Any good RPG needs to reflect (either accurately or cinematically) what I see as four melee fighting styles.
Two-Handed weapon Fighting (THF)
Single-Handed weapon Fighting (SHF)
"Blade and Board" fighting (BnB)
Two Weapon Fighting (TWF)
In a balanced, cinematic-style game, the styles should work out as follows (assuming equal investment in each style of fighting):
THF should outpace the other styles in damage output.
SHF should be the most accurate, provide more mobility, and possibly outdamage THF against high-armor or incredibly nimble and hard-to-hit targets.
BnB should be the most defensive of the bunch.
TWF should be the least accurate, but otherwise by a hybrid style between damage output, defense, and mobility.
All melee fighting styles should be viable options. It should not come down to one single choice easily outshining all of the others and thus making them all sub-optimal. If one choice becomes obvious over the others, then that is bad game design.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
The problem with firearms
Every RPG that attempts to be inclusive of all settings must also include rules for firearms. The reality is that firearms are very lethal-- well, all weapons are. An abstract HP system works well with a lot of weapons since it can simply represent the general wear and tear of battle.
But it breaks down a little bit when you introduce guns. They don't seem to conceptually work well in such a system. Either you get shot and thus wounded, or you're missed entirely. Sure, you can stat a gun the same way you'd stat a bow or crossbow, but then how do you flavor the damage? Arrows and bolts can be pulled out of armor and skin, leaving relatively minor wounds. But bullets-- well, that's a different story.
But it breaks down a little bit when you introduce guns. They don't seem to conceptually work well in such a system. Either you get shot and thus wounded, or you're missed entirely. Sure, you can stat a gun the same way you'd stat a bow or crossbow, but then how do you flavor the damage? Arrows and bolts can be pulled out of armor and skin, leaving relatively minor wounds. But bullets-- well, that's a different story.
Monday, August 11, 2008
A Base plus Die system
I was thinking earlier of an alternative way to handle damage from weapons and such and come up with an idea that could be used as a resolution system or some other system.
Mechanically it isn't really any different than rolling a die (say, a d20) and adding a modifier (say, +10) to it. You just reverse the way you think of it. Instead you start with a base (say, 10) and add a random variable to it that you arrive via rolling a die (say, a d20).
But thinking of it this way you could have weapons that simply list a base damage value. For example, maybe a "sword" does 10 damage, and an "axe" does 12 damage. Then, when you deal damage, you deal the damage listed for the weapon plus a roll of the 1d10 or some other die.
When you use a die as a base you come upon a problem when you want damage over 1d12. You have to start doing 2d6, 2d8, etc. The progression isn't linear. However, with this alternate system, the progression can be very linear, making weapon balance much easier.
Just a thought.
Mechanically it isn't really any different than rolling a die (say, a d20) and adding a modifier (say, +10) to it. You just reverse the way you think of it. Instead you start with a base (say, 10) and add a random variable to it that you arrive via rolling a die (say, a d20).
But thinking of it this way you could have weapons that simply list a base damage value. For example, maybe a "sword" does 10 damage, and an "axe" does 12 damage. Then, when you deal damage, you deal the damage listed for the weapon plus a roll of the 1d10 or some other die.
When you use a die as a base you come upon a problem when you want damage over 1d12. You have to start doing 2d6, 2d8, etc. The progression isn't linear. However, with this alternate system, the progression can be very linear, making weapon balance much easier.
Just a thought.
Monday, August 4, 2008
Stunts, Prayers, and Spells
I was thinking of some kind of cool mechanic similar to 4e D&D's powers, yet distinct.
I like the way spells works as skills in GURPS, and think I may keep that convention, but also apply it to "stunts" and "prayers." Stunts are basically like martial exploits, they are extraordinary stunts that non-casters can pull off; obviously, prayers are the divine version of spells.
Also, instead of "at-will," "encounter," and "daily" powers, you'd get magic points (for spells), action points (for stunts), and some kind of points for divine prayers (not sure what to call 'em).
Well that's the idea so far. I really need to get a "team" together.
Sigh.
I like the way spells works as skills in GURPS, and think I may keep that convention, but also apply it to "stunts" and "prayers." Stunts are basically like martial exploits, they are extraordinary stunts that non-casters can pull off; obviously, prayers are the divine version of spells.
Also, instead of "at-will," "encounter," and "daily" powers, you'd get magic points (for spells), action points (for stunts), and some kind of points for divine prayers (not sure what to call 'em).
Well that's the idea so far. I really need to get a "team" together.
Sigh.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Possible Resolution Mechanic
So, every RPG needs a resolution mechanic. Here's one I thought of earlier.
One of my design goals is to have every attribute point count. There are several ways to do this but one is to have a "standard" attribute array-- 10 being the human average, 20 being inhuman or close to it.
