Suggestions for a resolution mechanic. (Long)
Nis Haller Baggesen
I'm trying to design my own rpg-system, and I was wondering if any of you
could help me come up with a good resolution mechanic. Of course I have
some suggestions my self, but I'll get to those later. First the requirements
that I would like my system to forfill.
I would prefer if the system was reasonably generic, at least in the
genres it is able to cover. It's less important to me that the system
supports a broad spectrum of styles. The system should aim for a
'realistic' style, since I feel that cinematics can be supported rather
easily in a relistic system, simply by introducing 'hero point' and/or
by genrally cutting the players some slack. OTOH I feel its harder to
support realistic play in a cinematic system. Thats a matter of taste of
course, but it's my taste so I'll go by it.
An important part of the genericity I aim for, is that the system should
to be able to span a great range of abilities and attributes without
breaking down. I would prefer if conflicts between two people of high
skill could be resolved without having to rescaling their skill to get
reasonable results. This is one area that I feel many of the games I've
played before handles very badly. The reason I would like a system that
supports such a span of skill and attributes, is that I intend use this
system to replace the Shadowrun system in my current campaign, and that
means the system not only has to support creatures from deveil rats to
dragons, but also player characters from gnomes to trolls. This also
means that the system not only has to be able to support this span of
abilities, but also have a reasonably fine granularity, since I still
want to be able to destinguish the abilities of different humans.
One way I intend to support this range of abilities when it comes to
skills, is to say desgin a system where great skill is not so much
represented by an exceptionally high value in a single skill, but by
high values in a broad spectrum of skills. This should help keep
skill-levels in a reasonalble range, while still allowing me to simulate
great variances in skill. One thing I was thinking about was to have
layered skill (Or skill trees, if you prefer), where you might only be
able to get raise a skill to a certain level, and then to advance
further you had to move into specialisations of the given skill. But of
course other suggestions are welcome.
Since I would like a generic system, it would be prefereable if it was
easy to extend, since it is almost impossible to think of everything in
one go. One thing I was planning in this regard is to make it an
ad/disad system. That way minor things that might be left out of the
core system could 'easily' be patched on as ads or disads.
To avoid that the system gets too loose, I was thinking that I would use
prerequests quite a lot to restrict both the use of ads/disads as well
as skills. Again comments are welcome.
Now for some actual mechanical restrictions. I would like to involve
both skill (Meaning learned ability) and attributes (Inborn talent)
directly in the resolution mechanic. However I want the two to have two
different effects, since I feel there is a lot of difference between
being talented and being skilled. My current picture is that your talent
is what allows you to do exceptional things, while skill is what gives
you repeatability. I would also like that skill is the most important
factor of the two, at except when truly magnificent things are required.
Also I would like to use a logarithmic scale for attributes, since that
would make it easy to handle the wide range I would like.
Finally I would prefer curvature in the resolution-system, since IMHO it
is realistic that people who are skilled or talented are punished less
by adverse conditions than people of lesser skill.
Well - I have given this more thought, but I think this is enough to
start with.
mvh
Nis
Charles R. Capko Jr.
>both skill (Meaning learned ability) and attributes (Inborn talent)
>directly in the resolution mechanic. However I want the two to have two
>different effects, since I feel there is a lot of difference between
>being talented and being skilled. My current picture is that your talent
>is what allows you to do exceptional things, while skill is what gives
>you repeatability. I would also like that skill is the most important
>factor of the two, at except when truly magnificent things are required.
I don't know... how about this.. It has a gimickey feel.
The attribute is represented by the target number and the skill is
represented by the die used to roll.
Amature skill 1d4
Skilled 1d6
Professional 1d8
Master 1d10
Grand master 1d12
I don't know if it would work though. Or to get a curved probability
you could substatute two or three of the above dice per skill level,
or perhaps use a particular number of d6's to roll the skill and the
target number is based on the characters attribute or vice versa.
Mary K. Kuhner
Nis Haller Baggesen <u97...@daimi.au.dk> wrote:
>To avoid that the system gets too loose, I was thinking that I would use
>prerequests quite a lot to restrict both the use of ads/disads as well
>as skills. Again comments are welcome.
My experience with this is that it's extremely inflexible and
cumbersome--if you want to switch to a significantly new setting or
genre, or even to a new play style (such as low-combat) you will
have to rethink gobs of prerequisites.
It's also common for characters who don't quite fit the system designer's
preconceptions to end up with a lot of "wrong" skills. My husband,
when he was playing GURPS mages, used to have two columns of spells on
his sheet: "spells I can really cast" and "spells I took to satisfy
the prerequisite system but it would be totally out of character to cast
them". The second list was quite long. I don't remember Jon's exact
examples, but one I encountered was wanting to make a night-worshippping
darkness mage and finding I was forced to buy a lot of light spells.
I didn't feel the idea of a darkness mage was unreasonable, but I would
have paid a large penalty (points spent on skills it would be wrong to
use) for making one.
***
I like your idea about having stat and skill affect the roll differently.
We play a Storyteller variant in which skill determines the number of
dice to be rolled and stat modifies the target number. You cannot get
really good results unless you have a lot of skill (not enough dice) but
high stat means to perform closer to the maximum for your skill level.
Unfortunately this is probably the reverse of what you want. I suppose
you could try reversing it, but the Storyteller mechanic (and relatives
such as Shadowrun) do not scale well at all, which violates one of your
design goals.
The basic mechanic of Feng Shui scales *very* well; initiative is the only
questionable part (very low-value characters move too seldom and feel
wrong in play). A fight between AV9 (low heroic) characters runs about
as quickly and works just as well as a fight between AV18 (superhero)
characters. You might take a look at it. Unfortunately it does not
make the stat/skill difference you want, and I don't see how to get it
to do so.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@eskimo.com
R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh
<u97...@daimi.au.dk> wrote:
>I would prefer if the system was reasonably generic, at least in the
>genres it is able to cover. It's less important to me that the system
>supports a broad spectrum of styles. The system should aim for a
>'realistic' style, since I feel that cinematics can be supported rather
>easily in a relistic system, simply by introducing 'hero point' and/or
>by genrally cutting the players some slack. OTOH I feel its harder to
>support realistic play in a cinematic system. Thats a matter of taste of
>course, but it's my taste so I'll go by it.
Nicely put. That about sums up my preference and reasoning too.
>Since I would like a generic system, it would be prefereable if it was
>easy to extend, since it is almost impossible to think of everything in
>one go. One thing I was planning in this regard is to make it an
>ad/disad system. That way minor things that might be left out of the
>core system could 'easily' be patched on as ads or disads.
>
>To avoid that the system gets too loose, I was thinking that I would use
>prerequests quite a lot to restrict both the use of ads/disads as well
>as skills. Again comments are welcome.
I think these two goals run counter to each other. It's not so bad if
you miss a few higher order skills or ads/disads, but what if you add
an ability and then realise that it ought to be a prerequisite for
existing abilities? I'm not saying it's impossible - just that 'easy'
patchability and heavy prerequisites sound mutually opposed to me.
Stumpy.
--
R. G. "Stumpy" Marsh rma...@xtra.co.nz
Timaru, New Zealand <http://members.xoom.com/StumpyNZ/>
Cassidy Pix <http://members.xoom.com/StumpyNZ/cassidy/>
R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh
(Charles R. Capko Jr.) wrote:
>I don't know... how about this.. It has a gimickey feel.
>
>The attribute is represented by the target number and the skill is
>represented by the die used to roll.
>
>Amature skill 1d4
>Skilled 1d6
>Professional 1d8
>Master 1d10
>Grand master 1d12
How would you get task difficulty into it? You've already got dice
size and target number - all that's left as far as I can see is number
of dice/successes. Besides, why are you matching your skill against
your attribute anyway? Shouldn't they work together, not against each
other?
lam...@my-deja.com
you
> could help me come up with a good resolution mechanic. Of course I
have
> some suggestions my self, but I'll get to those later. First the
requirements
> that I would like my system to forfill.
>
> genres it is able to cover. It's less important to me that the system
> supports a broad spectrum of styles. The system should aim for a
> 'realistic' style, since I feel that cinematics can be supported
rather
> easily in a relistic system, simply by introducing 'hero point' and/or
> by genrally cutting the players some slack. OTOH I feel its harder to
> support realistic play in a cinematic system. Thats a matter of taste
of
> course, but it's my taste so I'll go by it.
>
> easy to extend, since it is almost impossible to think of everything
in
> one go. One thing I was planning in this regard is to make it an
> ad/disad system. That way minor things that might be left out of the
> core system could 'easily' be patched on as ads or disads.
>
> To avoid that the system gets too loose, I was thinking that I would
use
> prerequests quite a lot to restrict both the use of ads/disads as well
> as skills. Again comments are welcome.
>
> both skill (Meaning learned ability) and attributes (Inborn talent)
> directly in the resolution mechanic. However I want the two to have
two
> different effects, since I feel there is a lot of difference between
> being talented and being skilled. My current picture is that your
talent
> is what allows you to do exceptional things, while skill is what gives
> you repeatability. I would also like that skill is the most important
> factor of the two, at except when truly magnificent things are
required.
>
that
> would make it easy to handle the wide range I would like.
>
> Finally I would prefer curvature in the resolution-system, since IMHO
it
> is realistic that people who are skilled or talented are punished less
> by adverse conditions than people of lesser skill.
>
> Well - I have given this more thought, but I think this is enough to
> start with.
Logrithmic characteristics can go negative, so the characteristics
should be used only by comparison to some sort of task difficulty, not
in terms of absolute values.
You want high skill to result in a lower variance.
Presumable you want skill to be open ended, rather than inherintly
limited to some maximum value. But you want skills to be capable of
showing small variations.
You want results to be a curved rather than flat distribution.
Sugestion: Roll (3+skill)D6, take the highest three and add the relevant
stat(s), compare to a difficulty number. Degree of success or failure
is based on the size of the difference.
Penalties normally subtract from skill, total lack of familiarity gives
a negative skill. Thus lifting a heavy weight has a difficulty
based on the size of the weight (and is hopeless if strength is not
within 18 or so points of that difficulty), but penalties due to
distractions, awkwardness, slippery surfacess ext... all modify the
relevant skill.
If (modified) skill is negative then the Roll is replaced by
(3-skill)D6, take the lowest three. (You always will roll at least
three dice.)
[Parts of this system shamelessly stolen, but the characteristics add
while skills modify number of dice is my own.]
*****
With no other modifiers this tends to FAIL your no need to rescale at
high skills test (for interesting play at least...), as characters with
high skills will almost always roll 16 or more + stat, making any
contest a simple matter of the high stat wins. Fortunately you
have a stated desire to force high skills to broaden out...
Allow specialized skills, a specialized skill is associated with a
single more general skill, you may further specialize a specialization
(how far into this you are will be measured by 'ranks'). The highest
rank specialization must have rank less than the general skill level.
Specializations have a flat cost (probably based on rank, quite likely
the total cost to buy a general skill up to a level equal to the
rank of the specialty) and use the skill level of the underlying skill.
[Note it is real tempting to have separate levels for specialties,
resist this, First it results in out of character thought about
whether or not to use a specialty, second, it is somewhat unrealistic,
if I am a expert at one field picking up a closely related specialty
is normally not all that hard.]
As an example, consider the weight lifting example above:
Rank 0 specialization (The general skill) is Atheletics (skill 6)
Rank 1 specialization is weigth lifting
Rank 2 specialization is furniture moving
Rank 3 specialization is getting through narrow doorways
ext...
If this character is trying to move a couch into the living room he
can roll vs his Athletics/Weigth Lifting/Furniture Moving/Narrow Doors
skill. Assuming he takes a minus one penalty to skill for unskilled
helpers and another minus one for awkward shape, and has a strength
of -1 vs a difficulty of 12 (for the weight of the couch). Failure
represents hitting the door frame and doing some slight damage.
Thus his basic roll is at -2 skill, -1 result, needing a 12+
He uses the rank 3 specialty for a +3 to his die roll, and rolls
7 dice take the best three. (3 dice are free + 6 for skill - 2 for
modifiers.)
*****
In competative situations each character's rank subtracts from
the opponents skill level. Thus in a fight I subtract the rank of my
opponents apropriate combat skill from my skill level. This gives an
'automatic' resaling, based on the idea that the guy with detailed
training in a given situation is harder to beat.
DougL
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Charles R. Capko Jr.
<rma...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>In message <38c681c8...@nntp.pbtcomm.net>, PMC...@pbtcomm.net
>(Charles R. Capko Jr.) wrote:
>
>>I don't know... how about this.. It has a gimickey feel.
>>
>>The attribute is represented by the target number and the skill is
>>represented by the die used to roll.
>>
>>Amature skill 1d4
>>Skilled 1d6
>>Professional 1d8
>>Master 1d10
>>Grand master 1d12
>
>How would you get task difficulty into it? You've already got dice
>size and target number - all that's left as far as I can see is number
>of dice/successes. Besides, why are you matching your skill against
>your attribute anyway? Shouldn't they work together, not against each
>other?
>
>Stumpy.
Oops, didn't finish the thought did I?
Well the difficulty is a stated number modified downwards by
attribute, then roll a die or dice and the larger the die the easyer
it is to make the roll.
So just an example pulled from nowhere in particular.
Difficulty 20 attribute 10 skill 1d12.
20-10=10 must roll 10 or better on a 1d12.
Just an example, and probably not balanced or anything.
Later,
Chuck (aka. WormSpeaker)
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
For free RPG's Badlands and JARPS check out
WormSpeakers page.
Http:/www.geocities.com/wormspeaker/
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Charles R. Capko Jr.
>
>
>Difficulty 20 attribute 10 skill 1d12.
>
>20-10=10 must roll 10 or better on a 1d12.
>
>Just an example, and probably not balanced or anything.
and thinking on that for a minute, it would probably be best for the
skill to modify down the difficulty and the dice to be based on the
attribute. (and ofcourse mods such as darkness and "off handed" can be
subtracted or added to the resulting target number.)
Nis Haller Baggesen
> In message <38C62813...@daimi.au.dk>, Nis Haller Baggesen
> <u97...@daimi.au.dk> wrote:
>
> >I would prefer if the system was reasonably generic, at least in the
> >genres it is able to cover. It's less important to me that the system
> >supports a broad spectrum of styles. The system should aim for a
> >'realistic' style, since I feel that cinematics can be supported rather
> >easily in a relistic system, simply by introducing 'hero point' and/or
> >by genrally cutting the players some slack. OTOH I feel its harder to
> >support realistic play in a cinematic system. Thats a matter of taste of
> >course, but it's my taste so I'll go by it.
>
> Nicely put. That about sums up my preference and reasoning too.
>
> >Since I would like a generic system, it would be prefereable if it was
> >easy to extend, since it is almost impossible to think of everything in
> >one go. One thing I was planning in this regard is to make it an
> >ad/disad system. That way minor things that might be left out of the
> >core system could 'easily' be patched on as ads or disads.
> >
> >To avoid that the system gets too loose, I was thinking that I would use
> >prerequests quite a lot to restrict both the use of ads/disads as well
> >as skills. Again comments are welcome.
>
> I think these two goals run counter to each other. It's not so bad if
> you miss a few higher order skills or ads/disads, but what if you add
> an ability and then realise that it ought to be a prerequisite for
> existing abilities? I'm not saying it's impossible - just that 'easy'
> patchability and heavy prerequisites sound mutually opposed to me.
True - heavy prerequesting (Can you say that), and easy patchablity propably
run counter to each other. I hadn't really thought of that. However I would
like to keep the prerequesting, since I feel that it would be a simple tool
to ensure some consistensy in an otherwise pretty free system, which is what
generic systems often are.
Nis
Kodeci
you
> could help me come up with a good resolution mechanic. Of course I
have
> some suggestions my self, but I'll get to those later. First the
requirements
> that I would like my system to forfill.
First, I present my core resolution mechanic proposal. Then I'll try to
match it with your goals.
Attribute: 2 dice, from 2d2 (extremely weak) to 2d12(exceptional), or
2d20(superheroic).
Note that the attribute scale (and skills as well) should be
logarithmic, that is the advantage of a 2d6 character over a 2d4 one is
the same as a 2d12 over a 2d10.
