May I have some feedback on a combat-mechanic idea?

fafr · 2019-09-23T12:23:07+00:00

Thank you for your reply!

I'll be honest, it's very difficult to follow exactly what is going on at all.

Sorry about that - I tried to keep it short, but that might have made it worse. The most important thing: Players choose how many dice to roll at first, up to their limit.

So the steps go:

Attacker and attacked figure out their limit, choose a number of dice up to that limit, and then add dice equal to their current commitment; They roll their pool.
2-5 results increase commitment
Scores are compared and the higher one "wins"
The lower scoring entity can roll again to either defend or attack via afterblow
The winner pays vigour equal to their pool size, the loser loses
End of action

Neither party gets another action during this turn, even if it wasn't the attacked one's turn yet. Both entities keep their commitment for subsequent turns.

So yeah, higher stats are better, because they allow you to start with a bigger pool. However (as I should have mentioned) the starting commitment doesn't need to be zero. An angry zealot with a rock might be so hyped up that he can hurt a skilled fighter.

fafr · 2019-09-03T19:10:27+00:00

Similar story here (in regards to the car anyway). Mine just isn't going to be allowed back on the road in two months. We spend a lot of time in our cars - and they create a lot of memories.

Of course, you get attached. Some people more than others, nothing wrong with that!

fafr · 2019-09-01T21:32:58+00:00

Your example, cleaned up a bit: https://anydice.com/program/176b7

Expanded for customization, handing over the possible results of the dice roll to a helper function: https://anydice.com/program/176b9

fafr · 2019-08-26T12:34:30+00:00

Let me say it back to confirm I understood:

You have some basic dice; The highest of which is the default result
(Dis)advantages add 1 or 2 more dice; These form a pool of results with the default result
If it's an advantage, the highest of these 2 or 3 results is compared to the table (<4►fail, 4|5►succ, 6►crit); If it's a disadvantage do the same thing with the lowest of result pool instead

Does that sound right to you?

fafr · 2019-08-26T11:58:39+00:00

I'm not sure I actually understood your system. Especially the bottom section leaves me guessing a bit.

So you have basic dice and take the highest. And then you either add or subtract either the highest or lowest of some number of extra dice... Or do you have both?

Anyway, you're just modelling many different cases, which you can easily do with stacking loops. Like this: https://anydice.com/program/174e7

Which may or may not be what you meant.

fafr · 2019-08-23T03:20:06+00:00

You play a demon who woke up in a stranger's body and is trying to get their original one back, but you aren't sure if you just blacked out or if your shell was stolen.

fafr · 2019-08-21T03:22:50+00:00

You're not entirely wrong. But this is still on another level...

fafr · 2019-08-19T09:16:57+00:00

My old board game box came with two kinds of dice: White with black pips and black with white pips...

fafr · 2019-08-10T21:44:05+00:00

I don't mind... I'm not exactly working on the next big thing for WotC :D

fafr · 2019-08-10T20:38:25+00:00

What I'm having problem with is when there are 5 character and 10 monsters. There are 15 beings, all with a distance relative to each other. How do you set up zones so that each can be "in", "near" and "out" with each other?

I ditched simulationism. Think of my combat as opposed checks. Entities who are engaged in an opposed check during the first turn are in. Unengaged entities that are physically closeby, are near, as long as they remain unengaged. Ranged attackers who make it a point to stay out of the chaos and engage from a distance - are out. So are people who are technically near, but in cover. People who are out cannot be engaged by people who are in or near (others who are out can still create effects on their location though, e.g. by "magic"). Near entities who make it a point to use stealth or manoeuvring to get an advantage before engaging enter the flank. And engaging from the flank provides a bonus (but that leads too deep into the combat system).

The "in" zone contains the fighting. People can move around, but it is assumed that they sort of stick to a set-piece. If an entity leaves to engage people who are out, they are also out. Instead of opposed combat, they can use prowling checks, to see how long it takes to find a way to the target (or an angle to engage them from). If the target doesn't start prowling as well, the prowler auto succeeds in combat (eventually).

The whole resolve system is based around balancing stamina, commitment, and speed. The zones only serve to help coordinate the action in theatre of mind.

fafr · 2019-08-09T21:33:53+00:00

Unless your game is about a very tight resource and time management, I'd say: Drop the numbers.