The resolution mechanic is a roll of d100 to defeat a target number. Let's say the standard target number is 50, to represent a base 50% chance of success. Rolling under is a success, and over is a failure. Alternatively you could roll over for a success and under for a failure; in that case the target number is the chance of failure, rather than the chance of success.
Rolling over the number goes along with the current gaming thinking that higher = better. A higher difficulty number is harder, a higher positive bonus is better, etc. However, using a d100 resolution mechanic allows you the possibility to think of the target number as your "chance of success."
I'm going to adopt that thinking in introducing my mechanic. So, again, let's say that a target number of 50 is a 50% chance of success. The lower the target number, the HARDER the task, and conversely, the higher the target number, the easier the task. Usually this is counter-intuitive but it's easy for people to understand percentages and "chance of success" so that doesn't apply in this case.
Also, you could introduce bonuses and penalties that remain intuitive in this system; the trick is to apply them to the target number, NOT your roll. For instance, a +2 bonus raises a target number of 50 to 52, increasing your chance of success by 2%.
So really, that is the base system, and it gives you an easy way to determine your chance of success. In a d20 system the chances of success and failure are usually abstract in most players minds (for the math-inclined this is less so, of course). In this system it allows you to see your chance of success right away which can aid your decision making. I think this might make it more fun for the player, as it gives them a better feeling of control.
Now with a d% resolution mechanic it's easy to make every attribute point count without making it absurd. Personally I think I'd make every point above 10 add +2 for rolls regarding that attribute, and -2 per point below 10.
Alternatively, as I stated earlier, you could make the target number a number to roll OVER. The higher the number, the harder the task, the lower the number, the easier the task. Bonuses and penalties would then be applied to the player's ROLL, not the target number. This has the advantage of "rolling high" being a good thing rather than a bad thing, but the disadvantage of not clearly knowing your chance of success. The math works out the same, however.
Consider a player trying to beat a target number of 70 with a +25 bonus to his roll. Sure, for the math-inclined, that's a 55% chance of success. But that's not see easy to tell at a glance when you have to make decisions based on your chance of success. And if you try to calculate your chance of success, that's just more time calculating and not playing the game.
A better way to do it would be like this.. a target of 70 in that system is a 30% success rate. So, use 30 as the target. +25 bonus? Add that to the target number: voila, 55.
One of my design goals is to have every attribute point count. There are several ways to do this but one is to have a "standard" attribute array-- 10 being the human average, 20 being inhuman or close to it.
The resolution mechanic is a roll of d100 to defeat a target number. Let's say the standard target number is 50, to represent a base 50% chance of success. Rolling under is a success, and over is a failure. Alternatively you could roll over for a success and under for a failure; in that case the target number is the chance of failure, rather than the chance of success.
Rolling over the number goes along with the current gaming thinking that higher = better. A higher difficulty number is harder, a higher positive bonus is better, etc. However, using a d100 resolution mechanic allows you the possibility to think of the target number as your "chance of success."
I'm going to adopt that thinking in introducing my mechanic. So, again, let's say that a target number of 50 is a 50% chance of success. The lower the target number, the HARDER the task, and conversely, the higher the target number, the easier the task. Usually this is counter-intuitive but it's easy for people to understand percentages and "chance of success" so that doesn't apply in this case.
Also, you could introduce bonuses and penalties that remain intuitive in this system; the trick is to apply them to the target number, NOT your roll. For instance, a +2 bonus raises a target number of 50 to 52, increasing your chance of success by 2%.
So really, that is the base system, and it gives you an easy way to determine your chance of success. In a d20 system the chances of success and failure are usually abstract in most players minds (for the math-inclined this is less so, of course). In this system it allows you to see your chance of success right away which can aid your decision making. I think this might make it more fun for the player, as it gives them a better feeling of control.
Now with a d% resolution mechanic it's easy to make every attribute point count without making it absurd. Personally I think I'd make every point above 10 add +2 for rolls regarding that attribute, and -2 per point below 10.
Alternatively, as I stated earlier, you could make the target number a number to roll OVER. The higher the number, the harder the task, the lower the number, the easier the task. Bonuses and penalties would then be applied to the player's ROLL, not the target number. This has the advantage of "rolling high" being a good thing rather than a bad thing, but the disadvantage of not clearly knowing your chance of success. The math works out the same, however.
Consider a player trying to beat a target number of 70 with a +25 bonus to his roll. Sure, for the math-inclined, that's a 55% chance of success. But that's not see easy to tell at a glance when you have to make decisions based on your chance of success. And if you try to calculate your chance of success, that's just more time calculating and not playing the game.
A better way to do it would be like this.. a target of 70 in that system is a 30% success rate. So, use 30 as the target. +25 bonus? Add that to the target number: voila, 55.