Options:
- Intermediate values such as d4+d6 possible.
- Other (virtual die) values possible, such as d5, d16, d30,d50.
- One could prefer roll 3 dice instead of 2 (but everywhere then).
- Re rolling can be done to increase possible (but highly unlikely)
random range.
- if require, even smaller attributes could be built
Skills: 0 would be weak, the higher (positive) the stronger.
The range corresponding to normal, exceptional and superheroic
difficulties is not defined by me, as the ratio between random and
non-random has no commonly accepted "best" value. Set up skill values so
that you are happy with the amount of random in a test.
Difficulty: for each action, figure out a character that would be likely
to succeed 50% of the time. Set up the difficulty as the average test
for such a character.
Test: roll attribute, add skill, and compare to difficulty; margin of
success or failure is the resulting difference. For every X points of
margin, rare results might get triggered.
> I would prefer if the system was reasonably generic, at least in the
It seems fairly generic.
> genres it is able to cover. It's less important to me that the system
> supports a broad spectrum of styles. The system should aim for a
> 'realistic' style, since I feel that cinematics can be supported
The 'realistic' style also is contrained by some of your later requests,
that is Attribute is random and skill is constant. Wether that is
realistic or not is not mine to say.
> An important part of the genericity I aim for, is that the system
should
> to be able to span a great range of abilities and attributes without
> breaking down. I would prefer if conflicts between two people of high
> skill could be resolved without having to rescaling their skill to get
> reasonable results.
I believe systems fail to scale if:
- they use a (very) variable number of dice
- numbers grow too big (pain to count) or too small (not enough
differenciation between characters)
- they have specific *die* results that trigger specific events
This system:
- only use two dice (which by the way should be fast to grab, roll and
add)
- numbers range is a tricky thing, that need to be carefully examined in
every system. Figure out the smallest relative difference you want to be
able to model in your system, and get the numbers from there. For
example, if you care to model a 25% increase, decide that 2d6 is 25%
better than d6+d4, and figure out the whole scale from there. Note that,
the small increase you want to model, the wider will get the range used
in the game.
- specific events are not triggered by *die* results, but by total
results.
> Since I would like a generic system, it would be prefereable if it was
> easy to extend, since it is almost impossible to think of everything
in
> one go. One thing I was planning in this regard is to make it an
> ad/disad system. That way minor things that might be left out of the
> core system could 'easily' be patched on as ads or disads.
>
> To avoid that the system gets too loose, I was thinking that I would
use
> prerequests quite a lot to restrict both the use of ads/disads as well
> as skills. Again comments are welcome.
Any generic system has to specialize for one game at some point. I
believe a generic system should stick to really generic things, and
provide only a core system. Along with that system, you are welcome to
provide examples of specific systems.
I believe ad/disads and prerequests, while thought of in a general way
in the generic system, should be given specific values only in the
specific example systems.
> Now for some actual mechanical restrictions. I would like to involve
> both skill (Meaning learned ability) and attributes (Inborn talent)
> directly in the resolution mechanic.
The proposal uses a sum of both ... OK
> However I want the two to have two
> different effects, since I feel there is a lot of difference between
> being talented and being skilled. My current picture is that your
talent
> is what allows you to do exceptional things, while skill is what gives
> you repeatability.
Skill constant, attribute random. OK
> I would also like that skill is the most important
> factor of the two, at except when truly magnificent things are
required.
Choose a bigger range in skill than in attributes. For example, use
commonly skills up to 20 for attributes up to 2d10.
The random part gets rather small, but that's normal if you want skill
to be important and to provide repeatability.
> Also I would like to use a logarithmic scale for attributes, since
that
> would make it easy to handle the wide range I would like.
I totally agree with choice myself. And so it is... OK
> Finally I would prefer curvature in the resolution-system, since IMHO
it
> is realistic that people who are skilled or talented are punished less
> by adverse conditions than people of lesser skill.
I'm not sure what you mean with 'curvature'.
If you care for a bell curve, a sum of two dice (or more centered,
three) is what you need.
Kodeci
--
http://members.xoom.com/kodeci/
J Alan Jackson
>
> In article <38C62813...@daimi.au.dk>,
> Nis Haller Baggesen <u97...@daimi.au.dk> wrote:
>
> >To avoid that the system gets too loose, I was thinking that I would use
> >prerequests quite a lot to restrict both the use of ads/disads as well
> >as skills. Again comments are welcome.
>
> ***
>
> I like your idea about having stat and skill affect the roll differently.
> We play a Storyteller variant in which skill determines the number of
> dice to be rolled and stat modifies the target number. You cannot get
> really good results unless you have a lot of skill (not enough dice) but
> high stat means to perform closer to the maximum for your skill level.
> Unfortunately this is probably the reverse of what you want. I suppose
> you could try reversing it, but the Storyteller mechanic (and relatives
> such as Shadowrun) do not scale well at all, which violates one of your
> design goals.
>
<feng shui - very cool game!>
I can think of two mechanics that give a different feel to stats and
skills
- The L5R/7thsea mechanic
(roll stat+skill dice, keep stat dice, add them together)
In this your maximum achievement is determined by your stat, but skills
make you considerably more reliable.
- the sillouette mechanic (or variants therof)
the original mechanic is:
roll skill D6, take the best one (on doubles you get to add the number
of extra 6's you rolled)
add stat, compare vs target number
This is extremely grainy (mostly due to hte D6's) but could easily be
converted to use larger dice and thus a wider range of results. It
scales fairly well, but you do get diminishing returns on large skills
(large numbers of dice) unless you have a fairly nice open ending system
of some sort (allowing 10's (assuming d10) to be rerolled and added or
something like that).
One advantage of this system is that the amount of addition required is
small, you roll the dice and take the best one rather then adding a
whole lot together.
Alan.
>
> Mary Kuhner mkku...@eskimo.com
--
* Hi! I'm a replicating .sig virus! Join the fun and copy me into yours!
:)
Nis Haller Baggesen
> In article <38C62813...@daimi.au.dk>,
> Nis Haller Baggesen <u97...@daimi.au.dk> wrote:
>
> >To avoid that the system gets too loose, I was thinking that I would use
> >prerequests quite a lot to restrict both the use of ads/disads as well
> >as skills. Again comments are welcome.
>
> My experience with this is that it's extremely inflexible and
> cumbersome--if you want to switch to a significantly new setting or
> genre, or even to a new play style (such as low-combat) you will
> have to rethink gobs of prerequisites.
I agree with you that prerequests can be inflexible and cumbersome. However
there are several reasons why I think they can still be worth the effort.
Prerequest can be used to help niche protection, create power structure (You
need to be initiated into the higher mysteries, before you can do certain
magic), and promote realistic ability combinations (You won't get a ph.d. in
physics without learning a lot of math, and you propably wont have combat
sense, without high combat related skills) . I consider the last of these
reason the most important reason to use prerequests.
Of course not all prerequest fit a certain world, although it is my
experience that most rules like those above generelise fairly well, YMMV.
However, that simply gives prerequests the additional use of expressing the
mood and style of the game. That mean that you have to rethink some (or gobs
of) prerequest prior to the each new game, but in many generic systems you
will have to do some thinking about point-cost or the like anyway.
The cumbersome part of prerequest is actually using them. However since they
will be used mostly during characte creation, I dn't find that much of a
problem. Character creation takes time, and it should take time. And the
prerequest will IME help you make a character without forgetting skills and
abilities that are natural to the concept. And if it turns out that a given
concept is hard to fit into the prerequest, it is no problem to give
dispensations, if the problem is actually with the prerequest and not with
the concept.
However dispite this rather long winded defence for something that we will
propably not agree on give our different experiences, you have got me
thinking that it might be better with a template system than a prerequest
system. It might be easier to express thing about the gameworld through
templates, and they would be easier to modify to a new style of play. The
problem I've normally had with templates is that they are often too
restrictive, but I might be able to avoid that somehow.
<Snip example from GURPS' broken magicsystem>
> I like your idea about having stat and skill affect the roll differently.
> We play a Storyteller variant in which skill determines the number of
> dice to be rolled and stat modifies the target number. You cannot get
> really good results unless you have a lot of skill (not enough dice) but
> high stat means to perform closer to the maximum for your skill level.
> Unfortunately this is probably the reverse of what you want. I suppose
> you could try reversing it, but the Storyteller mechanic (and relatives
> such as Shadowrun) do not scale well at all, which violates one of your
> design goals.
Reversing the system might work, but even then I think it will have some
problems. First it doesn't scale all that well, as you state. Secondly I've
played quite a bit of Shadowrun (That is the reason I want to scrap the
system and make a new one), and I've calculated the propabilities in that
system. And the thing you find in most dice-pool systems is that variations
on the target number mean far more than the number of dice you roll. At least
if you only look at the chances of making one succes. This means that the
system has quite a low granularity, or at least too low for my taste. But
thanks for the suggestion.
> The basic mechanic of Feng Shui scales *very* well; initiative is the only
> questionable part (very low-value characters move too seldom and feel
> wrong in play). A fight between AV9 (low heroic) characters runs about
> as quickly and works just as well as a fight between AV18 (superhero)
> characters. You might take a look at it. Unfortunately it does not
> make the stat/skill difference you want, and I don't see how to get it
> to do so.
Could you describe this mechanic in some detail? I've never played Feng Shui,
so I don't know anything about it. However I was under the impression that it
was a pretty cinematic system, but is that just the setting?
mvh
Nis
René Kragh Pedersen
[...]
> - the sillouette mechanic (or variants therof)
> the original mechanic is:
> roll skill D6, take the best one (on doubles you get to add the number
> of extra 6's you rolled)
> add stat, compare vs target number
>
> This is extremely grainy (mostly due to hte D6's) but could easily be
> converted to use larger dice and thus a wider range of results. It
> scales fairly well, but you do get diminishing returns on large skills
> (large numbers of dice) unless you have a fairly nice open ending system
> of some sort (allowing 10's (assuming d10) to be rerolled and added or
> something like that).
> One advantage of this system is that the amount of addition required is
> small, you roll the dice and take the best one rather then adding a
> whole lot together.
[...]
A big problem with the Silhoutte system is that a modifier as small as
+1 or +2 means a world of difference. As you say: it's very grainy. I
don't think it'll scale well [1] to accomodate the complexity wanted
_and_ at the same time do justice to the diversity of sapiens and other
critters in a world like Shadowrun's.
Even the Silhoutte system itself uses slightly different mechanics for
animals.
[1] Because to do this you'd have to scale at least to d10 (IMO) and at
that point forward the rule of "extra highs = +1" has less impact and
thus a modifier means even more.
--
René Kragh Pedersen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cool! A cloud-factory!
- Jens Møllgaard Jensen, In Real Life.
René Kragh Pedersen
> It might be easier to express thing about the gameworld through
> templates, and they would be easier to modify to a new style of play. The
> problem I've normally had with templates is that they are often too
> restrictive, but I might be able to avoid that somehow.
Just make it so that proficiencies outside your class cost more slots <G
D & R>
J Alan Jackson
I've been working on a variant of teh sillouette system to graft into
7th sea (I don't particularly like adding a many dice together as 7th
sea needs). What I've been planning to do is to open end on 10's rather
then adding for multiple 6's. I would either use the open ends from
ars-magica. (on a 10 you roll again and double the result, another 10 ->
triple etc) or a simple add 5 and reroll for each 10 (same average as
the ars magica one but much less random). I ran a whole lot of trials
through my computer (I'm a math grad student, so I have plenty of
computer power) and it seems to work very well for a wide range of
values. Although a skill of greater then about 7 is a little redundant
(although you still gain something from open ends)
Alan.
(I can post statistic summaries and stuff if you want)
(sorry about the email reply - netscape seems to choose randomly whether
to email or post :(
> [1] Because to do this you'd have to scale at least to d10 (IMO) and at
> that point forward the rule of "extra highs = +1" has less impact and
> thus a modifier means even more.
> --
> René Kragh Pedersen.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Cool! A cloud-factory!
> - Jens Møllgaard Jensen, In Real Life.
--
* Hi! I'm a replicating .sig virus! Join the fun and copy me into yours!
:)
.
Nis Haller Baggesen
<Snip my first post>
I must say I quite like this mechanic. That might be because it resembles
the idea that I had worked with myself, although I had reversed it, so to
speak, by letting skills be constants, and letting attributes be
represented by dice.
The reason I chose to represent attributes with dice, is that to me talent
is often more fuzzy than skill, since you know what you have learned, and
it is non-trivial to expand beyond what you have learned. OTOH I study
math, physics and computer science, so those experiences might not
generalize very well. At least it is quite obvious that strength is not
terribly variable so my idea has some flaws.
What I'm getting at is a new question - How do you view skills and
attributes. What do they represent, and how should they be modelled. And
can you really make a consistent mechanic that covers both the, IME, rather
variable results of physical tasks, and the less varied results of mental
task, where you have either learned how to solve a problem or you haven't.
Maybe this should go in another thread.
> Logrithmic characteristics can go negative, so the characteristics
> should be used only by comparison to some sort of task difficulty, not
> in terms of absolute values.
>
> You want high skill to result in a lower variance.
>
> Presumable you want skill to be open ended, rather than inherintly
> limited to some maximum value. But you want skills to be capable of
> showing small variations.
>
> You want results to be a curved rather than flat distribution.
>
> Sugestion: Roll (3+skill)D6, take the highest three and add the relevant
> stat(s), compare to a difficulty number. Degree of success or failure
> is based on the size of the difference.
It might be necessary to change the constants to fit the grading of
difficulties, but that won't be a problem.
In my system I was thinking about using something like (Scale +
Attribute)D<Number>, which would then become (Scale + Skill)D<Number>. The
reason I had scale in my original system was to support a great reange of
scales (Doh), which is certainly necessary with attributes, but I was
wondering if an adjustable scale would be useful in the skill system.
> Penalties normally subtract from skill, total lack of familiarity gives
> a negative skill. Thus lifting a heavy weight has a difficulty
> based on the size of the weight (and is hopeless if strength is not
> within 18 or so points of that difficulty), but penalties due to
> distractions, awkwardness, slippery surfacess ext... all modify the
> relevant skill.
>
> If (modified) skill is negative then the Roll is replaced by
> (3-skill)D6, take the lowest three. (You always will roll at least
> three dice.)
>
> [Parts of this system shamelessly stolen, but the characteristics add
> while skills modify number of dice is my own.]
You would have to think about when something being difficult means that it
should have a higher difficulty number, and when it should be a skill
modifier (And if you include my scale modifier, then when the scale should
be adjusted). Which races another general question, that ties in with my
question above. What does difficulties represent - And should it be the
difficulties that are variable instead of skills or attributes..
One thing I like though is that the "axis" of difficulty are fairly
orthogonal, so that you can adjust one thing, like skill, without suddenly
requering a much higher attribute value to succeed at all.
> *****
>
> With no other modifiers this tends to FAIL your no need to rescale at
> high skills test (for interesting play at least...), as characters with
> high skills will almost always roll 16 or more + stat, making any
> contest a simple matter of the high stat wins. Fortunately you
> have a stated desire to force high skills to broaden out...
If you use a higher base dice-number you can at least postpone that
problem, as you could with a greater dice-size. Of course it it only
practical to roll so many dice, so there is a limit to how much this can be
done.
> Allow specialized skills, a specialized skill is associated with a
> single more general skill, you may further specialize a specialization
> (how far into this you are will be measured by 'ranks'). The highest
> rank specialization must have rank less than the general skill level.
> Specializations have a flat cost (probably based on rank, quite likely
> the total cost to buy a general skill up to a level equal to the
> rank of the specialty) and use the skill level of the underlying skill.
>
> [Note it is real tempting to have separate levels for specialties,
> resist this, First it results in out of character thought about
> whether or not to use a specialty, second, it is somewhat unrealistic,
> if I am a expert at one field picking up a closely related specialty
> is normally not all that hard.]
I'm not really sure what you mean here, so it would be nice if you could
specify some more. Are you saying that you should avoid different
skill-levels for different ranks or what.
