every additional success on your attack roll? Target number is still 8, armor provides a defensive adjustment that is effectively DR, canceling out between 0 and 3 damage successes. Each success deals a single point of damage.

Interpretation of results
On this table, compare the actual successes against the number required to determine the net number of successes. This provides a rough measure of the degree of success.
[table=Action Results]
[tr][th]Net Successes[/th][th]Result[/th][/tr]
[tr][td]-3[/td][td]Critical failure[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]-2[/td][td]Complete failure[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]-1[/td][td]Failure[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]0[/td][td]Success[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]+1[/td][td]Complete Success[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]+2[/td][td]Critical Success[/td][/tr]
[/table]
Critical failure: Something went wrong, making things worse than before. Critical failure should not be too harsh â,¬' you donâ,¬,,¢t want to discourage people from trying.
Complete failure: Something went wrong, usually preventing a retry or some other mild consequence.
Failure: You did not achieve your aim, although you might gain some modest insight or partial benefit for the effort.
Success: You achieved your aim, but perhaps not as smoothly or completely as desired.
Complete Success: You achieved your aim completely and easily.
Critical Success: Not only did you achieve your aim, but you may have done so unusually quickly, or gained some minor additional benefit.

Penalty and bonus dice
Bonuses and penalties can be applied to increase or decrease the number of dice in the dice pool. Typically bonus dice may be gained due to traits or characteristics. Bonuses or penalties may accrue due to circumstances that are favorable or detrimental to the character.

Certain feats or options might allow characters to gain bonus dice in certain circumstances, or give them the option to take penalty dice in return for some alternative benefit. E.g., something like Power Attack might let the character take a penalty die on their attack in order to gain two bonus dice on their damage roll.

Why do it this way?
Using opposed rolls for combat allows for a comparative roll that gives advantage to the more skilled, but with less chance of hitting the impossibility limit.

For example, if a character is attacking with five dice, and the defender has ten dice, thereâ,¬,,¢s obviously an advantage to the defender. The attacker will average 1.5 successes and the defender will average 3 successes. This makes the attacker unlikely to hit, but it is still possible. Adding more dice to the defenderâ,¬,,¢s pool makes it harder and harder, but never quite impossible.

If we used the defenderâ,¬,,¢s skill to directly change either the target number or the number of successes required, youâ,¬,,¢d quickly hit the limit where the attacker literally has no chance to succeed. Avoiding this limit would probably require using larger dice pools, making the rolls

Whatâ,¬,,¢s bad about this?
In combat, this means that every attack involves two dice pool rolls that need to be compared. Neither roll is particularly difficult, but it could create a procedural bottleneck in actual play, with players waiting around for the GM to roll defense against their attacks.

The bottleneck could be avoided if you allow players to roll both attack and defense simultaneously. For example, use red dice for attack dice and white for defense, then roll them all at once, using the white successes to cancel red successes. Of course, this requires the GM to tell the players how many dice their foes are using for defense, which some people may not prefer.

Mechanically this seems sound, but it may suffer from playability problems.

I guess it could work.
I personally don't like opposed rolls as much. I'm especially leery of a system that relies on them, but I guess it's a matter of taste.

Any chance of a similar breakdown of the "roll under ability 5d10+skill rank" idea I've been mulling over?

TN
Abilities run from 5 to 9. You have 4 mental stats and 4 physical stats. In each category, you start at 5 and have 4 points to distribute. TN is at or under ability score.

Successes
The number of successes is determined by the difficulty of the task.

When trying to beat someone (sneak past them, hit them in combat, etc.) You have to succeed a number of times according to their modifier. Modifiers are half the relevant ability rounded down.

Dice
Dice start at 5d10. You add one die for each rank you have in the relevant skill. Generally, you don't get more than three ranks in any one skill.

Example
A gunslinger with Coord7 and two ranks in Ranged(Firearms) wants to hit a monk with Reflex7. The gunslinger must roll 7d10 to roll at or under 7 at least 3 times.

He hits 77% of the time (I think... I may be wrong).

Good
Everything varies without being too terribly confusing. The player knows how many dice he rolls and what his TN is. The only information to be relayed to the GM is how many successes.

Bad
There isn't really any way to scale the defensive side of combat. At higher levels combat might move too quickly. A slight diferrence in power in one variable (dice or score) might not make too much of a diferrence, but a slight diferrence in two variables (dice and score) might do ALOT.

I'm a little nervous about playing with opposed rolls too, for the reasons I posted above. I don't have a problem with it in concept, but as a practical matter I'm not sure if it would slow the game too much.

For your gunslinger, I'm getting 97%. Rolling 7 or lower is the same probability as rolling 4 or higher, so by the tables above the odds of getting 3+ successes on 7 dice against target number 4 are 97%. The average number of successes rolling 7 or less on 7 dice are {7 dice * 0.7 success prob) = 4.9.

Of course, these numbers don't take into account the effects of the damage roll.

Quote from:  4.9.

Of course, these numbers don't take into account the effects of the damage roll.
[/quoteReally? Granted, this is pretty awesome as gunslingers go (he's probably taken some heavy hits to other ability scores... likely strenght and toughness... and he's taken two ranks... which is pretty high considering the "max 3" thing) but that is pretty rough.

If we could find a way for defense to scale that'd be good.

Maybe abilities at 3-7? Maybe "modifiers" run...

3=2
4=3
5=3
6=4
7=4

...One half plus one. It's a tad bit more work, but it only needs done once. Then it's just on the character sheet for quick reference.

And then maybe some way to scale defense.

[blockquote=beejazz]Ever played DnD with the defense check variant? I tried it once. Trust me, while opposed rolls are okay sometimes, you don't want to do it as often as once per round.[/blockquote]Lack of damage rolls makes it manageable. This can be achieved through fixed damage or damage somehow tied to the degree of success of the attack roll (e.g. weapon base + degree of success).


Also, as I posted in the other dice pool thread, having three things change in the resolution system is very fiddly and not really valuable. People won't understand it intuitively.