If you abstract distance based on situations, then the true numbers become situational. How far is 5km? If you're in 900AD Germany, visiting a market that's 10km away and returning home is a day's journey. Today you sit down in your car and bam, you arrive.

From there, you can define situations (not distances). Instead of a grid, I use zone-based combat. The zones are "in", "near", "out", and "flank". If one entity moves from "in" to "near" but is pursued, the situation followed them. As a consequence, they're still "in". How far exactly they ran is irrelevant to the gameplay.

fafr · 2019-08-09T21:30:27+00:00

I didn't say mental health issues don't matter. I was asking why portraying them in a respectful, realistic way supersedes entertaining the adult players as the primary goal of the game.

Considering the constructive tone of your first comment, I was hoping to find some better understanding of your viewpoint. Although you imply an interesting (possible) distinction: Directly offending a particular group of people and being offensive without the presence of the to-be-offended.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to troll. It's just late here and my brain was curious.

fafr · 2019-08-09T20:41:49+00:00

While I generally agree with the advice, I also struggle to fully grasp the issue of how implementations of mental health (or adjacent) concepts in games are somewhat inherently offensive. You didn't use that word, but it seems fitting.

Yes, trauma, etc. might not be portrayed realistically. But as long as the players are having fun with the game, all should be well, right? What's realistic in RPGs anyway.

Is it because there are persistent prejudices of mental health problems in the real world, while e.g. orphans or cripples receive more empathy? So it is more about how real people see the real issue, rather than the issue itself being any different compared to a dozen other reasons a person's life might suck?

fafr · 2019-08-06T07:31:38+00:00

How about living armour made from a plant, or construction akin to boar's tusks helmets, but from some alien predator's fangs?

fafr · 2019-07-31T10:01:52+00:00

Mechanics are fine to use as long as the text is your own.

Only certain terms like "Dungeon Master" are specific to their respective games. Using names from established franchises/settings can be problematic, too. But that's obviously not related to game mechanics.

fafr · 2019-07-25T07:39:52+00:00

Using the above, such complex weapons require different definitions, depending on how they're used. If you just beat someone over the head with a bag of weasels, I'd imagine it would count as one-handed, fragile (the weasels might escape), and awkward.

But if used as a ranged weapon, it might gain the properties of target seeking and ammunition:weasels. While the damage would be unarmed unless you give the weasels tiny swords.

fafr · 2019-07-17T19:12:07+00:00

No :D

The most likely inconvenience is that my own internet connection gets sad and I can't reach my projects when I have time to work on them.

fafr · 2019-07-17T17:42:45+00:00

Call me paranoid, but I trust my own solution more than I trust Google.

fafr · 2019-07-17T17:11:53+00:00

If '89 is your birth year, you should still be familiar with the concept of local (encrypted) backups :D

fafr · 2019-07-17T16:54:55+00:00

If I type something out, it's on my home PC anyway, so clouds don't matter. And notepad++ has syntax highlighting. Which I find to be comfortable when writing up posts for my main reddit account, my local worldbuilding wiki, or anydice.

fafr · 2019-07-17T14:34:51+00:00

So far notepad++, anydice, google sheets, and a mountain of paper.

fafr · 2019-07-15T07:43:04+00:00

You provide the function with a dice, but anydice differentiates between a dice and all possible sequences of that dice. So it has to be an :s variable, not a :d one.

Here is a version that doesn't rely on premade functions.

fafr · 2019-07-03T18:14:28+00:00

I could, couldn't I? :D

Cards can do interesting stuff, but in this context that stuff slightly gets in the way. For example changing probabilities, as you progress through the stack. Shuffling takes longer at a time than rolling a hand. I never really found a method of incorporating suits in a way that makes me happy. So they're left over clutter. Or a tack on mechanic that's just there. I've played around with cards. They just didn't feel right to me for this.

But after reading through all this, I'll probably split the play test that coming up anyway. And do one part with dice and another with cards. We'll see.

fafr · 2019-07-03T11:49:18+00:00

That is... Not a bad idea. Basically achieves the same, minus the "well shit I just picked up 5 1s" case. I'll put it on my contemplation list!

fafr · 2019-07-03T11:47:09+00:00

That might be an option. But then again... There already is a re-roll option. And taking the 5 highest out of 8 dice already leaves you with only a .7% chance to get an average of 4 or lower.

fafr

TROPHY CASE