> As an example, consider the weight lifting example above:
> Rank 0 specialization (The general skill) is Atheletics (skill 6)
> Rank 1 specialization is weigth lifting
> Rank 2 specialization is furniture moving
> Rank 3 specialization is getting through narrow doorways
> ext...
>
> If this character is trying to move a couch into the living room he
> can roll vs his Athletics/Weigth Lifting/Furniture Moving/Narrow Doors
> skill. Assuming he takes a minus one penalty to skill for unskilled
> helpers and another minus one for awkward shape, and has a strength
> of -1 vs a difficulty of 12 (for the weight of the couch). Failure
> represents hitting the door frame and doing some slight damage.
>
> Thus his basic roll is at -2 skill, -1 result, needing a 12+
> He uses the rank 3 specialty for a +3 to his die roll, and rolls
> 7 dice take the best three. (3 dice are free + 6 for skill - 2 for
> modifiers.)
>
> *****
>
> In competative situations each character's rank subtracts from
> the opponents skill level. Thus in a fight I subtract the rank of my
> opponents apropriate combat skill from my skill level. This gives an
> 'automatic' resaling, based on the idea that the guy with detailed
> training in a given situation is harder to beat.
>
One small thing I dislike about your system, is that higher skill, does not
allow you to achieve a greater level of success (Although it does make
achieving great thing easier). I know that this was not a requirement in my
original post, but I would still feel that it was nice if the aging veteran
could pull of some tricks that the athletic newbie couldn't. Of course your
idea of adding specialty ranks does cover this to some degree, but I think
I might want to let the specialty rank modify the scale (As in my (Scale +
Skill) idea) in stead. That way the a specialty would not be an reliable
constant but something variable like the skill itself, while still ensuring
an better overall result. And in a contest between veterans you would have
automatic rescaling, with plenty of variance in the results. Easily
variance enough to overcome smaller differences in attributes. This would
aloso make attributes less important for veterans not more important, and I
think I like that. But comments are welcome.
Another thing is how should you handle things that only test the
attributes. Of course you might say that there is a skill for every
concievable action, and if you don't have the skill we simply asume you
have some default skill (Zero or less presumeably). But is there a nicer
way?
But all in all I think this is a very nice core mechanic, and I think I'll
steal it and twist it to fit my strange ideas. It's not the most elegant
thing I've ever seen, but then I prefer functionality over something that
simply looks nice (Or innovative).
This does not mean that I'll stop following this thread, or stop accepting
new suggestions. I love discussing mechanics for one thing, and besides I
(Or hopefully we ::) ) still need to look at combat resolution mechanics,
character generation and advancement, and many ohther things that you need
in a fairly rules-heavy rpg. But that must wait for another mail.
mvh
Nis
Nis Haller Baggesen
> Nis Haller Baggesen wrote:
> > It might be easier to express thing about the gameworld through
> > templates, and they would be easier to modify to a new style of play. The
> > problem I've normally had with templates is that they are often too
> > restrictive, but I might be able to avoid that somehow.
> [...]
>
> Just make it so that proficiencies outside your class cost more slots <G
> D & R>
Hmm - And maybe I should make a seperate set of Weapon Profiency Slots, so
that every body can learn how to fight. And a Level based system would
certainly give me the power-strucre I liked. now where have I seen this
before...
But seriously, what are peoples views on prerequests, character templates,
lose and strict class systems etc for regulating the kind of characters that
you can make with a given system. Does that kind of thing belong in a generic
system, and if so which of the choices above (I'd say prerequest or
templates). OTOH how do you protect character niches etc. in a very free
system (As the GM you simply review the PC's, I know that, but might it be
nice with some a priori restrictions?) Is it necessary to protect character
niches etc? Can't prerequests be a good tool to describe how different skills
and advantages link? Here it might be worth pointing out that I intend to aim
for a relatively detailed skill system a la GURPS, where you need several
skill (And sometimes even some advantages) to cover a given area perfectly.
And now that I'm back at the game I'm trying to design, I'll just defend
prerequest a bit more ::)
The reason I intended to use prerequests, is that I feel they are less
restrictive than templates, while they have greater expressive power, and
people will be more inclined to follow them than templates (Besides templates
can alway be added - That might be more difficult with prerequests). And I
feel that in a generally free system, it is good to have some tool, that ties
things together, to make sure people don't forget important skills or the
like. As I stated earlier you don't learn physics without first learning math,
and you propably don't get Combat Intuition, without some combat experience,
which implies skill at fighting. I believe I could go on, without making too
many asumpotions about the game world, and I that is correct, then prerequest
are at least compatible with the idea of a generic system. Maybe what I did
wrong was to say I wanted heavy prererquesting.
mvh
Nis
Darien Phoenix Lynx
protection? My experience is that players want to add something unique
to the group, but that they also don't want their characters to be
easily classified and dismissed as a well-defined archetype. Often,
they want to play something unusual in the game world itself, and
strict niche-protection rules run counter to this by defining and
holding characters to limited character types, which are usually the
most common. Template systems, class-systems, buy-in systems, and extra-
crossover-cost systems all have these basic weaknesses.
Players know best what they want to have as their domain when they
play. I have found that by asking players to reach consensus among
themselves about not stepping on each other's toes, things proceed much
more smoothly and without animosity; furthermore, players can truly
custom-design a character that appeals to them. When a new character is
being drafted, whether at the start of a campaign run or for
introduction into an ongoing campaign, it's just part of our culture to
look for things that might steal another player's thunder and show some
courtesy by asking for that player's feelings. Also, players know not
to go overboard in fencing off schtick domains. Often a character's
secondary capabilities will be overshadowed at some point, but what is
important is that no player feels that his character is routinely
eclipsed in areas important to him, nor that he rarely gets an
opportunity to "show his stuff."
If your players are mature enough, I wholeheartedly recommend this
strategy over any attempt at a stiff mechanical resolution. Such
solutions will of necessity not be universal, not fully succeed at
their task, stifle creative character concepts, fail to be expandable,
and encourage system use over character design.
Mary K. Kuhner
Nis Haller Baggesen <u97...@daimi.au.dk> wrote:
>But seriously, what are peoples views on prerequests, character templates,
>lose and strict class systems etc for regulating the kind of characters that
>you can make with a given system.
Personal opinions here:
I loathe prerequisite systems. They are complicated to learn, so
that I need a book every time I want to make a character (particularly
bad when I'm GMing--I feel guilty if my NPCs are illegal, but it's
too much work to make a legal character in a prerequisite system).
They clutter the character sheet with potentially irrelevant skills.
They screw up character conceptions which are unusual, but they don't
make it clear right away that the conception is screwed: you have to
work through a lot of details and *then* you find out.
"Templates" covers a wide range of different things. If you mean something
like Feng Shui where each type of character is given as a base writeup
with a few options for customization, they're okay by me. They make
for quick character generation and are relatively easy to balance.
You can't make any character you might want, but at least you know that
right away. The downside is that there's no clear way to make a more
or less powerful character than the given templates, unless you graft on
a point system as well (a problem when making NPCs or when you want
PCs who are not "starting characters"). A group that plays many
characters in quick sucession will probably get bored with the templates
and want to design characters from scratch. This is a problem in
Feng Shui, which has no character design system aside from its templates,
but you can usually guesstimate using the other templates for guides.
(Watch out for players who somehow always use the most powerful template
as their guide...)
If "template" means that you just give example characters, that's a really
useful thing to have but cannot be counted on for balance. It makes a
good combination with a "GM reviews PCs" system because it gives the players
a guideline to work with.
I suppose a strict class system is one where you cannot learn skills outside
your class. I can work with these, as long as there is some provision for
"everyman" skills that any character can learn (they don't have to be
listed on the character sheet, but I don't want to be told that my
character can't bargain, read, search, or other basic abilities because
of her class). There is again a problem of player boredom unless each
class is quite internally diverse. The game world may be distorted to
make people fit into strict classes; alternatively, the classes may be
purely metagame, but then it's hard to explain why PCs don't learn
certain skills even though they have the time and motivation.
A loose class system is one where you can learn skills outside your class,
but at some penalty. For my own preferences these tend to be too
complex and twiddly--not as bad as prerequisites, but it's still hard
to make legal NPCs, and the twiddliness means that you may not realize
your conception is impossible until after a lot of work. But a simple
one could be okay for me. They do less damage to the game world than
strict classes, and run less risk of players demanding new classes
because they are bored with the old ones.
>OTOH how do you protect character niches etc. in a very free
>system (As the GM you simply review the PC's, I know that, but might it be
>nice with some a priori restrictions?)
I have had good success with having the players describe the party and
how each PC is going to contribute to it, *before* statting up any
characters. This way everyone knows what niches they are trying to
protect, and can give feedback (i.e. "I don't think it's reasonable that
you want your character to be the only good fighter in the group:
I think there's room for two or three." or "Are you sure your character
will have enough to do when she only knows medicine and biology? I
don't think many adventures will require those skills. Maybe she should
know some programming as well.")
>And I
>feel that in a generally free system, it is good to have some tool, that ties
>things together, to make sure people don't forget important skills or the
>like.
We have a rule (it's also in Feng Shui, but we found it independently)
that after the first few sessions you can redesign your character. This
does wonders toward stopping players from forgetting essential skills.
But if you're comfortable with rules-heavy systems, go for it. This
is mainly a matter of taste.
My own preference as a player is to have a character sheet I can
memorize. I would not want to list Physics, Math, Statistics,
and Research for a physicist character; I'd prefer to write Physicist
and work out from there what she can do. But in some groups this
invites creeping skill spread ("of course my Physicist can do
cryptography!") and in such cases more explicit skill lists may help.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@eskimo.com
Warren J. Dew
If your players are mature enough, I wholeheartedly recommend this
strategy over any attempt at a stiff mechanical resolution. Such
solutions will of necessity not be universal, not fully succeed at
their task, stifle creative character concepts, fail to be expandable,
and encourage system use over character design.
You've got it all figured out, haven't you?
Try this:
If your players are intelligent enough, I wholeheartedly recommend
a mechanical resolution over this strategy. This strategy will of
necessity be vague, not fully succeed at its task, penalize interesting
character concepts, prevent realistic character specialization, and
encourage powergaming over intelligent character design.
In truth, using mechanics and relying on the players each has its own
advantages and disadvantages. For more information, you might want to go back
to the beginning of this thread, where Kodeci advocated very much the same
position you do, and read the responses to his post.
Warren Dew
Darien Phoenix Lynx
carrying with them an appearance of pretentious naivete. Perhaps it was
unwise of me to state such plain opinions without argumentation on the
heels of an extensive thread on the same subject. As much as I would
like to engage the discussion in earnest, though, I'm afraid for the
time being I must remain a lurker. I can only assure you that I am well-
versed in the philosophy of role-playing and simulation mechanics, as
well as the discussions of this excellent group for the past several
years. In fact, I have long been a fan of your lucid, insightful, and
well-formatted posts.
I'm ashamed that I can't contribute as much as I have received from the
discussions here.
Lance Dyas
"Mary K. Kuhner" wrote:
> In article <38C62813...@daimi.au.dk>,
> Nis Haller Baggesen <u97...@daimi.au.dk> wrote:
>
> >To avoid that the system gets too loose, I was thinking that I would use
> >prerequests quite a lot to restrict both the use of ads/disads as well
> >as skills. Again comments are welcome.
>
> My experience with this is that it's extremely inflexible and
> cumbersome--if you want to switch to a significantly new setting or
> genre, or even to a new play style (such as low-combat) you will
> have to rethink gobs of prerequisites.
>
> It's also common for characters who don't quite fit the system designer's
> preconceptions to end up with a lot of "wrong" skills. My husband,
> when he was playing GURPS mages, used to have two columns of spells on
> his sheet: "spells I can really cast" and "spells I took to satisfy
> the prerequisite system but it would be totally out of character to cast
> them". The second list was quite long. I don't remember Jon's exact
> examples, but one I encountered was wanting to make a night-worshippping
> darkness mage and finding I was forced to buy a lot of light spells.
> I didn't feel the idea of a darkness mage was unreasonable, but I would
> have paid a large penalty (points spent on skills it would be wrong to
> use) for making one.
Yep that is the problem I had with the hard wired pre-requisites... a rules
variant on GURPS allowing one to "learn the underlying principles of
the pre-requisites" and spend only 1/2 a point on each unknown prerequisite
combined with a -1 penalty for each unknown pre-requisite seems to
fix the problem nicely.
*******************************************************************************************************************
Lance Alan Dyas Dragonlords Decision Driven Gaming
http://incolor.inetnebr.com/lancelot/roleplay
*******************************************************************************************************************
Kodeci
some of mine), clear. I liked reading how your group handled those
concerns, and would like to read more about the following, as I share
the same idea ... but have no experience about it :-(
I would especially like to read more about the following.
In article <8abqf4$3ll$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Darien Phoenix Lynx <dpl...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Have you considered relying on your players to handle their own niche
> protection? My experience is that players want to add something unique
> to the group, but that they also don't want their characters to be
> easily classified and dismissed as a well-defined archetype. Often,
> they want to play something unusual in the game world itself, and
> strict niche-protection rules run counter to this by defining and
> holding characters to limited character types, which are usually the
> most common. Template systems, class-systems, buy-in systems, and
extra-
> crossover-cost systems all have these basic weaknesses.
Up to "add something unique to the group", I understand. Then, I would
really enjoy to read some more, because I fail to understand the precise
details of your contribution.
Kodeci
lam...@my-deja.com
>
> <Snip my first post>
>
> I must say I quite like this mechanic. That might be because it
resembles
> the idea that I had worked with myself, although I had reversed it, so
to
> speak, by letting skills be constants, and letting attributes be
> represented by dice.
>
> The reason I chose to represent attributes with dice, is that to me
talent
> is often more fuzzy than skill, since you know what you have learned,
and
> it is non-trivial to expand beyond what you have learned. OTOH I study
> math, physics and computer science, so those experiences might not
> generalize very well. At least it is quite obvious that strength is
not
> terribly variable so my idea has some flaws.
Note that Adding dice GREATLY reduces the variance of this system.
By the time you are rolling 12 dice the variance is trivial.
Thus a test based on pure talent is the most random type, if you use
the talent as a constant add, and let skill change the number of dice.
A test with high skill is almost sure to produce a high result.
> What I'm getting at is a new question - How do you view skills and
> attributes. What do they represent, and how should they be modelled.
And
> can you really make a consistent mechanic that covers both the, IME,
rather
> variable results of physical tasks, and the less varied results of
mental
> task, where you have either learned how to solve a problem or you
haven't.
> Maybe this should go in another thread.
Again look at what actually happens with this skill mechanism, if
solving a math problem has difficulty 11, skill modifier -10, then
with much less than 10 skill it is almost impossible, with much more
than 10 skill it is trivial, for ANY Int stat from -4 or so to +4 or
so. Do some MonteCarlo runs, you may be surprised by the effects.
[SNIP]
> You would have to think about when something being difficult means
that it
> should have a higher difficulty number, and when it should be a skill
> modifier (And if you include my scale modifier, then when the scale
should
> be adjusted). Which races another general question, that ties in with
my
> question above. What does difficulties represent - And should it be
the
> difficulties that are variable instead of skills or attributes..
Varrying difficulties results in rather low skills having very low
variances. As I see it you pick the single aspect of the problem where
a stat is most critical, and base the difficulty entirely on that.
Everything else modifies skill. Alternately anything that requires
high skill modifies skill, anything that requires high stats modifies
difficulty. Nice and intuative that way.
> One thing I like though is that the "axis" of difficulty are fairly
> orthogonal, so that you can adjust one thing, like skill, without
suddenly
> requering a much higher attribute value to succeed at all.
>
> > *****
> >
> > With no other modifiers this tends to FAIL your no need to rescale
at
> > high skills test (for interesting play at least...), as characters
with
> > high skills will almost always roll 16 or more + stat, making any
> > contest a simple matter of the high stat wins. Fortunately you
> > have a stated desire to force high skills to broaden out...
>
> If you use a higher base dice-number you can at least postpone that
> problem, as you could with a greater dice-size. Of course it it only
> practical to roll so many dice, so there is a limit to how much this
can be
> done.
Heh, with high skills you WILL be rolling large numbers of dice.
Fortunately on the system as I have proposed it you need never do more
than find the three highest (or lowest) and add them up + a stat.