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Thinking of a new RPG
I have now twice before tried to create my own tabletop roleplaying game. First was the Omnisystem, a blatant rip-off of 3.0 D&D forced into a classless, level-less system, stealing character creation from 3rd edition GURPS. It was a bad system overall. It was called the Omnisystem.
Then I tried creating a more unique, d100-based system, but it still borrowed much of its mechanics from 3.5 D&D and much of its character creation ideas from GURPS 4th. Also, I never finished it, because I saw the over-borrowing problems inherent in the system before I finished it, so it remained incomplete. It was named the Dream System.
Why do I keep trying to borrow elements from both of these systems? Well, After 3.0, D&D (including, now, 4th), has some of the best concepts in its mechanics, particularly for combat. However, I love being able to create EXACTLY the character I want, and GURPS lets me do that. But I've tried playing GURPS a few times, and it isn't quite a fun when it comes to play time because the rules are so complex and sometimes counter-intuitive. It just cannot compare with the streamlined rules of D&D (3rd and beyond).
What I want from an RPG:
* Streamlined mechanics.
* Fast-paced, cinematic or almost-cinematic combat.
* Minis-heavy combat.
* Ability to create almost any character concept I can think of, potentially.
* No classes.
* Mechanics that make the game-world(s) make sense internally.
Things I explicitly don't want in an RPG (this may reiterate the above-- this is a journal for a reason!):
* Classes.
* I can live with levels but I'd rather not.
* Overly complex mechanics, especially for combat.
Some ideas I had:
* Point-based character creation like GURPS, HERO, Champions, etc, but have 3 pools for points: one for attributes, one for combat-based abilities, one for non-combat abilities. The idea here is game balance. Optionally a GM can throw them all into one pool for an even more diverse system and this would be an option in the books, but the "core default" would be 3 separate pools, although characters would be given some points that could be spent ANYWHERE, for a bit more diversity.
* In combination with the above idea: have powers, skills, etc, cost a certain number of "combat points," "non-combat points," and/or "any points." Some abilities will cost only combat points, some will cost only non-combat points, and some will cost a combination. Conversely, flaws or disadvantages will grant bonus combat points, non-combat points, or a combination thereof.
* Builds. Builds are like a cross between D&D classes and GURPS templates. They simulate classes in a sense but are still optional.
* Steps. Not sure if this is a good idea. Steps basically simulate levels.
* Cool idea: Use icons for the different types of points. For example, when listing the cost of a power, list it as something like "5 C" where "C" is a little sword icon (for "combat points").
I can't think of anything to add at the moment. I'll post more as ideas come to me.
Then I tried creating a more unique, d100-based system, but it still borrowed much of its mechanics from 3.5 D&D and much of its character creation ideas from GURPS 4th. Also, I never finished it, because I saw the over-borrowing problems inherent in the system before I finished it, so it remained incomplete. It was named the Dream System.
Why do I keep trying to borrow elements from both of these systems? Well, After 3.0, D&D (including, now, 4th), has some of the best concepts in its mechanics, particularly for combat. However, I love being able to create EXACTLY the character I want, and GURPS lets me do that. But I've tried playing GURPS a few times, and it isn't quite a fun when it comes to play time because the rules are so complex and sometimes counter-intuitive. It just cannot compare with the streamlined rules of D&D (3rd and beyond).
What I want from an RPG:
* Streamlined mechanics.
* Fast-paced, cinematic or almost-cinematic combat.
* Minis-heavy combat.
* Ability to create almost any character concept I can think of, potentially.
* No classes.
* Mechanics that make the game-world(s) make sense internally.
Things I explicitly don't want in an RPG (this may reiterate the above-- this is a journal for a reason!):
* Classes.
* I can live with levels but I'd rather not.
* Overly complex mechanics, especially for combat.
Some ideas I had:
* Point-based character creation like GURPS, HERO, Champions, etc, but have 3 pools for points: one for attributes, one for combat-based abilities, one for non-combat abilities. The idea here is game balance. Optionally a GM can throw them all into one pool for an even more diverse system and this would be an option in the books, but the "core default" would be 3 separate pools, although characters would be given some points that could be spent ANYWHERE, for a bit more diversity.
* In combination with the above idea: have powers, skills, etc, cost a certain number of "combat points," "non-combat points," and/or "any points." Some abilities will cost only combat points, some will cost only non-combat points, and some will cost a combination. Conversely, flaws or disadvantages will grant bonus combat points, non-combat points, or a combination thereof.
* Builds. Builds are like a cross between D&D classes and GURPS templates. They simulate classes in a sense but are still optional.
* Steps. Not sure if this is a good idea. Steps basically simulate levels.
* Cool idea: Use icons for the different types of points. For example, when listing the cost of a power, list it as something like "5 C" where "C" is a little sword icon (for "combat points").
I can't think of anything to add at the moment. I'll post more as ideas come to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)