> > Allow specialized skills, a specialized skill is associated with a
> > single more general skill, you may further specialize a
specialization
> > (how far into this you are will be measured by 'ranks'). The
highest
> > rank specialization must have rank less than the general skill
level.
> > Specializations have a flat cost (probably based on rank, quite
likely
> > the total cost to buy a general skill up to a level equal to the
> > rank of the specialty) and use the skill level of the underlying
skill.
> >
> > [Note it is real tempting to have separate levels for specialties,
> > resist this, First it results in out of character thought about
> > whether or not to use a specialty, second, it is somewhat
unrealistic,
> > if I am a expert at one field picking up a closely related specialty
> > is normally not all that hard.]
>
> I'm not really sure what you mean here, so it would be nice if you
could
> specify some more. Are you saying that you should avoid different
> skill-levels for different ranks or what.
If each specialty skill has its own skill level, then players have an
out of character decission to make as to whether they are better off
using a high skill low rank skill, or a low skill high rank skill.
This decission has NO equivelent in the game world. So simply treat
the specialized skills as boolean skills, you have them or not, and
use the general skills level for all that you have.
Hmm, try stealing something from yet another game, if you roll more than
three six's on a task where you have possitive modified skill, then the
extra six's add one each to the result.
Drop the Ranks idea alltogather or keep it as convienent. If you are
useing variable scale (number of dice kept OR size of dice) they I
would DEFINITELY drop it, the system is starting to look top heavy.
If you have more that three ones on a task with negative skill then you
fumble.
> Another thing is how should you handle things that only test the
> attributes. Of course you might say that there is a skill for every
> concievable action, and if you don't have the skill we simply asume
you
> have some default skill (Zero or less presumeably). But is there a
nicer
> way?
Roll with no skill, i.e. three dice + stat. Or declare a task to have
no relevant skill, but assign a skill modifier that ADDS to skill
level rather than subtracts. Walking across the room is not a skill
I wish to have recorded on my sheet, but my character is unlikely to
fail, so give it a low dex based difficulty, and a high add to skill.
[SNIP]
Thomas Bagwell
news:8aiv2i$rl2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> In article <8abqf4$3ll$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Darien Phoenix Lynx <dpl...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Have you considered relying on your players to handle their own niche
> > protection? My experience is that players want to add something unique
> > to the group, but that they also don't want their characters to be
> > easily classified and dismissed as a well-defined archetype. Often,
> > they want to play something unusual in the game world itself, and
> > strict niche-protection rules run counter to this by defining and
> > holding characters to limited character types, which are usually the
> > most common. Template systems, class-systems, buy-in systems, and
> extra-
> > crossover-cost systems all have these basic weaknesses.
>
> Up to "add something unique to the group", I understand. Then, I would
> really enjoy to read some more, because I fail to understand the precise
> details of your contribution.
I think I know where he's coming from. As a player, I want to have unique
skills without being shoehorned into a mold...fighter, thief, assassin,
priest, etc. In a system with predetermined classes, there's only so
'unique' you can be. In open systems, though, you run the risk of
duplicating other characters' specialties. Usually (in my experience) the
players will work this out amongst themselves, as long as they discuss
matters before working up their characters. Some overlap is good, but the
discussion usually ensures they have different foci.
As an example, I'm running a CORPS sf campaign, with an element of magic.
There are two magic using characters in the party, but as a result of
discussing things beforehand, they are very different in concept. One uses
traditional fantasy spell-type magic...point and shoot stuff. The other
uses ritual and ceremony, taking hours to perform magic. Their capabilities
are quite different and neither of them diminishes the other.
Tom B.
Darien Phoenix Lynx
"Thomas Bagwell" <tnba...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I think I know where he's coming from. As a player, I want to have
unique
> skills without being shoehorned into a mold...fighter, thief,
assassin,
> priest, etc. In a system with predetermined classes, there's only so
> 'unique' you can be. In open systems, though, you run the risk of
> duplicating other characters' specialties. Usually (in my experience)
the
> players will work this out amongst themselves, as long as they discuss
> matters before working up their characters. Some overlap is good, but
the
> discussion usually ensures they have different foci.
stepping on each other's toes, your system can go to work providing
more options for the players instead of taking on the cumbersome role
of niche protection. Another phenomenon I have noticed with this
approach--one that I like--is that I hear a lot less classification and
dismissal.
For example, you may hear things from players in a class-based
background saying things like, "give it to the mage," or "keep the
fighters in front." From an effects-design background, you might hear
terms like "brick", "blaster," and "mentalist." It can be a real
challenge to break out of a ready mold pre-established in other
players' minds to create something unique. Worse, many times more
experienced players will have conceptions of the "best" way to play (if
not act) a particular character archetype, making the game less fun for
new players.
Allowing players to make party balance decisions outside of an
arbitrary framework has other benefits as well--for example, they can
work together to set the power level they wish to play.
Mary K. Kuhner
>Yes, exactly. If your players are willing to work together to avoid
>stepping on each other's toes, your system can go to work providing
>more options for the players instead of taking on the cumbersome role
>of niche protection. Another phenomenon I have noticed with this
>approach--one that I like--is that I hear a lot less classification and
>dismissal.
This is the system I use and would cautiously advocate, but I
have had some problems with it. One advantage of the well-defined
fixed archetypes is that either they work, or the group notices
that they don't work and fixes them or rules them out (i.e. some
D&D groups will say "No thieves, they can't manage to be useful
enough".)
With the free-generation systems we have sometimes had a player
propose a plausible-sounding archetype, only to find that the
character really, truly did not have enough to do. In a campaign
where changing PCs is difficult this can be a serious pain. And
it can happen even with experienced players in a system they know,
because they're experimenting, whereas with a fixed-class system it
stops happening fairly early on because you've tried all the classes
and know if they work or not. (Ruling out here systems with
hundreds of classes--I have no practical experience on how those work.)
I think fixed classes are particularly useful for pick-up and
short games, where there is little time to debug a player-designed
niche. They are also useful for players who, for whatever reason,
hate to negotiate character designs, and I've known a couple of
those.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@eskimo.com
Warren J. Dew
What I'm getting at is a new question - How do you view skills and
attributes. What do they represent, and how should they be modelled.
This is an interesting question. I think most systems conflate several
different things into "skills".
One key issue is that of quality versus repeatability.
For example, lets take a "math" skill. Suppose skill 1 represents the ability
to do addition and subtraction.
Does skill 2 represent being able to do addition and subtraction faster and
with fewer mistakes? Or does it represent being able to do something more
difficult, like perhaps multiplication and division? If the former, are
multiplication and division a separate skill? Can you learn multiplication
without knowing addition?
I think there are two different issues here. Being able to do addition faster
and with fewer mistakes is a repeatability issue. Being able to do
multiplication as well is a quality issue.
Of course, that raises the issue of just how independent they actually are. I
don't actually know anyone who is facile with addition and subtraction who
doesn't know, say, long division, though I can imagine that such a person is
possible.
I also don't know anyone who can do cube root extraction who is not facile with
addition; I'm less convinced that this is possible. On the other hand, I think
I could do hexadecimal cube root extraction, even though I'm really slow at
hexadecimal addition.
From the standpoint of skill maintenance, and improvement through practice, I
think it's mostly the repeatability that needs to be maintained and can be
improved through practice. The quality part, it seems to me, doesn't tend to
get lost unless one never had a solid grasp on it in the first place.
And can you really make a consistent mechanic that covers both the,
IME, rather variable results of physical tasks, and the less varied
results of mental task, where you have either learned how to solve a
problem or you haven't.
I don't think they are that different, except insofar as one can spend more
time on mental tasks. As John Kim pointed out in another thread, even
mathematically adept players can still make not infrequent addition errors when
playing at speed. The difference is that for physical tasks involving the
momentum of tools and one's own body parts, slowing down changes the dynamics,
so slowing down and being more careful is not as much of an option.
This suggests that the most player world accurate mechanic would be one that
separately tracks repeatability and quality for each skill, perhaps even
separately tracking repeatability for each skill level. Repeatability would be
subject to maintenance; quality would not.
From a niche protection standpoint, this would be fine for physical skills like
combat, since repeatability would matter as much as quality. For mental
skills, repeatability would probably have to take precedence over quality: a
quality 3 repeatability 3 arcanist would come up with the answer to a level 3
arcane question before the quality 5 repeatability 1 arcanist would.
One possible mechanic: roll <repeatability>D<quality> for a target number
equal to the difficulty; the more successes the better.
None of this addresses the issue of talent, which in the math case would be
something like innate intelligence. I think in this framework, talent, in the
guise of attributes, would simply affect whether and how fast one could learn
skills, perhaps capping the quality of a related skill as well. Loss of talent
would affect results: perhaps having a head cold that reduces one's
intelligence would prevent one from performing tasks that required a high
intelligence to learn.
Opinions?
Warren J. Dew
Powderhouse Software
Joshua Macy
>
... snip ...
> One possible mechanic: roll <repeatability>D<quality> for a target number
> equal to the difficulty; the more successes the better.
>
> None of this addresses the issue of talent, which in the math case would be
> something like innate intelligence. I think in this framework, talent, in the
> guise of attributes, would simply affect whether and how fast one could learn
> skills, perhaps capping the quality of a related skill as well. Loss of talent
> would affect results: perhaps having a head cold that reduces one's
> intelligence would prevent one from performing tasks that required a high
> intelligence to learn.
>
> Opinions?
>
>
Interesting, but I suspect a bit cumbersome in actual play. Of
course, that may be just that I find dice-pool systems cumbersome in
general. I also wonder whether repeatability would be more desirable
than quality in almost every skill that players care about (at least in
adventure genres). I can't think of many players I've met who've chosen
to play characters capable of brilliant insight but haphazard
application, even in completely free-form systems, although they're
common enough as NPCs (particularly in genres which allow for a "mad
scientist" archetype).
Joshua
Brian Gleichman
news:20000316134646...@ng-xe1.aol.com...
> None of this addresses the issue of talent, which in the math case would
be
> something like innate intelligence. I think in this framework, talent, in
the
> guise of attributes, would simply affect whether and how fast one could
learn
> skills, perhaps capping the quality of a related skill as well.
I'm heavily of the opinion that talent should cap skill quality.
--
Brian Gleichman
glei...@mindspring.com
Age of Heroes: http://gleichman.home.mindspring.com/
Free RPG Reviews: http://gleichman.home.mindspring.com/Reviews.htm
Lance Dyas
determined
so in "games" there should be room for variation ... games which act like they
have all skill groups specified are ummm hardwiring a culture into the game.
Professions and professional specialties distinct by nationalities within the game
world
is something you see vary rarely in rpgs.
Lance Dyas
system
where it affects the maximum rating at a skill and the rate of advancement
towards that peak
Brian Gleichman wrote:
--
Lance Dyas
> Part of my justification for this is the whole "chicken -- egg"
> situation - do only agile people try to learn ballet, or does learning
> ballet make you agile?
I had an idea for having a profession include attribute bonus's
applied it in old "StormBringer" game... decreased the number
of dice on the trait roll and added a bonus for nationality and
another for professional specialty. It helped feel the influence
of the game world on the characters abilities.
J Alan Jackson
>
> Nils Haller Baggeson posts, in part:
>
> attributes. What do they represent, and how should they be modelled.
>
> different things into "skills".
>
> One key issue is that of quality versus repeatability.
>
> From the standpoint of skill maintenance, and improvement through practice, I
> think it's mostly the repeatability that needs to be maintained and can be
> improved through practice. The quality part, it seems to me, doesn't tend to
> get lost unless one never had a solid grasp on it in the first place.
>
> And can you really make a consistent mechanic that covers both the,
> IME, rather variable results of physical tasks, and the less varied
> results of mental task, where you have either learned how to solve a
> problem or you haven't.
>
> I don't think they are that different, except insofar as one can spend more
> time on mental tasks. As John Kim pointed out in another thread, even
> mathematically adept players can still make not infrequent addition errors when
> playing at speed. The difference is that for physical tasks involving the
> momentum of tools and one's own body parts, slowing down changes the dynamics,
> so slowing down and being more careful is not as much of an option.
>
> This suggests that the most player world accurate mechanic would be one that
> separately tracks repeatability and quality for each skill, perhaps even
> separately tracking repeatability for each skill level. Repeatability would be
> subject to maintenance; quality would not.
>
> From a niche protection standpoint, this would be fine for physical skills like
> combat, since repeatability would matter as much as quality. For mental
> skills, repeatability would probably have to take precedence over quality: a
> quality 3 repeatability 3 arcanist would come up with the answer to a level 3
> arcane question before the quality 5 repeatability 1 arcanist would.
>
What I've tended to do is conflate Quality with Stats (ie talent) and
use skills purely for repeatability. While this is a bit simpler then a
3 way (talent, quality, repeatability) mechanism it has the advantage
of being somewhat more pratical to implement.
> One possible mechanic: roll <repeatability>D<quality> for a target number
> equal to the difficulty; the more successes the better.
>
This could also work with a sillouette style "roll lots of dice and keep
the highest", ie you roll repeatability Dquality and keep the highest.
(some sort of mild open ending scheme is needed to prevent it from
getting boring with high skills, but it does tend to work)
Part of my justification for this is the whole "chicken -- egg"
situation - do only agile people try to learn ballet, or does learning
ballet make you agile?
Many training programmes try to develop talents - sports training makes
you generally fitter, lots of logical training makes you generally more
adept at problem solving, military training often tries to improve
reactions to events (makeing it instinctive (and therefore very fast)
for you do duck when something goes bang). All these (and countless
more) have lead me to combine talent and quality, but allow
repeatability to be increased via a skill (it does improve overall
results slightly, but mostly improves repeatability).
> None of this addresses the issue of talent, which in the math case would be
> something like innate intelligence. I think in this framework, talent, in the
> guise of attributes, would simply affect whether and how fast one could learn
> skills, perhaps capping the quality of a related skill as well. Loss of talent
> would affect results: perhaps having a head cold that reduces one's
> intelligence would prevent one from performing tasks that required a high
> intelligence to learn.
>
Conflating talent with quality seems to work in the games I run, but for
a more complicated system having talent adjust costs would be quite
neat. I can see people with low willpower/self discipline stats having
to pay more for high repeatability too...
Alan.
> Opinions?
>
> Warren J. Dew
> Powderhouse Software
--
* Hi! I'm a replicating .sig virus! Join the fun and copy me into yours!
:)
. (because my newsserver requires more new text then existing :(
Kodeci
mkku...@eskimo.com (Mary K. Kuhner) wrote:
> With the free-generation systems we have sometimes had a player
> propose a plausible-sounding archetype, only to find that the
> character really, truly did not have enough to do. In a campaign
> where changing PCs is difficult this can be a serious pain.
This could happen only when: (both)
a) you can't change character (campaign limitation I guess)
b) you can't heavily modify your character (system limitation ?)
For that last aspect, I thought, Mary, you were allowing players to
reshape their character after a few sessions? This should avoid the
problem, no?
> And
> it can happen even with experienced players in a system they know,
> because they're experimenting, whereas with a fixed-class system it
> stops happening fairly early on because you've tried all the classes
> and know if they work or not.
This makes sense. Would it be possible to have a system that doesn't
have that problem, while not having classes?
I'm thinking here about a system I'm working on, composed of a
gathering of subsystems, each designed to handle one game situation and
given a weight according to the frequency and importance of that
situation *in the precise game* we play. Assigning weights to subsystems
is like formalizing a game contract.
This is not class-based, as characters are expected to have abilities
in most subsystems and so on: no specific ability distribution is
expected over the subsystems. (Nothing to protect niches as it is, this
would be another topic.)
In this system, any ability you take has a known usefulness, as the
weight of that ability reflect the game contract choices. A useless
ability can be taken but will be recognized useless.
I would hope that this system would prevent any player, even newcomer,
from designing a not-useful-enough character; because all abilities you
paid for are useful, and dominance by another character in any activity
is immediatly recognized, and easily measurable.
What's right and what's wrong with that system?
> I think fixed classes are particularly useful for pick-up and
> short games, where there is little time to debug a player-designed
> niche. They are also useful for players who, for whatever reason,
> hate to negotiate character designs, and I've known a couple of
> those.
Makes sense
Kodeci
Mary K. Kuhner
>mkku...@eskimo.com (Mary K. Kuhner) wrote:
>> With the free-generation systems we have sometimes had a player
>> propose a plausible-sounding archetype, only to find that the
>> character really, truly did not have enough to do. In a campaign
>> where changing PCs is difficult this can be a serious pain.
>This could happen only when: (both)
>a) you can't change character (campaign limitation I guess)
>b) you can't heavily modify your character (system limitation ?)
> For that last aspect, I thought, Mary, you were allowing players to
>reshape their character after a few sessions? This should avoid the
>problem, no?
Rearranging the character only helps when there is a flaw in the
mechanical implementation. If the character is in a niche that
can't support them, you'd need to change their whole niche, and the
result is often not going to be the same character.
The example I had in mind was our Haven Hill campaign. The PCs were
from a distant, isolated castle and were close relatives. They were
powerfully magically talented, but had never been trained in using
it at home. They got out into the world among non-mages and had an
interesting time.
It was hard to add a new PC. No one was likely to come from the
castle to join them, and having a non-mage PC would have been awkward
and unbalanced.
One character didn't work out well. He had skills which looked
good on paper but didn't give him enough to do. We had a tough
time fixing this--just raising the levels of his skills wouldn't
help, because he wasn't getting enough opportunities to use them.
Changing him to a character with a different orientation would
have made hash of previous events.
> I'm thinking here about a system I'm working on, composed of a
>gathering of subsystems, each designed to handle one game situation and
>given a weight according to the frequency and importance of that
>situation *in the precise game* we play. Assigning weights to subsystems
>is like formalizing a game contract.
This would do the trick, I think, if you managed to get a successful
rating of the subsystems. I will have to admit here that Haven
Hill was a very low combat campaign, and part of our problem came
from not having done that before, and assuming that we knew the
weights when we didn't really. It also had "free magic", another
perturbing factor over what I was used to running.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@eskimo.com
Kodeci
> >Assigning weights to subsystems
> >is like formalizing a game contract.
>
> This would do the trick, I think, if you managed to get a successful
> rating of the subsystems. I will have to admit here that Haven
> Hill was a very low combat campaign, and part of our problem came
> from not having done that before, and assuming that we knew the
> weights when we didn't really.
I see, and agree. That's why I would start with some weights, and adjust
them when needed. This would be possible in my system as:
1. subsystems are and stay independent from each other.
2. uses of the subsystems are easy to track, as they map onto whole
scenes of the games.
3. advancement would not suffer from rearranging weights, as Character
Evaluation is a guideline with no strict immediate enforcing.
> It also had "free magic", another
> perturbing factor over what I was used to running.
In general and even more for "mechanicless" abilities, I tend to think
that a "non-variable" Evaluation procedure fails.
The Game is not predetermined: for example, a game can start with very
little combat but things can change after two adventures, and get
peaceful again after three of those. Or long distance sight can be
required for Sailor Adventurer group, then useless when they get in a
deal with a Dwarf King and have to fight on their side in the depth of
Moria. Same with "mechanicless" magic, how useful will that be?
Even more important, I'm sure most (Referees) of you had trouble one
day with a player that took a disadvantage that doesn't really
disadvantage his character. Many Disad system allow you to take a
penalty with magic, but clearly the Ad has not a varying weight,
depending on how much magic that character does! If a Mage is doomed
with that disad, it should be considered a huge penalty ... while a
stupid non-Mage orc could choose that without any disad point at all!
Identically, suppose a character takes a weakness, say (male) "easy to
charm by young women". Unless you want a boring repetitive situation
where that distracts somehow or delays the character from his other
goals, you'll have some adventures when this doesn't show up, and it
might happen once that the character will severely endanger his life
because of that weakness. How do you evaluate the point cost of that
weakness? (The same applies to many ads and disads)
I feel it is unfair to come up with an average, as:
1. nobody knows in advance what the average will be,
2. there is too much variation for an average to fit me,
3. *some* players will try to avoid situation of weakness (especially
deadly ones!), and the successful will have points for nothing while
others will suffer or die because of weakness.
Therefore, I feel that, while part of the Evaluation process can be done
once and just checked from time to time, part of it need to be dynamic,
to be match to the in-game events.
For the "easy to charm by young women" disad, I would feel it could
have a cost when it is used, and the cost would depend on the use. For
example, for each adventure, the (negative for disad) cost could be:
-0: weakness didn't show up, or didn't bother the character
-1: weakness delayed the character
-3: weakness put the character in trouble
-10: weakness put the character in great danger of dying
The nice thing about it is that, with that system, *some* ads and disads
(including new ones especially designed for a PC or NPC) don't have to
be evaluated when designing the character. They will be evaluated:
1. depending on their frequency of appearance
(which doesn't force GM or players to fit them in
just because they need to show up from time to time)
2. depending on their impairment or help
(which allows for greater variations in effect,
also depending on GM common sense, while keeping
the cost in order of the effect)
3. without regard to the reason
(an initial flaw is equivalent to a flaw gained
during an adventure, and the same for ads)
4. a ad or disad might vary with time (curing)
(and the cost reflects it ...
for example, a weakness that is cured
before it was used will have had no cost :-) )
Kodeci
--
http://members.xoom.com/kodeci/
Kodeci
psych...@aol.com (Warren J. Dew) wrote:
> I think most systems conflate several
> different things into "skills".
>
> One key issue is that of quality versus repeatability.
<snip>
I read your post many times, several days, before answering :-) Very
interesting ...
I plainly agree that both quality and repeatability are components of an
actual skill. I agree also that, if used, skill decay (for no
maintenance) might decrease repeatability.
I will have more time tomorrow to write. I'll try to expand on your idea
in the following directions:
- why did I not perceive the two components of a skill before?
- if decay affects only repeatability, what with heavy skill use? Should
it increase repeatability only?
- is it possible to improve the quality of a skill while not at maximum
repeatability?
- (while at maximum repeatability?) is it possible to improve the
quality of a skill through heavy skill use?
Kodeci
Lance Dyas
quality,
usage under some conditions could then improve the quality improvement
also IMHO
Kodeci wrote:
--
Lance Dyas
"R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh" wrote:
> In message <38D6C4FB...@inetnebr.com>, Lance Dyas
> <lanc...@inetnebr.com> wrote:
>
> >I believe exposure to challenges (and leaps of intuition) can improve
> >quality,
> >usage under some conditions could then improve the quality improvement
> >also IMHO
>
> That's my feeling too. Repeated ordinary use only improves
> repeatability, but use at the limit of current quality, in new
> situations, or under "stress" should be able to improve quality too.
> Formal training is not necessarily required.
>
> In game terms that could mean the GM determines which situations are
> "stretching" the character, or it could be done mechanically, by
> saying that any time you meet certain criteria* you were pushed to
> think about what you were doing in a new way, and can therefore use
> the experience to (perhaps) improve that skill's quality level.
>
> *eg. You make your skill check exactly; make a "critical success";
> successfully use the skill at some fixed or figured penalty or
> difficulty level.
>
> Stumpy.
Maybe total lack of challenges can still allow skill atrophy even when the
skill
is being used but is being used at such a plebeian level it doesn't help
maintain
the quality you have achieved at the skill.
lam...@my-deja.com
If you are going to split these then I would say that usage improves
only repeatability, and that improvements in quality almost always
require substantial training or research. (You do not learn
multiplication by adding a lot, you learn it by studying multiplication,
and then practicing multiplication.)
I see no reason why learning additional quality should require being at
maximum repeatability, although you might want to have advantages for
being there. Again, to learn to multiply you really should know how to
add, but you do not need to be a world class master at addition.
Pretty good is good enough.
DougL
R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh
>I believe exposure to challenges (and leaps of intuition) can improve
>quality,
>usage under some conditions could then improve the quality improvement
>also IMHO
That's my feeling too. Repeated ordinary use only improves
repeatability, but use at the limit of current quality, in new
situations, or under "stress" should be able to improve quality too.
Formal training is not necessarily required.
In game terms that could mean the GM determines which situations are
"stretching" the character, or it could be done mechanically, by
saying that any time you meet certain criteria* you were pushed to
think about what you were doing in a new way, and can therefore use
the experience to (perhaps) improve that skill's quality level.
*eg. You make your skill check exactly; make a "critical success";
successfully use the skill at some fixed or figured penalty or
difficulty level.
Stumpy.
--
R. G. "Stumpy" Marsh rma...@xtra.co.nz
Timaru, New Zealand <http://members.xoom.com/StumpyNZ/>
Cassidy Pix <http://members.xoom.com/StumpyNZ/cassidy/>
Kodeci
psych...@aol.com (Warren J. Dew) wrote:
> I think most systems conflate several
> different things into "skills".
> One key issue is that of quality versus repeatability.
I never thought about those two components of a skill before. How come?
Why? I thought about it ... I realized I had it already, but it was
hidden.
I traditionnaly use a fixed skill value, plus a random component, and
match that against a set difficulty. Where are the quality and
repeatability value?
Quality is the best you can do. Therefore, I believe Quality was hidden
in the total (skill + max of the random value). That is the highest
result attainable.
Repeatability is the confidence you can have that you will succeed. It
was hidden in the probabilities of success. In other words, given a
difficulty, each skill value would require some result (or more) on the
random part, so each skill value would have its own probability of
success.
When analysing that with the new point of view raised by Warren, I
realized that Repeatability and Quality were strongly linked.
I had a hidden rule that said (considering the random factor would
range from -M to +M symetrically, with P(M) the probability of dealing M
or more on the dice):
- When trying your best Difficulty, you need your random result to deal
M, so you have only P(M)% (close to 0%) to succeed.
- When trying your average Difficulty, you need your random result to
deal 0 or more, so you have P(0)% (close to 50%) to succeed.
- When trying you minimum Difficulty, you need your random result to
deal -M or more, which happens all the time, so you have p(-M) (equals
100%) to succeed.
Note that for other dice, the numbers would be different, but the ideas
are exactly the same. The maximum, the mean and the minimum result are
there.
(For full open-ended randomizer, you might have to decide how small need
to be a probability of occurence to be called exceptional, out of normal
rules, and then we can apply the same ideas. It's the reasons I don't
like full open-ended randomizers, extreme results are unclear).
My rule was like: "your average result is M apart from your maximum
result". This is one of the possible links between Quality and
Repeatability. It's not a bad one, as it's simple, and most players even
ignore the rule is dealing with those issues.
However, that simple rule is probably questionnable and probably hasn't
been questionned enough. Some theorists might come up with critics, or
better ideas ... ?
Kodeci
Kodeci
> only repeatability, and that improvements in quality almost always
> require substantial training or research. (You do not learn
> multiplication by adding a lot, you learn it by studying
multiplication,
> and then practicing multiplication.)
I believe the addition and multiplication is not a very good example. A
skill abstracts many different things. While often related, they are not
necessarily very closely related. (In the previous example, the skill
would probably be called math or arithmetics.) The difference would not
be made between the specific actions, so each action is defined by its
difficulty or penalty.
When you take an addition and a multiplication as examples, it is
misleading because the link is not direct, and people can say various
things and the contrary about the relation between those abilities. I
would say a complex enough addition is the equivalent difficulty of a
simple multiplication, so why not use a simple addition and a complex
addition as example?
I really believe using addition and multiplication will lead us nowhere.
Better make them two different skills (or subskills) if you want to
differenciate between them.
> I see no reason why learning additional quality should require being
at
> maximum repeatability, although you might want to have advantages for
> being there. <snip>
> Pretty good is good enough.
Well, can we say that we don't want someone at very low Repeatability to
improve it's Quality.
If someone disagrees with that postulate, let's discuss it.
Given that, it's clear there is a link between high Repeatability and
ability to improve Quality. The question now is what link do we care
for?
Darien Phoenix Lynx
I see, and agree. That's why I would start with some weights, and
(Referees) of you had trouble one day with a player that took a
you evaluate the point cost of that weakness? (The same applies to many
Therefore, I feel that, while part of the Evaluation process can be
done once and just checked from time to time, part of it need to be
dynamic, to be match to the in-game events.
I once took on this very enterprise, and tried to get it to work over
the course of a year and a half. In that system, the point cost of an
ability or weakness was based upon a formula that accounted for
opportunity, flexibility, power, and rarity. The system documented
averages for a particular campaign world--for example, in a low combat
campaign the "opportunity" rating for combat skills is much lower, but
the "power" rating is still high. In addition, these ratings would be
adjusted in an ongoing audit. For example, if a character only used his
power once every 5 sessions, then the opportunity rating would be
lowered; but if he used it in unexpected, novel ways or in situations
where it had a powerful impact on the story, then the "flexibility"
and "power" ratings would go up.
While I consider the system at least intellectually sound, it is very
difficult to implement in practice. First and foremost, this system got
the players feeling like the IRS was casually sitting in and watching
them role-play. All they could think about was how their actions would
affect any point cost adjustment. This was true even before this system
was implemented, since at that time I took a more subjective approach
to cost adjustments, but this system made the problem worse, not
better. Essentially, there was no time for role-playing because of the
constant concern with costs and balance. The second problem is obvious--
if the balance adjustment is NOT in a player's favor, what do you do?
Once approach is to add additional limitations to any abilities he
might have, or remove them altogether. In a cohesive or epic campaign,
this kind of adjustment often contradicts the story. Another approach
is to have the character's development or experience points penalized
until the deficit is made up. I tried many approaches. But no matter
what, the player feels cheated and angry, and sometimes humiliated.
There are many more problems with flex-accounting systems, but I'm
already becoming long-winded.
I abandoned this system, and my campaign improved tenfold. In fact, I
abandoned cost accounting altogether. I stopped being the balance
police and started focusing on campaign development. This decision came
from the recognition that cost accounting was doomed to be imperfect,
and in the long run was not important. "Game balance" is in my mind
intended to preserve an environment that maximizes everyone's
opportunity for fun, and it depends on a few high-level requirements
being met. Cost accounting is usually blind to those requirements and
by itself can't see the forest for the trees. Years ago, there was a
post in this group regarding the different types of balance that I'm
fond of, and I've appended it to this post for your review. Ultimately,
though, most players already know what their source of enjoyment is in
role-playing. They can often do a much better job than any mathematical
system in determining whether or not a certain character design is
going to interfere with their ability to have fun. And that's really
the million-dollar game-balance question. "Will this character design
interfere with anyone's ability to have fun?" In my opinion, the
players should answer that question; the GM should ask the questions
he's most able to answer, such as ones regarding the appropriateness of
the character in the game world.
My players were skeptical about what we jokingly called the "pointless
system" at first, but 40 day-long sessions later, it's quite clear to
everyone that the difference is dramatic and positive. As a GM, I do
lend a helping hand on balance issues, drawing upon my experience to
alert the players to potential problem areas. I also use surveys every
25 sessions to get the players thinking about the campaign in a
structured way that highlights which players could be having more fun,
and why they aren't. Where the surveys show a range of preferences in
the group, at least the group then appreciates the fact that compromise
on a particular point (GM interference, amount of table talk, etc.) is
necessary. Among other things, the survey gets a player to think about
where they derive their sense of enjoyment in role-playing with a
sequence of hypotheticals and other ploys. Often, this changes over the
course of a campaign. How a player sees and identifies with his
character is also volatile. The point of the surveys and other GM
assistance is simply to alert the players to these issues, so that they
can work together to ensure that they don't limit each others' fun.
So, before you go all out and design the world's greatest flexible
point accounting system--consider first the idea of taking a more high-
level, broad-brushed approach that will be easier on you and your
players and quite likely produce better results.
---APPENDIX: THE TYPES OF BALANCE---
(by Robert A. West)
PC Conflict Balance: No PC can consistently bully another or take
advantage in a way that cannot be answered.
PC Effectiveness Balance: No PC is so effective at any reasonably
common task as to render the remainder of the party irrelevant.
PC Safety Balance: No PC is so powerful that enemies (or other
challenges) that are suited to it are overwhelming to the remaining
characters or a large portion thereof.
PC Specialty Balance: No PC should have secondary abilities that
overshadow another PC designed to specialize in those abilities.
Player Participation Balance: No player should be obliged, more than
any other, to take a back seat. Each player should have a reasonable
expectation that his character can contribute to the success of the
run.
Rules Equity Balance: Each player and NPC should be run using the same
set of rules under ordinary conditions. Plot devices and other
exceptions should never subvert the players' trust in the equity of the
game.
Challenge Balance: The players should be challenged enough to make
successes worthwhile and successful enough for the game to be
satisfying. The GM should not be obliged to bring in Deus Ex Machina to
achieve either goal, except in very extraordinary circumstances.
The sub-party rule: What is true above of a single PC should also be
true of small groups of PCs that normally act together.
Thomas Bagwell
news:38D6F677...@inetnebr.com...
>
>
> "R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh" wrote:
>
> > <lanc...@inetnebr.com> wrote:
> >
> > >I believe exposure to challenges (and leaps of intuition) can improve
> > >quality,
> > >usage under some conditions could then improve the quality improvement
> > >also IMHO
> >
> > That's my feeling too. Repeated ordinary use only improves
> > repeatability, but use at the limit of current quality, in new
> > situations, or under "stress" should be able to improve quality too.
> > Formal training is not necessarily required.
I think this example applies. I haven't taken an advanced math course in
years. Through daily use, I'm faster at performing simple arithmetic
calculations mentally. However, I can no longer perform complex derivatives
without consulting a book. My advanced math skills have atrophied, while my
basic math skills have improved.
This would seem to reflect repeatability vs. advancement in a skill.
Tom B.
Darien Lynx
I hate to waste bandwidth, but considering how all of my paragraphs were
spliced together in a somewhat lengthy posting, I feel the need to repost
with a regular news program such that the text will be significantly
easier to read.]
Kodeci
psych...@aol.com (Warren J. Dew) wrote:
> I think most systems conflate several
> different things into "skills".
As I announced on Monday, I'm going further on that topic. This post
will propose one (of the possible) mechanic to handle having two values
for a skill. In this post, I will consider the maximum you could ever
do, and what you currently can do.
The complete description can be found at the page I am summarizing in
this post:
http://members.xoom.com/kodeci/ideas/decay.htm
## Top and Current Skill
or
## Skill Decay
I want to present one possible approach to:
skill decay for not using them
maximal and current value for a skill
skill improvement
## Preliminaries
I'll take the example of skills ranging from 0 to 20.
I'll suppose the system has a few dozens skills, all comparable
(usefulness in the game for players, difficulty or time to develop for
characters) to simplify.
To make accounting simpler, I'll consider only one step for each skill
value. For example, a skill of 10 can increase to 11 or decrease to 9,
there are no intermediate values. A skill point is equivalent to one
full skill level.
## Philosophy
Three ideas:
1.You learn by doing (or stressing).
2.When you don't do anymore, you get rusty.
3.But do it again and it will come back. "You never forget how to
ride a bike."
Each skill has two written values:
1.Top Value is the maximum ever attained by the skill. Top Value
ranges from 0 to 20.
2.Current Value is the current efficiency of the character in the
skill. Current value ranges from (Top Value / 2) to (Top Value).
## Learning Value
In addition to the two written values, each skill also has a learning
value. When needed, it is computed from the Top and Current Values.
For sake of example, I will use a Learning Value equal to:
LV = ((Current Value * 2) - Top Value).
## Earning Skill Points
Skill points are learned according to Learning Value. The higher the
Learning Value, the more Skill points are earned.
Skill points can be earned for two reasons:
1.period of Use:
The higher the learning value, the more time is needed to count as
a skill point.
What about 1 skill point earned per (Learning Value * 10) hours?
2.Stressful skill use:
Stress is evaluated using a die, with a little stress being 1d4, a
severe stress being 1d20, and extreme stress reaching a higher die.
Gain a skill point if the die result is strictly superior to the
Learning Value.
# Heroic advantage
The Stressful skill use should be the Heroes' place of choice. It seems
believable that they benefit from that advantage regularly, because of
the Adventures they are in.
In game terms, it means that this is the place where a heroes (among
them, PCs) can have different rules than the common man.
The difference might even be supported by specific rules in the system.
## Losing skill points , or skill decay
What about saying the decay speed ranges from 1 Skill Point per month
(for a maximum Learning Value of 20) down to Zero?
To show that it is possible without much complexity, I propose three
simple-enough mechanics to handle that average decay speed. Choose the
one that is more appropriate to your taste:
1. Fixed decay, requiring big memorization:
Each skill loses one skill point per (20 / Learning Value) months.
2. Random decay each month for each skill, requiring no memorization but
many rolls:
Each skill loses one skill point per month, if 1d20 is lower than
(or equals) the Learning Value.
3. Random decay each month for the skill list, requiring no
memorization, no rolls but some calculation:
Start with a randomly chosen skill, and go down the skill list,
jump to the top when at the bottom, so that all skills have been
considered once.
Total Learning Values of considered Skills. When a Learning Value
causes the total to reach or pass 20, that skill drops by one, and the
Total drops by 20.
This post was written using many examples, to help understanding.
However, it's the general ideas that matters.
Does the described Philosophy fit you, or not?
If it does, what about the way it is handled?
Kodeci
http://members.xoom.com/kodeci/index.htm
Kodeci
<Pine.GSO.4.21.000322...@vellocet.insync.net>,
Darien Lynx <ly...@vellocet.insync.net> wrote about dynamic evaluation
process:
> I once took on this very enterprise, and tried to get it to work over
the
> course of a year and a half. In that system, the point cost of an
ability
> or weakness was based upon a formula that accounted for opportunity,
> flexibility, power, and rarity.
In the system you intented, you were trying to accurately track four
factors for one ability. The four factors would combine to make a neat
cost.
I'm not considering that approach. I'm directly considering a single
factor, the final one. Therefore, the system is more easier.
(Note: I didn't say what the factor is based upon. It depends on what
Points we are talking about, and that's not something we agreed upon for
now.)
> While I consider the system at least intellectually sound, it is very
> difficult to implement in practice. First and foremost, this system
got
> the players [ think about balance instead of role playing].
I can see why this would happen, and agree it could be a problem. I
don't have any universal solution for that. Maybe some of the following
proposals could bring some help in some groups:
- hide all balance numbers from players
- make balance concerns have a smaller influence, allowing for game
un-balance for a while, with the balance system only having a tendency
to slowly improve balance ...
> The second problem is obvious-- if the
> balance adjustment is NOT in a player's favor, what do you do?
I won't use the solutions you proposed. I would use a balance system
that only has a slow effect on the game. In other words, if a character
is, for whatever reason, more powerful than the norm (might be the other
PCs, or a fixed choice by the Author or Referee), he will just get
slowed down in his improvement (no sudden weakness to immediatly
balance! no catch-up duration with no improvement to balance as fast as
possible!). The slow down factor is up to the people's decision, and can
get as small or as big as you care for.
> There are many more problems
> with flex-accounting systems, but I'm already becoming long-winded.
I would like to read the others if you ever get the time for that.
> In fact, I
> abandoned cost accounting altogether.
<snip>This decision came from the
> recognition that cost accounting was doomed to be imperfect, and in
the
> long run was not important. "Game balance" is in my mind intended to
> preserve an environment that maximizes everyone's opportunity for fun,
and
> it depends on a few high-level requirements being met. Cost accounting
is
> usually blind to those requirements and by itself can't see the forest
for
> the trees.
I'm with you when you say most Points systems, while complex enough,
often miss critical things :-)
The best solution, for people that have that ability, is to get rid of
Points systems altogether. This is also true of any gaming rules. If
people don't need the rules, then removing them is far better, as you
can keep gaming the same when you want, and you can change when the rule
would have been wrong.
However, it is clear that most people still need rules for some amount
of decisions, for a great variety of reasons. Even doomed to be
imperfect, rules are beneficial for the game because people will make a
better game with them than without.
That's why, while in admiration before those that can play without
rules, I try to improve existing rules, to help those that don't have
that ability.
> So, before you go all out and design the world's greatest flexible
point
> accounting system--consider first the idea of taking a more high-
level,
> broad-brushed approach that will be easier on you and your players and
> quite likely produce better results.
Thanks. I appreciate your concern. I also agree with you. The system I
had in mind was more broad-brushed than what you intented as I said,
because I only considered one final factor for cost, and not the
separate reasons for it and their combination.
I like the post you appended. I would like to link to it from my
website. Do you know where it is recorded? If it is not on a webpage, I
would like to ask permission to the author, Robert A. West, to put it on
my webpage, with his name of course.
Kodeci
http://members.xoom.com/kodeci/index.htm
Warren J. Dew
posts, in part:
- if decay affects only repeatability, what with heavy skill use? Should
it increase repeatability only?
I think, in general, the answer is yes. However, I also agree with various
people that in certain unusual circumstances, quality could be affected as
well.
As I see it, having the required talent level is a prerequisite to increasing a
skill's quality - I agree with Brian that talent should cap quality for
performance of the skill. In addition, one of the following would need to
happen:
1. Training from a qualified teacher. The teacher would have to have the
quality level being learned; other skills or attributes might make the teacher
more effective in transmitting the information. As an exception to the 'talent
capping quality' rule, I think that a teacher who had allowed his talent to
atrophy should still be able to teach as if he still had the highest level of
quality he had attained, even though he could no longer perform at that level.
Some students surpass their coaches. (Brian, does this sound reasonable to
you?)
2. Conscious skill exploration. It is sometimes possible just to figure out
how one needs to improve, through a process of reason and experimentation.
Intelligence probably helps here, as does having more than the required talent
for the new quality level. Repeatability at the existing skill level probably
doesn't matter as much.
3. Unusual successes. Sometimes one happens to do something at a higher
quality level just by chance. Even more rarely, it sticks. Again, a talent
even higher than needed helps a lot here. I'm not sure whether repeatability
at the existing skill level helps or hurts here; for our math example, it might
help a bit, but sometimes it just means bad habits need to be unlearned.
Opinions?
I agree with Stumpy that unusual successes are more likely to occur under
'stress' situations. I think 'making the skill check exactly' is a better
mechanic than 'critical success', as I think that quality increasing successes
are more likely when operating at one's limits, whereas critical successes are
more likely when one is operating well below one's limit.
Thomas Bagwell posts:
I think this example applies. I haven't taken an advanced math course in
years. Through daily use, I'm faster at performing simple arithmetic
calculations mentally. However, I can no longer perform complex derivatives
without consulting a book. My advanced math skills have atrophied, while my
basic math skills have improved.
This would seem to reflect repeatability vs. advancement in a skill.
Yes. This would imply that repeatability needs to be tracked as a function of
quality, and not just a function of skill; one could have a high repeatability
at low quality, and low repeatability at high quality. I suspect the opposite
would not be the case; it's hard to imagine someone with high repeatability at
high quality, but low repeatability at low quality. I'm not certain, though;
comments?
Lance:
Maybe total lack of challenges can still allow skill atrophy even when
the skill is being used but is being used at such a plebeian level it
doesn't help maintain the quality you have achieved at the skill.
Stumpy:
I thought the idea behind the quality/repeatability dichotomy was that
quality doesn't degrade? ie. If you've ever been able to do it, you
can learn it again more easily if you ever need it, even if your
practical skill (repeatability) has degraded to near nil. Or perhaps
there are more than two factors to be considered here?
I do think that it's possible for repeatability to degrade to the point where
the skill is near useless. Some of my advanced math has reached the point that
I'd really have to consult a book to refresh my memory, though I think I would
still "get it back" faster than I originally did. This can still be modeled by
having the quality not decreasing; it's just that the repeatability can get so
close to 0 that the skill isn't useful at that quality.
I certainly think that constant practice of a skill at below your
current repeatability level could see repeatability degrade to the
level at which you are using it - in fact that's pretty much the whole
idea, isn't it?
Yes. Repeatability would be high at the quality level at which the skill was
regularly used, and low at quality levels above that.
I do think that we have to consider further how 'repeatability' and 'quality'
need to be interpreted for knowledge based skills. My first guess would be
that 'repeatability' might become 'quantity'; lots of memorized data, as
opposed to 'quality' meaning a deeper understanding.
Darien Phoenix Lynx
> I won't use the solutions you proposed. I would use a balance system
> that only has a slow effect on the game. In other words, if a
> character is, for whatever reason, more powerful than the norm (might
> be the other PCs, or a fixed choice by the Author or Referee), he will
> just get slowed down in his improvement (no sudden weakness to
> immediatly balance! no catch-up duration with no improvement to
> balance as fast as possible!). The slow down factor is up to the
> people's decision, and can get as small or as big as you care for.
Forgive me if I wasn't clear, but that is exactly the approach I
used--characters with a balance deficit would get less (say half) of the
experience points the other characters would get. In theory, I thought
this was a great solution. In practice, the player who was slowed down
felt picked upon and left every session with a bad taste in his
mouth--almost driving him to leave the group. It surprised me that players
had such a strong negative reaction to this technique, but of course YMMV.
> I would like to read the others if you ever get the time for that.
Well, bookkeeping, changing campaign environments/settings, the unexpected
ways that abilities/disadvantages interact with each other, new character
archetypes entering the campaign, and balance dominating realistic
character development... those are a few more of the issues that plague
flex-accounting. Plus, if you're concerned about balancing "fun," and not
"effectiveness levels," any such system would need to take into account
human vagaries and differences concerning their sources of enjoyment--and
what limits them.
> However, it is clear that most people still need rules for some amount
> of decisions, for a great variety of reasons. Even doomed to be
> imperfect, rules are beneficial for the game because people will make a
> better game with them than without.
Well, yes, you need to have rules for any simulation, and I am not
advocating removing rules for the sake of not having them. Rules should
have a purpose, and they should fulfill that purpose with minimal negative
side effects. By my view, there are two purposes for point-based
accounting rules. The first is to maintain balance among the party such
that character designs do not limit anyone's fun. The second is to provide
a structure for the advancement of characters so that they may improve
during play.
In most games, it is important to find some rules that fulfill these
needs. It is my view, and apparently yours as well, that flat point-based
accounting does not fulfill either of these jobs particularly well. It
needs constant maintenance and supervision. We need to tinker with the
costs, add new rules to patch deficiencies, and so on. So we think, let's
structure our approach to this tinkering, and see if we can get the system
to adapt itself to actual play conditions. It's unclear to me whether,
when taken to its ultimate conclusion, this system would actually achieve
its goal of providing truly accurate cost accounting. But it is clear to
me that the effort risks a wide variety of negative campaign side
effects--and the risk is really unwarranted, in my opinion. The goal isn't
such an important, all-consuming, make-or-break the campaign type of goal.
But I haven't tossed out the idea of using rules to reach the goal--I've
just tossed out cost-accounting. Now the rules take another form, such as:
1. Declare some areas you think of as your character's main schticks.
2. Ask other players if you think your character is intruding into another
character's domain.
3. Review this checklist to see if your character design will limit your
own fun or anyone else's.
> That's why, while in admiration before those that can play without
> rules, I try to improve existing rules, to help those that don't have
> that ability.
This might be interesting for another thread and discussion. Personally, I
feel that all that is needed is an evaluation structure, not necessarily
hard rules. For example, I would appreciate it if more GM guides would
include the reasons for the balance choices and rules that they contain,
so that GM's could evaluate them and see if that logic applies in his
campaign. Furthermore, having access to those reasons would improve the
capability of GM's to adapt the rules to campaign variations. On the issue
of play balance, providing the players and a GM with a checklist of things
to be on guard for seems like enough structure. In other words, the rules
don't over-dictate in the area of balance where we don't need them. The
rules only come up as a structure for ensuring that everyone has fun--and
only when we predict that some design actually will cause
problems. Obviously, as our experience grows, so does our ability to
predict problems in character designs. To me, a manual describing those
problems and how to identify them is more valuable than a list of point
costs.
> Thanks. I appreciate your concern. I also agree with you. The system I
> had in mind was more broad-brushed than what you intented as I said,
> because I only considered one final factor for cost, and not the
> separate reasons for it and their combination.
I think, at the least, you were considering two factors. "Did it come up?"
and "Did it matter a lot?" Those reflect opportunity and power. The other
two, flexibility and rarity, matter very little and in fact I never paid
much attention to them. Still, it's a fair bit from performing a gestalt
evaluation of character designs instead of a piecemeal one; I'm sure you
agree.
> I like the post you appended. I would like to link to it from my
> website. Do you know where it is recorded? If it is not on a webpage, I
> would like to ask permission to the author, Robert A. West, to put it on
> my webpage, with his name of course.
I'm afraid I don't have his contact information. He posted it to a mailing
list, probably HERO-L, and if you could find an archives for the list then
you could get his e-mail address.
Lance Dyas
"prerequisites"
simulates the anecdote given rather well. But when advanced problems in
a
field require you have both "skills." say algebra and calculus.
Simplifying
and broadening your skill definitions to "Math" has an impact.
Different elements in the task are solved by different elements in the
skill
but most problems involving calculus from my experience also involve
algebra.
Kodeci said it in another post I believe , Other models easily imply
the repeatability elements.
Just practicing algebra with not normally teach you algebra. practicing
calculus should maintain and improve algebra(and addition calculator
dependence aside) hence they can be one skill with advancement
challenges required and penalties and bonuses on performance based
on the task grade.
What do we gain in our simulation by separately distinguishing quality
and repeatability explicitly rather than implying them?
Proponents of the Quality and Repeatability model fill in the following
sentence
Because I explicitly model repeatability and quality I gain. < Blank>
What do I loose with this model <blank>
I can answer this for my mean and variance model
I like controlling the mean and the performance variance explicitly.
My mechanics can easily and obviously model changes in performance
extremes.
These changes can be goal driven, performance method specific or purely
based
on stress.
"R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh" wrote:
> In message <38D6F677...@inetnebr.com>, Lance Dyas
> <lanc...@inetnebr.com> wrote:
>
> >Maybe total lack of challenges can still allow skill atrophy even when the
> >skill
> >is being used but is being used at such a plebeian level it doesn't help
> >maintain
> >the quality you have achieved at the skill.
>
> I thought the idea behind the quality/repeatability dichotomy was that
> quality doesn't degrade? ie. If you've ever been able to do it, you
> can learn it again more easily if you ever need it, even if your
> practical skill (repeatability) has degraded to near nil. Or perhaps
> there are more than two factors to be considered here?
>
> I certainly think that constant practice of a skill at below your
> current repeatability level could see repeatability degrade to the
> level at which you are using it - in fact that's pretty much the whole
> idea, isn't it?
>
> Either that or I'm somewhat confused. I think "quality" may still be
> insufficiently defined, both in terms of what it represents, and in
> terms of its relationship with repeatability.
>
> Stumpy.
> --
> R. G. "Stumpy" Marsh rma...@xtra.co.nz
> Timaru, New Zealand <http://members.xoom.com/StumpyNZ/>
> Cassidy Pix <http://members.xoom.com/StumpyNZ/cassidy/>
--
Brian Gleichman
As side note: I've been very busy in news.group the last few days and its
likely I'll remain so for at least a while. So posts here may be rare (and
not extensive) for a bit.
I shall return!
> I think that a teacher who had allowed his talent to
> atrophy should still be able to teach as if he still had the highest level
of
> quality he had attained, even though he could no longer perform at that
level.
> Some students surpass their coaches. (Brian, does this sound reasonable
to
> you?)
I certainly agree that students often surpass their coaches and teachers can
inspire one to greatness.
However I'm not sure that the requirement for the teacher to have ever had a
high talent is necessary. I've had teachers who had a lesser grasp of the
subject than I, yet the still provide motivation.
And not all trainers of world champions had real talent of their own.
> 3. Unusual successes. Sometimes one happens to do something at a higher
> quality level just by chance. Even more rarely, it sticks. Again, a
talent
> even higher than needed helps a lot here. I'm not sure whether
repeatability
> at the existing skill level helps or hurts here; for our math example, it
might
> help a bit, but sometimes it just means bad habits need to be unlearned.
> Opinions?
I very much agree.
> I suspect the opposite
> would not be the case; it's hard to imagine someone with high
repeatability at
> high quality, but low repeatability at low quality. I'm not certain,
though;
> comments?
Haven't some higher math wiz type been really bad at basic addition? Can't
think of any examples off hand...
> I do think that it's possible for repeatability to degrade to the point
where
> the skill is near useless. Some of my advanced math has reached the point
that
> I'd really have to consult a book to refresh my memory, though I think I
would
> still "get it back" faster than I originally did.
I'm there!
There was a time when I was a contender...
> This can still be modeled by
> having the quality not decreasing; it's just that the repeatability can
get so
> close to 0 that the skill isn't useful at that quality.
Yes.
As a side note.
I always view discussions of skill mechanics like this as something rather
alien. I think comes from my gamist leanings.
Any mechanics arising from this type of modeling are very difficult to get a
handle on as far as your on the fly success chances. Not to mention the
effects of modifiers.
This has a horrible effect on the style of tactical play I like.
However, I will say that this thread is doing a good job of defining the
concept and is still interesting despite my preference.
Brian Gleichman
news:8bc08p$acs$1...@knot.queensu.ca...
> >Haven't some higher math wiz type been really bad at basic addition?
Can't
> >think of any examples off hand...
>
> Einstein.
That's the one!
I think...
R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh
David Alex Lamb
Brian Gleichman <glei...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>"Warren J. Dew" <psych...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20000322173315...@ng-xe1.aol.com...
>As side note: I've been very busy in news.group the last few days and its
>likely I'll remain so for at least a while. So posts here may be rare (and
>not extensive) for a bit.
Never let a flamewar interfere with Real Life!
>I shall return!
Good.
>Haven't some higher math wiz type been really bad at basic addition? Can't
>think of any examples off hand...
Einstein.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/
Lance Dyas
particularly in a
class room environment where they are under judgment by a twit whose
knowledge
they exceed by an order or three... this is markedly different than "being
bad" at fundamental things.
Einstein was one of those personalities.
Many brilliant children get "poor grades" in ill conceived educational
climates which cater to
mediocrity.
Brian Gleichman wrote:
> "David Alex Lamb" <dal...@qucis.queensu.ca> wrote in message
> news:8bc08p$acs$1...@knot.queensu.ca...
>
> > >Haven't some higher math wiz type been really bad at basic addition?
> Can't
> > >think of any examples off hand...
> >
> > Einstein.
>
> That's the one!
>
> I think...
*******************************************************************************************************************
Brian Gleichman
> Extremely trivial work is so boring some personalities will refuse to do
it
> particularly in a
> class room environment where they are under judgment by a twit whose
> knowledge
> they exceed by an order or three... this is markedly different than "being
> bad" at fundamental things.
Are not such things also skill tests?
Things like this are what make such a detail exploration of skills so
complex. It's made worse by the fact that 'skills' and the factors that
effect them are not completely understood in real life.
And the concept of 'learning' has even bigger gaps.
No reason not to try to give the appearance of completeness for those that
want it...
A.F. Simpson
> "Warren J. Dew" <psych...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20000322173315...@ng-xe1.aol.com...
>
> As side note: I've been very busy in news.group the last few days and its
> likely I'll remain so for at least a while. So posts here may be rare (and
> not extensive) for a bit.
>
My sympathies. I have been hacking through the threads since the
beginning and it doesn't make pretty reading.
> > Some students surpass their coaches. (Brian, does this sound reasonable
> >to you?)
>
> I certainly agree that students often surpass their coaches and teachers can
> inspire one to greatness.
>
> However I'm not sure that the requirement for the teacher to have ever had a
> high talent is necessary. I've had teachers who had a lesser grasp of the
> subject than I, yet the still provide motivation.
>
> And not all trainers of world champions had real talent of their own.
I think the point here is that teachers are applying two skills to the
teaching environment - their grasp of the subject and the teaching
skill. The two are not at all correlated, as anyone who has had a
boring and confusing leacture from a highly skilled researcher can
testify. Of the two, I tihnk the teaching skill is the most important,
with the obvious note that a teacher _cannot_ teach something they do
not know, although they can inspire a student to go away and fidn out
about it theselves.
In some areas it's possible to have a theoretical knowledge of how to do
something without actually being able to do it. A sports trainer trains
athletes who perform at a much higer level than they do, because the
trainer can _understand_ how to swim or run faster without being able to
do it themselves. This is not possible in other fields. (Is it
possible to teach maths without understanding it? Perhaps, if there are
detailed notes provided by a teacher who does understand it and the
tecahing format doesn't allow for questions, etc. But then one is
simply using the skills of the other teacher, with a hefty penalty to
their skill.)
> However, I will say that this thread is doing a good job of defining the
> concept and is still interesting despite my preference.
I think the differentiation between quality and repeatability is a very
interesting one and has interesting consequences I think I like. My
only concern is the potential complications of tracking the two parts of
the skill, espeically with respect to skill decay.
> Brian Gleichman
love
Anna
Brian Gleichman
news:38DA84...@le.ac.uk...
> In some areas it's possible to have a theoretical knowledge of how to do
> something without actually being able to do it. A sports trainer trains
> athletes who perform at a much higer level than they do, because the
> trainer can _understand_ how to swim or run faster without being able to
> do it themselves.
Yes, and one would have to be able to define these fields.
> This is not possible in other fields.
I would agree. At which point it seems reasonable that the teacher can only
provide motivational bonuses for other methods of improvement.
It's been pointed out before, but I'd like to highlight it again, that the
inherent talent of the character should put a limit on the maximum quality
of a skill- no matter the bonuses.
And I would think that one would need a lot of bonuses to reach that
maximum. Few people work to their limits.
> I think the differentiation between quality and repeatability is a very
> interesting one and has interesting consequences I think I like. My
> only concern is the potential complications of tracking the two parts of
> the skill, espeically with respect to skill decay.
For my part, I think the maintenance of such a system is beyond usability.
But I sure others would disagree.
Kodeci
<Pine.GSO.4.21.000322...@vellocet.insync.net>,
Darien Phoenix Lynx <ly...@vellocet.insync.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Mar 2000, Kodeci wrote:
> > I would use a balance system
> > that only has a slow effect on the game. In other words, if a
> > character is, for whatever reason, more powerful than the norm
(might
> > be the other PCs, or a fixed choice by the Author or Referee), he
will
> > just get slowed down in his improvement (no sudden weakness to
> > immediatly balance! no catch-up duration with no improvement to
> > balance as fast as possible!). The slow down factor is up to the
> > people's decision, and can get as small or as big as you care for.
>
> Forgive me if I wasn't clear, but that is exactly the approach I
> used--characters with a balance deficit would get less (say half) of
the
> experience points the other characters would get. In theory, I thought
> this was a great solution. In practice, the player who was slowed down
> felt picked upon and left every session with a bad taste in his
> mouth--almost driving him to leave the group. It surprised me that
players
> had such a strong negative reaction to this technique, but of course
YMMV.
I see. Well, two answers come to my mind:
1. mechanical: if you used some slow-down factor (say half), would the
same have happened if you used a less significant factor (say 90%)? We
could try to find the best factor...
2. group communication: whatever rule you use, even no rule, if you
decided to give more money to the poor than the rich, people have the
right to complain. However, I suppose that some communication could make
the rich understand that the poor need to be compensated somehow, and
that will be in a way that doesn't favor them ... obviously. Therefore,
I suppose some patient explanations could help. Also, it might help to
give the problem to the rich, and tell them
"The poor cannot play if they are too poor, and you are too rich for
them. I make you 'Minister of money'... You'll will be able to play a
successful game when you have found a way to appeal to the poor".
In other words, acceptance of given rules is a group issue, not a rules
issue (provided several rules are available, so that the group can
choose the ones that fits best, or make his own).
Kodeci
Kodeci
<Pine.GSO.4.21.000322...@vellocet.insync.net>,
Darien Phoenix Lynx <ly...@vellocet.insync.net> wrote:
> > I would like to read the others if you ever get the time for that.
>
> Well, bookkeeping, changing campaign environments/settings, the
unexpected
> ways that abilities/disadvantages interact with each other, new
character
> archetypes entering the campaign, and balance dominating realistic
> character development... those are a few more of the issues that
plague
> flex-accounting. Plus, if you're concerned about balancing "fun," and
not
> "effectiveness levels," any such system would need to take into
account
> human vagaries and differences concerning their sources of
enjoyment--and
> what limits them.
There, you are reaching the limit of flexible Point system. In the
extreme case, a point system could work just with player fun.
For example, why not imagine (beware, this is a crazy idea, and only in
draft stage) that each person gets a few green items and a few red ones,
for fun and un-fun respectively.
Imagine that any situation would resolve according to the character's
abilities (with a loose system I guess) unless there is a conflict
between players (GM included, maybe with special powers) perceptions.
At that point, if players disagree and can't reach an agreement, any
player can spend red items to make the character fail and green ones to
make it. Higher number wins.
When some conditions are met (such as number of spent items, end of
session or enough time passed), items are redistributed in some way.
This system, obviously, doesn't care at all about character's ability,
and character balance. It just balances players' fun. Does it, are your
convinced? Let me give an example of suggested use:
Joe, Jack, William and Averell are in an inn. Some other guy (Li ching)
is complaining that Averell ate his lunch. The fact that this guy is
right doesn't matter for the four brothers, and they decide to make him
pay for his daring.
Joe grabs his gun, tell him to dance, and start shooting at his feet,
so the poor chineese is jumping to save his feet.
Jack wants to have fun to. He tells Joe to let him punch the little
guy, but Joe doesn't mind and keeps enjoying himself. So Jack spends one
red item to make Joe's gun "fail", then Joe's player spends one red item
to cancel that. In a way, it's like Joe has been evaluated to be better
than the others, and had to pay one green item for it. Jack wants to
save his red items for later, so he doesn't insist and heads toward the
table.
William hates that Joe is behaving in such a selfish way. So he jumps
on Joe and hold his gun. William spends one red item, Joe cancels it
with his last green one. William spends another one, and Joe and him are
now fighting for the gun.
Li ching draws a hand axe from his large trousers, and throws it at
Averell. Averell is not good at dodging, so he spends one red item ...
and it turned out that Joe, while fighting, just runs in the line of
fire, and Joe is knocked down by the impact (has no green items to
prevent it).
The three brothers left don't appreciate, they grab Li Ching, shake him
(he loses a few more asian weapons), and thrown him by the window. End
of fight.
Kodeci
Kodeci
<Pine.GSO.4.21.000322...@vellocet.insync.net>,
Darien Phoenix Lynx <ly...@vellocet.insync.net> wrote:
Well, I'm not sure I understood everything. When tired, English
subtleties become more tricky :-) Many thanks to Mirriam-Webster online
...
I'm not considering flexibility at all, unless it is the same I call
broadness (range of things you can do with it).
I'm not considering rarity either.
I don't think I consider opportunity in the cost. If you have the
opportunity, you learned it, and you didn't in the other case.
I think, contrary to your assumption, I'm only considering power (or
usefulness) (it covers also broadness by the way).
For the second part, I agree that tracking relationships in costs is
harder than considering each ability separately. Where our opinions
differ, it seems, is that:
- you don't believe in such rules, or at least you have no idea how they
could be done
- I have ideas (I have no clue if they will succeed), and I didn't fail
yet.
Therefore, it is likely that I'm following you, and that you're more
advanced than me. Probably, in a few months, I'll have reached your
point of view :-( Hope not, but I know the odds are not in my favor.
> > I would like to ask permission to the author, Robert A. West, to put
it on
> > my webpage, with his name of course.
>
> I'm afraid I don't have his contact information. He posted it to a
mailing
> list, probably HERO-L, and if you could find an archives for the list
then
> you could get his e-mail address.
I just sent an email to "Robert West" <rober...@earthlink.net>. We'll
see if he's the one :-)
Kodeci
Kodeci
"Brian Gleichman" <glei...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> "Lance Dyas" <lanc...@inetnebr.com> wrote in message
> news:38D9BD87...@inetnebr.com...
> > Extremely trivial work is so boring some personalities will refuse
to do it
> > particularly in a
> > class room environment where they are under judgment by a twit whose
> > knowledge
> > they exceed by an order or three... this is markedly different than
"being
> > bad" at fundamental things.
>
> Are not such things also skill tests?
They are, but the character is not spending any concentration and any
attention on them. That could explain the failure.
Imagine the best fighter ever, walking in the middle of a battle
without paying attention to the whole mess. He could get killed really
fast.
Lance Dyas
> In article <8bd0r6$v0h$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "Brian Gleichman" <glei...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > "Lance Dyas" <lanc...@inetnebr.com> wrote in message
> > news:38D9BD87...@inetnebr.com...
> > > Extremely trivial work is so boring some personalities will refuse
> to do it
> > > particularly in a
> > > class room environment where they are under judgment by a twit whose
> > > knowledge
> > > they exceed by an order or three... this is markedly different than
> "being
> > > bad" at fundamental things.
> >
> > Are not such things also skill tests?
>
> They are, but the character is not spending any concentration and any
> attention on them. That could explain the failure.
Hehehh lets all pretend you are actually "Role Playing" the learning
experience...
SG: the teacher assigns you home work... it is the third time this week
and the problems are again so very very easy (no experience points here
folk)
First Player: to hell with grades I go write in my journal about unified
field theory.
SG : Ok, jot down one experience point.(for advancement in UFT)
First Player: Kewl
SG: the teacher assigns you home work... it is the third time this week
and the problems are again so very very easy (no experience points here
folk)
Player 2: well i might as well pay the piper and do the damn home work
It should be pretty fast.
SG: Remember if you don't write down all the steps the teacher acuses you of
cheating
and doesn't give you any points.
Player Grumble Grumble Grumble...OK
Later Player 2 manages to get a nice job because of scholastic contacts and
extraordinary grades which
gives him access to fancy equipment which help him advance someone else's
theories...
Later Player 1 develops some extraordinary theories which someone else gets
to prove ;)
It is a question of choices, the above brought to you care of the decision
driven gaming system.. ok
so its only in my mind, <shrug>
Brian Gleichman
news:8bdngh$arj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > Are not such things also skill tests?
>
> They are, but the character is not spending any concentration and any
> attention on them. That could explain the failure.
Is the system going to handle this by modifiers? In what matter?
The underperformance concept explains things like driving accidents. The
skill user gets so bored with the process that it doesn't take his full
attention, and thus makes a critical error that a lesser skilled person
could have avoided easily.
Is this effect (so common in real life) going to be modeled in this skill
system? Or is it going to work like most systems in that only full and
complete effort is assumed?
R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh
psych...@aol.com (Warren J. Dew) wrote:
>I agree with Stumpy that unusual successes are more likely to occur under
>'stress' situations. I think 'making the skill check exactly' is a better
>mechanic than 'critical success', as I think that quality increasing successes
>are more likely when operating at one's limits, whereas critical successes are
>more likely when one is operating well below one's limit.
That's my feeling too. With bell-curved resolution systems using the
"made exactly" mechanic has a nice side effect that when operating at
the 50/50 level you're more likely to get an advancement opportunity.
This maps nicely, IMO, with the idea that at the 50/50 level the task
is challenging, but not so challenging as to involve more luck than
skill, and hence the level at which one could be expected to best gain
insight.
>Yes. This would imply that repeatability needs to be tracked as a function of
>quality, and not just a function of skill; one could have a high repeatability
>at low quality, and low repeatability at high quality. I suspect the opposite
>would not be the case; it's hard to imagine someone with high repeatability at
>high quality, but low repeatability at low quality. I'm not certain, though;
>comments?
Mostly that would be true, I think, although as a counter-example it's
possible to be good at higher math without being particularly fast or
accurate with basic addition and multiplication. That may be more an
indication that two abilities are different skills (presumably with
the former requiring the latter as a prerequisite).
This is now getting mixed up with the task difficulty arena too. How
does quality interact with task difficulty? How does repeatability
interact with task difficulty? What does task difficulty represent?
>I do think that we have to consider further how 'repeatability' and 'quality'
>need to be interpreted for knowledge based skills. My first guess would be
>that 'repeatability' might become 'quantity'; lots of memorized data, as
>opposed to 'quality' meaning a deeper understanding.
I see it being more similar to "active" (for want of a better term)
skills: Quality and repeatability both represent the same kind of
content, but like with other skills, quality is everything you have
learned, and repeatability is what you can remember.
It's kind of like the difference between recognition and recall.
Repeatability tells you how much you can recall when you need it.
Quality lets you recognize a situation and know that you used to know
how to approach it, and perhaps a vague idea of what that approach
was.
I think we're still conflating too much into 'repeatability' and
'quality' (and here we mostly just use "skill" ;-). Your "deeper
understanding" is another aspect of skill that I don't map to either
at the moment, though "quality" is certainly a term that seems to fit.
As I see it there are several things going on here.
* What is the most difficult task the character can accomplish?
* What is the most difficult task the character has ever been able to
accomplish?
* What difficulty of tasks can the character expect to achieve
reliably?
* What principles of the skill does the character understand well?
* What principles of the skill has the character ever understood well?
* What principles of the skill does the character have some idea
about/exposure to?
* What difference does "lost", or imperfect knowledge make to current
skill use?
* How does "lost" or imperfect knowledge of the skill affect the
improvement, atrophy and maintenance of the character's reliable skill
level?
* What makes a task difficult?
* How does innate "talent" affect all of this?
I'm sure there's more, but that's more than enough to be getting on
with.
R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh
<glei...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>"A.F. Simpson" <AF...@le.ac.uk> wrote in message
>news:38DA84...@le.ac.uk...
>> I think the differentiation between quality and repeatability is a very
>> interesting one and has interesting consequences I think I like. My
>> only concern is the potential complications of tracking the two parts of
>> the skill, espeically with respect to skill decay.
>
>For my part, I think the maintenance of such a system is beyond usability.
>But I sure others would disagree.
People manage Champions/Hero character creation, and Rolemaster. I
don't see why keeping track of this would need to be any more complex
than those. In fact it's likely less complex, but similarly
time-consuming. Whether that's better or worse will depend on the
player/GM/group.
It needn't be a heavy in-game load, just a bit more end of
session/scenario book-keeping.
Brian Gleichman
news:3filds0enkp6el792...@news.tim.ihug.co.nz...
> >For my part, I think the maintenance of such a system is beyond
usability.
> >But I sure others would disagree.
>
> People manage Champions/Hero character creation, and Rolemaster.
Hero is only a bid deal once at the start. That's actually fun. As for
Rolemaster, It's on the edge of my view of usability.
But you're right in that I should have indicated that I was speaking of my
view of usability. Some people have much for tolerance for some things than
I do.
I do find it interesting when I see people who like *more* complexity than I
do.
Kodeci
I'm not really thinking about giving precise rules for that. Skills
could have a negative modifiers (maybe all the same) if done without
attention, or be rolled differently (lower rolls possible).
This should be just the same as you use with any system ...
I agree with you when you say systems usually consider complete effort.
Players just have to role play when their character don't care, and get
a modifier at that moment.
I think it is a problem, because it is not in character that the
character is always motivated to do everything, and never "don't mind".
But players often don't care for it, as it brings them nothing.
I've been thinking about mechanics that would reward occasional "lack
of attention", and penalize "I'm always at full effort" attitude. As
this deals with the role, I believe it should be rules dealing with the
player, not the character.
Brian Gleichman
> I'm not really thinking about giving precise rules for that.
That's ok, just wondering.
> I've been thinking about mechanics that would reward occasional "lack
> of attention", and penalize "I'm always at full effort" attitude.
I can think of some possible negative mechanical results from this. Pure
fatigue coming to mind first followed by a attribute check to see if the
character can actually pull it off.
The latter idea is fun. A wartime (or high readiness) soldier would have a
rating in this ability.
> As
> this deals with the role, I believe it should be rules dealing with the
> player, not the character.
What drove you to that conclusion?
For my part, I don't think so. Looks totally character based to me.
Kodeci
"Brian Gleichman" <glei...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> "Kodeci" <kod...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8bfq39$jjh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
"lack
> > of attention", and penalize "I'm always at full effort" attitude.
>
> I can think of some possible negative mechanical results from this.
Pure
> fatigue coming to mind first followed by a attribute check to see if
the
> character can actually pull it off.
That the negative ones I've been thinking of also.
Fatigue (or in fact any progressive exertion) could IMO provide an
additional tactical impact from the player, as the player would get to
manage the fatigue level of his character, to get him at maximum
efficiency when really needed.
This could prove interesting if not all people around have the same
moments of 'importance' ... in a way, this could provide a natural
mechanic that provide each player with a spotlight time, the time when
his character is at max concentration (provided other players choose
other moments of course).
As an additionnal note, I would think the mechanic is more useful if it
is modular. You can take it or not, modify it, with any other system,
without destroying the game balance. Imagine starting with a game that
has no such mechanic. Imagine adding this mechanic for some players, the
ones willing to role play it for example, or the main characters. In
order to keep things balanced, we could imagine that a character with no
'attention variation' mechanic would have a constant value. Provided
with this mechanic, he would have a lower value when not interested, and
a bit higher when interested. This could be an incentive to role play
times of un-interest, or the GM will take away the bonus for interested
times.
The roll is random. Therefore, it is somehow taking away a part of the
player's ability to role play. In my groups, I think this will be
bothersome ...
> > As
> > this deals with the role, I believe it should be rules dealing with
the
> > player, not the character.
>
> What drove you to that conclusion?
>
> For my part, I don't think so. Looks totally character based to me.
Who decides what the character will be interested in? in my way to play,
it's the player that decides so, based on what he feels about the
character. My playing group refuses most restrictions on character
decisions, feeling they know their character better than anyone else,
and better that any rule could describe it (And rules describing
everything the character might think would be there in replacement for
the player ... good for NPCs!). Therefore, the character's psychology,
or any indications of the decisions the character can make, are written
on the 'player sheet' (suppose there are two sheets, one for the
character that contains things that don't need player input -- mechanics
in the strict sense -- , and one for the player that contains all things
that need player interpretation).
Of course, like nearly everything in the game, it is linked to the
character. Also, it is not linked to the player's concentration. But it
is still a player' thing.
I'm not sure I was very clear/convincing. Maybe someone could rephrase
it in a better way?
David Alex Lamb
>In article <8bhc36$pip$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>,
>"Brian Gleichman" <glei...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> "Kodeci" <kod...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8bfq39$jjh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> > I've been thinking about mechanics that would reward occasional "lack
>> > of attention", and penalize "I'm always at full effort" attitude.
>>
>> I can think of some possible negative mechanical results from this. Pure
>> fatigue coming to mind first followed by a attribute check to see if the
>> character can actually pull it off.
>
>additional tactical impact from the player, as the player would get to
>manage the fatigue level of his character, to get him at maximum
>efficiency when really needed.
About 10 years ago I ran a campaign based on our group's homebrew, where I
added a "fatigue" characteristic with both short- and long-term components.
Normal fatigue built up during the day and was cancelled by the passage of
time (some coming back within a few hours of light exertion, most coming back
from a good night's sleep). But there was also a long term component: one
point added for each day of "adventuring", cured only by a form of "time off"
suited to the character -- quiet reading for the scholar, carousing for the
fighter, etc. We usually abstracted the time off, but it did have a positive
effect on the tone of the campaign.
Justin Bacon
>"Lance Dyas" <lanc...@inetnebr.com> wrote in message
>news:38D9BD87...@inetnebr.com...
>
>> Extremely trivial work is so boring some personalities will refuse to do
>it
>> particularly in a
>> class room environment where they are under judgment by a twit whose
>> knowledge
>> they exceed by an order or three... this is markedly different than "being
>> bad" at fundamental things.
>
Yes, but that would be represented by the dice roll (i.e., complacence might be
the explanation the failed roll of a genius under certain circumstances) -- not
the measurement of the skill.
It also depends how much character motivation you want to put into the skill
resolution process. Which would raise the hoary old personality mechanics
debate in a diffracted manner.
As a third note: This could be used as an argument against diceless systems,
for those who don't want to leave motivation in the player's hands.
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
Brian Gleichman
news:20000330155518...@ng-co1.aol.com...
> Yes, but that would be represented by the dice roll (i.e., complacence
might be
> the explanation the failed roll of a genius under certain
circumstances) -- not
> the measurement of the skill.
Depends upon possible range of the die roll.
Part of this discussion indicated the use of smaller die ranges as skill
increased. This concept could easily move the failure chance below that of
real life unless counter-balanced by something.
> It also depends how much character motivation you want to put into the
skill
> resolution process. Which would raise the hoary old personality mechanics
> debate in a diffracted manner.
Yes it would. I hate those things.
But if one wanted the realism this thread seemed to desire, I don't see how
they could be avoided.
For may part, I'm happy with far less detailed skill systems.
> As a third note: This could be used as an argument against diceless
systems,
> for those who don't want to leave motivation in the player's hands.
Indeed it could.
Lance Dyas
Justin Bacon wrote:
> Brian Gleichman wrote:
> >"Lance Dyas" <lanc...@inetnebr.com> wrote in message
> >news:38D9BD87...@inetnebr.com...
> >
> >> Extremely trivial work is so boring some personalities will refuse to do
> >it
> >> particularly in a
> >> class room environment where they are under judgment by a twit whose
> >> knowledge
> >> they exceed by an order or three... this is markedly different than "being
> >> bad" at fundamental things.
> >
> >Are not such things also skill tests?
>
> Yes, but that would be represented by the dice roll (i.e., complacence might be
> the explanation the failed roll of a genius under certain circumstances) -- not
> the measurement of the skill.
Actually the skill he failed at was diplomacy ;) and that relates to dealing with
faculty and academicians and achieving grades... has little to do with my favorite
Genius's area of Expertise.. which I keep trying to get across.
And while it also involves not allocating effort to one thing because you chose
to allocate it to another.
>
> It also depends how much character motivation you want to put into the skill
> resolution process. Which would raise the hoary old personality mechanics
> debate in a diffracted manner.
don't need to choices is up to the player ;)
>
> As a third note: This could be used as an argument against diceless systems,
> for those who don't want to leave motivation in the player's hands.
Why not measure motivation by attention point allocation.
While I spend a point of time/energy on getting grades (to get a high paying job)
Joe chooses to spend a point on writing in his diary to advance his relativistic
physics
theory.
Effort and Time allocation works quite fine in dices systems.
Steve M
<lanc...@inetnebr.com> wrote:
> "Mary K. Kuhner" wrote:
> > In article <38C62813...@daimi.au.dk>,
> > Nis Haller Baggesen <u97...@daimi.au.dk> wrote:
> >
> > >To avoid that the system gets too loose, I was
> thinking that I would use
> > >prerequests quite a lot to restrict both the use of
> ads/disads as well
> > >as skills. Again comments are welcome.
> >
> > My experience with this is that it's extremely
> inflexible and
> > cumbersome--if you want to switch to a significantly
> new setting or
> > genre, or even to a new play style (such as
> low-combat) you will
> > have to rethink gobs of prerequisites.
> >
> > It's also common for characters who don't quite fit
> the system designer's
> > preconceptions to end up with a lot of "wrong"
> skills. My husband,
> > when he was playing GURPS mages, used to have two
> columns of spells on
> > his sheet: "spells I can really cast" and "spells I
> took to satisfy
> > the prerequisite system but it would be totally out
> of character to cast
> > them". The second list was quite long. I don't
> remember Jon's exact
> > examples, but one I encountered was wanting to make
> a night-worshippping
> > darkness mage and finding I was forced to buy a lot
> of light spells.
> > I didn't feel the idea of a darkness mage was
> unreasonable, but I would
> > have paid a large penalty (points spent on skills it
> would be wrong to
> > use) for making one.
> Yep that is the problem I had with the hard wired
> pre-requisites... a rules
> variant on GURPS allowing one to "learn the underlying
> principles of
> the pre-requisites" and spend only 1/2 a point on each
> unknown prerequisite
> combined with a -1 penalty for each unknown
> pre-requisite seems to
> fix the problem nicely.
That's a neat fix. Another alternative, if you're dealing
with single college magery, or at least a strict "path" of
study, is just rewrite the pre-requisites for that "path".
That way you could build a "path" for dark mages, that is
different to that of illusionists, for example. They may
know similar spells, but learnt them from a different base.
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful