Clever RPG Mechanics
okr...@usa.net
From my reading on this group I know that there are some designers on
here, whether published and famous, or unpublished and struggling.
It occured to me that many games have in them one or two innovative
design ideas (and I specifically mean mechanics here, not setting ideas),
which are unique to that game and which players and probably designers
think are particularly clever.
In some cases those ideas really define the game and make it what it is.
In some cases those ideas caught on and got picked up by other games, and
in other cases they became quirks of that particular system.
So what I was wondering was what particular mechanisms really stand out
as being 'defining' mechanics. I'm especially interested in hearing from
any designers on here who may have built a game around a particular
mechanic or system just because it was clever.
Rusty
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Joe Murphy (Broin)
okr...@usa.net wrote in message <884996699....@dejanews.com>...
>So what I was wondering was what particular mechanisms really stand out
>as being 'defining' mechanics. I'm especially interested in hearing from
>any designers on here who may have built a game around a particular
>mechanic or system just because it was clever.
I'm particularly impressed by FUDGE, and I'll be using it for a game
background I'm working on. I would have used my own system, but was
demoralised by FUDGE. =)
The resolution resmbles Babylon 5's dice rolling. Basically, you roll a
certain number of dice, and the possible results for each die are +1, -1 or
0. You sum the results. As you can see, usually, there's no effect to the
skill, and there's only a slight chance of having multiple dice result each
in +1 or -1, yielding a total, perhaps, of +3 or -3.
So, your roll rarely affects the base skill/stat/attribute, and rookies tend
not to do amazing things, by chance, and experts are typically good at their
job. I like this. =)
I'd recommend having a peak at the system. You'll find it easily enough
online.
Joe.
----
Joe Murphy (Broin) "Cerebus: He doesn't love you,
br...@dial.pipex.com he just wants all your money."
(and no, it doesn't rhyme with 'groin')
Peter
okr...@usa.net wrote:
>
> From my reading on this group I know that there are some designers on
> here, whether published and famous, or unpublished and struggling.
>
> It occured to me that many games have in them one or two innovative
> design ideas (and I specifically mean mechanics here, not setting ideas),
> which are unique to that game and which players and probably designers
> think are particularly clever.
>
> In some cases those ideas really define the game and make it what it is.
> In some cases those ideas caught on and got picked up by other games, and
> in other cases they became quirks of that particular system.
>
> as being 'defining' mechanics. I'm especially interested in hearing from
> any designers on here who may have built a game around a particular
> mechanic or system just because it was clever.
I've built a skeleton system around WW's multiple d10 mechanism, adding
a fumble system of my own (without having ever read any WW products, all
I've seen are reviews of Vtm and Werewolf).
The neat thing about the multiple d10 system is that a "check" not only
tells you if you managed to do it, but also how well you managed to do
it. My added fumble rules also tells you how badly you fail, if you
fail, from "just a failure" to "Murphy fumbles"(Murphy's law takes
effect)
The system is being hosted on the homepage for LW-Angband, an Angband
variant being developed by a British coder, using my system instead of
the ancient D&D-like mechanics used in other Angband variants
(Angband is a computer rpg, with a long history)
To check FFRE out, go to
http://www.lwithers.demon.co.uk/lwangband/
and click on the FFRE link. The material Laurence has put online so
far is 100% of what I've sent him. It's freeware, anyone can use
FFRE for face-to-face playing, or to make a non-commercial CRPG.
> Rusty
Peter Knutsen
Nis Haller Baggesen
I'm in the process of modelling a system around what I've been told
about Deadlands, because I really like the idear of checking different
actions rather than simply incur penalities on the main action. If this
really has anytihng to do with Deadlands I don't know, because all I
know about the system comes from overhearing a discussion of the rules.
Nis
Frank J. Perricone
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Sat, 17 Jan 1998 12:51:31 -0600, okr...@usa.net wrote:
> So what I was wondering was what particular mechanisms really stand out
> as being 'defining' mechanics. I'm especially interested in hearing from
> any designers on here who may have built a game around a particular
> mechanic or system just because it was clever.
There are a few of them in my game Prism (not publicly published, but
privately I've run off and sold, for the cost of printing and binding,
about 250 copies to friends, players in my groups, local gaming shops,
interested people I met on the Net, etc.).
The most important one is aptitudes. As a recent thread discussed, there
are some who dislike the rigidity of classes but who don't want to
completely give up on the idea, they just don't want it to *limit* the
character creation process. A pure class-based system like AD&D means a
fighter can never pick locks -- clearly not realistic. A pure skill-based
system like GURPS means that a "fighter" (there's really no such thing in
GURPS though) can learn to pick a lock as easily as anyone else -- closer,
but still not quite right. Rolemaster's professions allow a fighter to
learn lockpicking, but it's harder for the fighter than the thief. Better
yet, but it still forces these arbitrary "professions" on you.
In Prism, the mechanic reflects, I think, the way people actually are.
Rather than picking a one-size-fits-all "profession" you simply buy, using
character points, an "aptitude" in each of ten categories of skills. This
aptitude doesn't reflect how good you are (as in AD&D) or what you know, it
only reflects how much of a "knack" you have for learning these skills. In
a sense, you can think of every possible combination of aptitudes as being
like a custom-tailored "profession". Aptitudes determine the costs of
learning skills in those categories (and many skills can fall into more
than one category).
This makes possible a lot of things that are hard in many other games.
Someone might have a "latent aptitude" -- learning that they are good at
*learning* something only when they first try it, they take to it like a
duck to water, but even so they still have to learn it. Anyone can learn
anything, but just like in real life, you'll do much better if you find the
things you have a natural aptitude for and focus on them. (This is
especially noticeable in longer-term campaigns.)
It only takes a minute or two to buy aptitudes, not much longer than
choosing a class in a class-based system, yet IMO it gives you the good
parts of the class concept (what few they are) without any of the bad
parts.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: public key: finger hawt...@maple.sover.net, or on my web page
iQB1AwUBNMH3k8yfEemBueK1AQGpjgL8Cz/2m2/xRBDgzGfQfY5khC4ezKAOtmcb
bz+QcEeslzbANJdo8HhGWyGIxCC9TTqsZ10f28BOFPBbU9cSV/3K6s7cZrWZfJTg
d2kJ+F+vT5C/dvuuDQOnVqiWx8PNv7E4
=6eJ1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
* Frank J. Perricone * hawt...@sover.net * http://www.sover.net/~hawthorn
Just because we aren't all the same doesn't mean we have nothing in common
Just because we have something in common doesn't mean we're all the same
JaniceW643
>So what I was wondering was what particular mechanisms really stand out
>as being 'defining' mechanics. I'm especially interested in hearing
from
>any designers on here who may have built a game around a particular
>mechanic or system just because it was clever.
For me, it's Dream Pod 9's Sihouette system. I have not seen anything so
elegant and simple in all of my years in gaming. I can explain how to roll the
dice in a couple of minutes, how to make a skill check in another five and
start playing within a half-hour. It's the closest thing to gaming's Holy
Grail- "The Perfect Game Engine"- that's I've seen, though it aspires to be.
(I cannot wait for Gear Krieg!)
A *very* close second is _Feng Shui_. Again, the elegant simplicity is
what did it for me. Within a half-hour, I can take a group of clueless newbies
and get them up and running with a full command of the system and the setting.
It's not a perfect game engine either, and it doesn't pretend to be. However,
the core mechanics are brilliant and could easily be ported to a more realistic
game. (Considering the origin of _Feng Shui_, this is not surprising.)
-----
Name: Corinth
E-mail: janic...@aol.com
REV 105, murdered on 3/11/97 by the Disney Corporation.
<*> "Steve Jackson Games and GURPS doesn't affect us one bit and we not do
consider them to be a threat to us at all." - Kevin Siembieda, 5/15/91
John R. Snead
okr...@usa.net wrote:
: So what I was wondering was what particular mechanisms really stand out
: as being 'defining' mechanics. I'm especially interested in hearing from
: any designers on here who may have built a game around a particular
: mechanic or system just because it was clever.
I guess the mechanic I'm currently most impressed with is the resolution
system in Eden Publication's Conspiracy X.
It uses the now very common stats and skills both go from 1 (cripple/novice)
to 5 (one of the best on the planet). However, from there it's different.
Instead of the standard stat+skill + dice vs a target number, all tasks
are also rated 1 (incredibly easy) to 5 (almost undoable). For skill
rolls you compare the skill with the difficulty. If skill level > difficulty
the character automatically succeeds, no need to roll. If skill = difficulty
the player must roll 7- on 2D6 to succeed, if the skill level is one less
than the difficlty the player must roll 4- on 2D6 and if the skill level is
two or more lower than the difficulty level then the character simply cannot
perform a task which is that difficult. Simple, elegant, easy to remember,
and a system which minimizes die rolling (but does not eliminate it. Sounds
good to me.
Even better, stats influence skill rolls, but aren't as important as skills.
Average stats are 3. You add (3-stat) to the target number of all skill
rolls (7 for normal rolls, 4 for hard rolls).
I now use this system in place of the regular one for all 1-5 stat& skill
systems.
-John Snead jsn...@netcom.com
Dave Nalle
In article <jsneadEM...@netcom.com>, jsn...@netcom.com (John R.
Snead) wrote:
> okr...@usa.net wrote:
>
> : So what I was wondering was what particular mechanisms really stand out
> : as being 'defining' mechanics. I'm especially interested in
hearing from
> : any designers on here who may have built a game around a particular
> : mechanic or system just because it was clever.
>
> I guess the mechanic I'm currently most impressed with is the resolution
> system in Eden Publication's Conspiracy X.
>
> It uses the now very common stats and skills both go from 1 (cripple/novice)
> to 5 (one of the best on the planet).
I find the idea that only 5 steps separate a total klutz from Jackie Chan
to be very troubling. More troubling is the idea that the difference
between an average person and the best in the world is only 2 steps.
This scale has become very popular, and I think that it inhibits
roleplaying to some degree, because it makes it harder to use the
mechanics to describe most characters in any detail. It also reduces the
uniqueness of characters at least as represented in stats.
Dave
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I write both as an individual and as a company representative
Scriptorium Fonts & Art: http://ragnarokpress.com/scriptorium
Ysgarth RPG Site: http://www.ragnarokpress.com/ragnarok/ysgarth
Dave Nalle
> From my reading on this group I know that there are some designers on
> here, whether published and famous, or unpublished and struggling.
>
> It occured to me that many games have in them one or two innovative
> design ideas (and I specifically mean mechanics here, not setting ideas),
> which are unique to that game and which players and probably designers
> think are particularly clever.
>
> In some cases those ideas really define the game and make it what it is.
> In some cases those ideas caught on and got picked up by other games, and
> in other cases they became quirks of that particular system.
>
> So what I was wondering was what particular mechanisms really stand out
> as being 'defining' mechanics. I'm especially interested in hearing from
> any designers on here who may have built a game around a particular
> mechanic or system just because it was clever.
I think that quite often the simplest mechanic can be the most important.
From the very earliest versions of Ysgarth there was one element which
seems to have identified the game and set it apart from others, and which
on reflection I think was one of the fundamental innovations which defined
it.
This is the very simple idea of breaking skill points down into two
separate categories. One (Basic Skill Points) which can only be spent on
'background' type skills, and one (Advanced Skill Points) which can only
be spent on adventuring type skills - combat, magic, etc. It's a
contrived system, but has the effect of guaranteeing that characters will
have a nice selection of the kinds of skills that might not always be
useful without penalizing them or giving one character an advantage over
another.
Dave Nalle
In article <34C38034...@peergroup.com>, Viktor Haag
<vik...@peergroup.com> wrote:
> Dave Nalle wrote:
> > From the very earliest versions of Ysgarth there was one element which
> > seems to have identified the game and set it apart from others, and which
> > on reflection I think was one of the fundamental innovations which defined
> > it.
> >
> > This is the very simple idea of breaking skill points down into two
> > separate categories.
>
> Dave,
>
> This is hardly a unique concept. Many games (especially those available
> from Chaosium) force players to give higher ratings to skills they might
> not otherwise choose, because of background or profession. The most obvious
> example is Call of Cthulhu, where you have a certain number of points to
> spend on a limited set of "professional" skills, and a certain number of
> "hobby" points that you can place in any skill. Not too many antiquarians
> have a high Gunshot roll, as a result.
>
> I'm not going to get into a Siembieda-style discussion on who first
> produced this "innovation". Suffice to say, it certainly doesn't "set
> Ysgarth apart" from other games; there's a number of other games who do
> exactly this kind of thing.
I didn't mean to suggest that Ysgarth was the only system with a mechanic
like this, merely that Ysgarth has it and it's an elegant solution to a
common problem. And it does set those systems which have it apart from
others, because most RPGs don't have this sort of mechanic.
Brad Thurkettle
JaniceW643 wrote in message
<19980118174...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>>So what I was wondering was what particular mechanisms really stand out
>>as being 'defining' mechanics. I'm especially interested in hearing
>from
>>any designers on here who may have built a game around a particular
>>mechanic or system just because it was clever.
>
> For me, it's Dream Pod 9's Sihouette system. I have not seen anything
so
>elegant and simple in all of my years in gaming. I can explain how to roll
the
>dice in a couple of minutes, how to make a skill check in another five and
>start playing within a half-hour. It's the closest thing to gaming's Holy
>Grail- "The Perfect Game Engine"- that's I've seen, though it aspires to
be.
>(I cannot wait for Gear Krieg!)
I had a look of the Heavy Gear stuff but I would like a more concrete
example of why their system is so good. Can you explain how to roll dice to
us and what aspects of the system are so elegant, in detail ?
Interested
Brad
Brad Thurkettle
okr...@usa.net wrote in message <884996699....@dejanews.com>...
>It occured to me that many games have in them one or two innovative
>design ideas (and I specifically mean mechanics here, not setting ideas),
>which are unique to that game and which players and probably designers
>think are particularly clever.
<snip>
I'll bite. The system I like is Hero Games' Hero System and Fuzion as used
in Champions and other genres. The mechanic they have is for defining powers
as generic game based effect and leaving the appearance of the effect to be
defined.
For instance, a ranged weapon attack uses the game power Energy Blast. This
can be used to simulate Iron Man tm firing bolts of energy from the palms of
his power suit, to the energy blasters of a Star Wars tm campaign to the
magical bolts of energy cast by a mage in a fantasy setting.
This way players don't need to learn different mechanics to play in
different genres. The system scales to all levels from pulp level campaigns
(Justice Inc) to fantasy (Fantasy Hero) to Super-heroes (Champions).
I don't think I've seen another generic system do this mechanic as well.
Cheers
Brad
Paul F. Glenn
John R. Snead (jsn...@netcom.com) wrote:
: okr...@usa.net wrote:
: system in Eden Publication's Conspiracy X.
: It uses the now very common stats and skills both go from 1 (cripple/novice)
: to 5 (one of the best on the planet). However, from there it's different.
: Instead of the standard stat+skill + dice vs a target number, all tasks
: are also rated 1 (incredibly easy) to 5 (almost undoable). For skill
: rolls you compare the skill with the difficulty. If skill level > difficulty
: the character automatically succeeds, no need to roll. If skill = difficulty
: the player must roll 7- on 2D6 to succeed, if the skill level is one less
: than the difficlty the player must roll 4- on 2D6 and if the skill level is
: two or more lower than the difficulty level then the character simply cannot
: perform a task which is that difficult. Simple, elegant, easy to remember,
: and a system which minimizes die rolling (but does not eliminate it. Sounds
: good to me.
This sounds quite similar to CORPS, which I believe predates Conspiracy X.
Is there anyone familiar with both games who can confirm or reject any
similarity?
BTW, I like CORPS, but I find it a bit too detailed for my taste. But I
like almost rules-free systems where I can get 'em. So I guess I'd
nominate Amber diceless as a cool game mechanic. I like how you resolve
things based on rankings and plot, not based on any randomness.
Paul Glenn
pgl...@orion.it.luc.edu
"Once and for all, there is a great deal I do not want to know. Wisdom
sets bounds even to knowledge."
--Friedrich Nietzsche, "The Twilight of the Idols"
Michael T. Richter
Brad Thurkettle wrote in message <69u5vf$k9r$1...@s3000-01.magna.com.au>...
>I had a look of the Heavy Gear stuff but I would like a more concrete
>example of why their system is so good. Can you explain how to roll dice to
>us and what aspects of the system are so elegant, in detail ?
I'll take a shot at this.
Silhouette is a d6-based system. Attributes are 0-based ranging, typically,
from -3 to +3. There is room to go beyond that range, but costs become
prohibitive. Skills range from 0 to whatever, but a realistic upper end is
about 5 (and that only after lots of effort).
One of the elegant mechanisms is the attribute cost balancing one.
Basically, the 0-cost attribute level is -1. It costs you 1 point to get
attribute level 0, 4 for attribute level 1 and so forth. You get one point
back for an attribute at level -2, 4 for -3 and so forth. The cost chart
for the -3 to +3 range looks like this:
+3 16 points
+2 9 points
+1 4 points
0 1 point
-1 0 points
-2 -1 points (i.e. you get one point back)
-3 -4 points
By default you get 30 points towards characteristics.
I find this mechanism elegant because it takes a *lot* of low negative stats
to balance out a high positive. For example, it takes 4 stats at -3 to
balance out one stat at +3. This makes your initial character point
allotment very important and adds a few minor barriers to minimaxers. (If
you don't believe me, try shifting the cost column up by one so that +3 is 9
points and -3 is -9 points. Then try and find an initial point level which
isn't prone to very simple abuse.)
Skill costs are simply the square of the skill level, doubled for skills
deemed "complex" (typically technical skills and the like). For 5 points
extra each you can take a "specialty" which adds +1 to your skill roll (more
on this below). The maximum you can take a skill to is two above its
governing attribute. Thus if you have an agility rating of +1, you can get
a skill of 3 at most. (A skill of 3 is very good, BTW. A typical
professional has skill level 2.) The one exception to this is that if your
governing stat is -2 or less, you can still get a level 1 in the skill by
doubling the cost (further doubling for a complex skill, of course).
Your skill level determines the number of dS (standard six-sided dice read
in a specific fashion) you roll. A skill level of 2, for example, means you
roll 2dS. A skill level of 4 (!) means you roll 4dS. When you roll the
dice, your result is the highest die showing. If that number is a six, you
add one for each additional six rolled. Thus, for example, if you rolled
3dS and got (5,4,2), the result would be 5. If you got (6,6,1), the result
would be 6 (highest value) +1 (another 6) for a total of 7. Rolling all
ones is a fumble and is deemed to be a result of 0, and may have other
detrimental effects depending upon circumstance.
When rolling a task, the result is directly modified by +1 if a specialty is
involved and by the level of the governing attribute. Thus if a person had
a skill level of 2 in "Drive", an Agility rating of +2 and a specialty in
motorcycles, this person would roll 2dS and add +3 when using motorcycles.
This means that a (4,3) result would be a final value of 7 (4 maximum die
value, +2 for agility, +1 for specialty).
There are two special cases in Silhouette tasks. The first of these is the
"attribute roll" (i.e. lifting a heavy object using just strength). In this
case, you act as if the skill level was 2 and apply the stat as normal. The
second special case is when you're rolling for a skill but your character
doesn't actually possess the skill. In this case you roll 2dS, but the
result is the *lowest* of the two. (Incidentally, this means that a 1 on
either die is a fumble...)
The results of any die roll are compared against a target number. This
target number can be a difficulty number set by the GM/system or it can be
the result of another character's die roll (an "opposed action"). If your
result exceeds the target number, you have succeeded and the difference is
your margin of success. This margin of success is used directly in the
combat system to generate damage -- the MoS is multiplied by a damage factor
to derive the points of damage caused. If your result falls short of the
target number you have failed. The greater the margin of failure
(difference between target number and your result), the greater the failure.
Hitting the target number dead on is a marginal or qualified success. You
kind of got what you wanted but things got a bit more complex for it.
I consider the game's die rolling conventions elegant because it accurately
models the relationship between skills and ability in my opinion. First, a
character's level of skill is limited by his aptitude for the task. This is
as it should be. Second, a high skill level gives more steady performance,
not necessarily a higher result. One's aptitude determines how good a
result one gets.
As an example, consider an average professional (level 2 skill) with
slightly above average aptitude for that level (+1 attribute). The odds of
getting specific results are:
1 ~2.8% *
3 ~8.3%
4 ~13.9%
5 ~19.4%
6 ~25.0%
7 ~27.8%
8 ~2.8%
(* Note that a 2dS result of 1 is read as 0, so only the attribute applies.)
Now look at the results chart for the same person after having mastered the
skill. (Level 3, attribute still +1):
1 ~0.5% *
3 ~3.2%
4 ~8.8%
5 ~17.1%
6 ~28.2%
7 ~34.7%
8 ~6.9%
9 ~0.5%
(* Note that a 3dS result of 1 is read as 0, so only the attribute applies.)
In this case, the chance of this character fumbling has been reduced by a
factor of five and a chance of getting a 9 has been added (albeit at a
vanishingly small chance). Basically, this person is now much more reliable
but with the peak probability remaining at 7.
Now let's compare the above two charts with this person when he was in
training (Level 1, attribute +1):
1 ~16.7% *
3 ~16.7%
4 ~16.7%
5 ~16.7%
6 ~16.7%
7 ~16.7%
(* Note that a 1dS result of 1 is read as 0, so only the attribute applies.)
Here now, the amateur is all over the place. He is capable of reaching a
result of 7 (a pretty good result), but he's equally capable of botching
everything or just doing a mediocre job.
To me, these odds tables are a compelling mechanism for modelling skill vs.
aptitude. Silhouette isn't perfect by far, but it is, in my opinion, one of
the top three games in this regard.
Joseph Teller
Dave Nalle wrote in message <69ups1$r...@mtinsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>I find the idea that only 5 steps separate a total klutz from Jackie Chan
to be very >troubling. More troubling is the idea that the difference
>between an average person and the best in the world is only 2 steps.
>This scale has become very popular, and I think that it inhibits
>roleplaying to some degree, because it makes it harder to use the
>mechanics to describe most characters in any detail. It also reduces the
>uniqueness of characters at least as represented in stats.
I agree - a scale of only five steps is too few. The lowest scale I've used
in recent years has been eight steps , but I prefer ten to twenty steps of
scale in regards to skill, especially with things as complex and diversified
as martial arts.
Joe
f...@ici.net
Joseph Teller
Paul F. Glenn wrote in message <69umtl$jj9$1...@artemis.it.luc.edu>...
>BTW, I like CORPS, but I find it a bit too detailed for my taste. But I
>like almost rules-free systems where I can get 'em. So I guess I'd
>nominate Amber diceless as a cool game mechanic. I like how you resolve
>things based on rankings and plot, not based on any randomness.
Paul:
Although you are welcome to your opinion in regards to how to resolve
things, do you realize that by eliminating any randomness from a game that
you are losing a major level of realism from the game, as the universe (as
quantum mechanics teaches us) is a place with random events from its core
building blockson out to major events?
And since a roleplaying game attempts to emulate the "real world" on
multiple levels, by eliminating all randomness you are defeating the purpose
of emulation.
Joe
f...@ici.net
www.fantasyrealms.simplenet.com
Torben AEgidius Mogensen
okr...@usa.net writes:
>So what I was wondering was what particular mechanisms really stand out
>as being 'defining' mechanics. I'm especially interested in hearing from
>any designers on here who may have built a game around a particular
>mechanic or system just because it was clever.
To me "clever" mechanics are simple systems that achieve a good
simulation of what they try to model. Hence, complex systems are not
clever, even if they are good simulations, and not all simple systems
are clever. In particular, I don't consider rules that basically say
"the GM decides" clever, even though they may work well: The
cleverness does not reside in the rule, but in the GM.
One example is HarnMasters critical success/failure system. Skill
rolls in HM are percentage based, and require you to roll under or
equal to your (modified) skill. If your roll divides evenly by 5, then
the result is critical. This is easy and does not require you to
calculate/remember/look up ranges for criticals, as you e.g. have to
do in RuneQuest.
Another good idea is the dice/pips skill system of Star Wars.
Basically, a skill level is the number of dice you roll and add up to
get your result. However, to allow finer grained skills, there are
between e.g. level 4d6 and 5d6 also levels 4d6+1, 4d6+2 and 4d6+3.
This is a simple solution to the granularity problem of dice-pool
based systems (as. e.g in the Storyteller system).
I also like the wound severity system of Star Wars: If you already
have a serious wound, then an additional light wound won't make a
difference. It requires a wound of the same or higher severity to
change your status.
I have also heard of a system where the skills you choose determine
your attributes, e.g. strength and agility. While this is backwards
compared to other RPGs, it simulated both that you are likely to
choose skills that fits your attributes and that these are actually
trained by skill use (sthrength and agility are not unalterable
values, you can in fact train them).
I have considered extending this idea to let skills and attributes
have mutual positive feedback: The higher your attribute(s), the
easier it is to increase your skill and the higher your skill is, the
higher your attribute gets. You can e.g. let each skill have a primary
and a secondary attribute (which may be the same) and let these
determine the cost of increasing levels in the skill. Then, for
e.g. every fifth level in a skill that has an attribute as primary and
every tenth level in a skill that has an attribute as secondary will
give you an increase in the attribute. This also to some extent
handles the "similar skills" issue: Skills similar to those you
already have are easier to learn than completely different skills.
Torben Mogensen (tor...@diku.dk)
Travis Hall
Frank J. Perricone (hawt...@sover.net) wrote:
:
: In Prism, the mechanic reflects, I think, the way people actually are.
: character points, an "aptitude" in each of ten categories of skills. This
: aptitude doesn't reflect how good you are (as in AD&D) or what you know, it
: only reflects how much of a "knack" you have for learning these skills. In
: a sense, you can think of every possible combination of aptitudes as being
: like a custom-tailored "profession". Aptitudes determine the costs of
: learning skills in those categories (and many skills can fall into more
: than one category).
I've been thinking precisely along those lines myself, recently.
You mentioned that you have sold a few copies of this game for the cost of
the binding. Would it be possible to get a copy? I'd be quite interested
to see how you have implemented the idea. If you have it in electronic
form, it would probably be easiest to e-mail it and I can handle printing.
I'm good at that.
: It only takes a minute or two to buy aptitudes, not much longer than
: choosing a class in a class-based system, yet IMO it gives you the good
: parts of the class concept (what few they are) without any of the bad
: parts.
Also, if you like having classes to choose from during character creation
(you know, for when the character you are constructing *does* fit a given
class to a 'T'), it should be easy enough to construct a list of classes
by assigning them appropriate aptitudes. And if the class is close, but
not quite right (as is often the case), you can just tweak the class's
aptitudes to make it work.
--
Why is it that when I do finally get around to creating a .sig file, I
can't think of a single witty thing to say in it?
The Wraith
Viktor Haag
Dave Nalle wrote:
> From the very earliest versions of Ysgarth there was one element which
> seems to have identified the game and set it apart from others, and which
> on reflection I think was one of the fundamental innovations which defined
> it.
>
> This is the very simple idea of breaking skill points down into two
> separate categories.
Dave,
This is hardly a unique concept. Many games (especially those available
from Chaosium) force players to give higher ratings to skills they might
not otherwise choose, because of background or profession. The most obvious
example is Call of Cthulhu, where you have a certain number of points to
spend on a limited set of "professional" skills, and a certain number of
"hobby" points that you can place in any skill. Not too many antiquarians
have a high Gunshot roll, as a result.
I'm not going to get into a Siembieda-style discussion on who first
produced this "innovation". Suffice to say, it certainly doesn't "set
Ysgarth apart" from other games; there's a number of other games who do
exactly this kind of thing.
--
Viktor Haag The PEER Group, Inc.
mailto:vik...@peergroup.com Technical Writer
"Unlike serial-killer profiling, writing is a
lonely and depressing profession ..." Jose Chung
Viktor Haag
Brad Thurkettle wrote:
> I had a look of the Heavy Gear stuff but I would like a more concrete
> example of why their system is so good. Can you explain how to roll dice to
> us and what aspects of the system are so elegant, in detail ?
Here's a synopsis of the Silhouette system:
All tests are done as follows:
* Determine a Threshold (difficulty number) for the test. Thresholds
range from 1 to 12. Unlike mosts games, however, the progression of
difficulty as the threshold increases is not linear. You'll see why
in a minute.
* Roll a number of six-sided dice. The "total" is the highest number
produced on the dice. For each additional six you roll, past the first,
you get to add an additional one. Any roll that produces *all* ones is
a Fumble.
For example: rolling 2, 4, 5 produces a "total" of 5; rolling 3, 4, 6
produces 6; rolling 1, 1, 1 produces 0 and causes a fumble; rolling
3, 6, 6 produces 7 (six for the first six, then +1 equals seven).
* Add any test modifiers.
* The difference between your test result and the Threshold is either a
Margin of Success (if your roll+mods is higher than the threshold) or
a Margin of Failure (if your roll+mods was lower).
In the roleplaying rules, a player's skills tell you *how many* dice to
roll when testing the skill. A player's attribute ratings are on a -5 to +5
scale and are used as modifiers to associated skill rolls. When testing an
attribute alone, you roll 2 dice, and use the attribute as a roll modifier.
Unskilled individuals may attempt a skill roll. They roll 2 dice, and *drop
the higher of the two dice*. Thus, they have a one third chance of
producing a fumble (being left with a one).
A few things become immediately obvious if you think about the mechanics
for a bit.
(1) The possible die results aren't linear. It's a *lot* easier to roll a 5
on 3 dice, then it is an eight. To roll a 5, only one of the dice needs to
show a 5. To roll an eight, you need to throw a triple-six (to produce a
six plus one plus one).
(2) Most average people depend on being skilled to succeed. Average people
have a +0 in most attributes, so they will need a high skill value to have
any hope of regularly producing a decent skill roll.
(3) Exceptional individuals can produce astounding results. For example,
anyone with a +3 attribute can reliably produce at least a 4 on a test
roll, provided they don't fumble (compare with the average person). That
lucky sod who rolls a triple-six with a +3 attribute suddenly produces a
result of *eleven*. On the other hand, exceptionally limited individuals
are going to be *very* limited. Having a -3 or worse in an attribute is an
almost insurmountable burden.
This is the basic mechanic. The system really starts to shine when this
mechanic is applied in various areas:
(a) Combat requires one roll from the attacker and one from the defender.
This one, opposed, roll tells you whether or not you hit, how hard you hit,
and how severely the wound affects the target. Instant kills are quite
possible with nasty weapons and good rolls, as are flesh wounds from the
same weapons (with bad rolls).
(b) There is a *huge* difference in the system between combat trained
characters and noncombatants. Each round, to determine initiative,
participants make a test of their "Combat Sense" skill. Use the test totals
produced to order the combatants actions. Those who fumble their skill
rolls gibber and are unable to act for a turn. This means that those poor
sods without Combat Sense training will spend about one every three rounds
shivering in fear (while the combat monkeys rain death on their heads). The
career templates provided with the Silhouette games make it clear that
Combat Sense is by no means a common skill. For example, in Jovian
Chronicles, only *half* the character creation templates/examples have
Combat Sense as a skill (the secret agent template does *not*!!).
(c) You can buy extra dice for a skill test with experience points, letting
characters have a much better chance of succeeding tests when the result is
very important to the story.
Bruce Sheffer
> In article <jsneadEM...@netcom.com>, jsn...@netcom.com (John R.
> Snead) wrote:
>
> > okr...@usa.net wrote:
> >
> > : as being 'defining' mechanics. I'm especially interested in
> hearing from
> > : any designers on here who may have built a game around a particular
> > : mechanic or system just because it was clever.
> >
I really liked the skill tree in now out of print Ringworld.
Millenium's Edge is similar.
Bruce Sheffer
>
> In article <jsneadEM...@netcom.com>, jsn...@netcom.com (John R.
> Snead) wrote:
>
> > okr...@usa.net wrote:
> >
> > : So what I was wondering was what particular mechanisms really stand out
> > : as being 'defining' mechanics. I'm especially interested in
> hearing from
> > : any designers on here who may have built a game around a particular
> > : mechanic or system just because it was clever.
> >
Though some people didn't like the level of detail it brought to the
game, I've always liked Tri Tac's body charts which allowed me to track
a bullet through the body, rolling for organ damage and bone breakage as
I went.
Paul MacDonald
Bruce Sheffer wrote:
>
> Though some people didn't like the level of detail it brought to the
> game, I've always liked Tri Tac's body charts which allowed me to track
> a bullet through the body, rolling for organ damage and bone breakage as
> I went.
My problem with the Tri Tac system is that it kinda falls apart for
swung, edged weapons. It's great for bullets and arrows and the like.
Of course that system is optional...
Paul MacDonald
Paul F. Glenn
Joseph Teller (f...@ici.net) wrote:
: Paul F. Glenn wrote in message <69umtl$jj9$1...@artemis.it.luc.edu>...
: >BTW, I like CORPS, but I find it a bit too detailed for my taste. But I
: >like almost rules-free systems where I can get 'em. So I guess I'd
: >nominate Amber diceless as a cool game mechanic. I like how you resolve
: >things based on rankings and plot, not based on any randomness.
: Although you are welcome to your opinion in regards to how to resolve
: things, do you realize that by eliminating any randomness from a game that
: you are losing a major level of realism from the game, as the universe (as
: quantum mechanics teaches us) is a place with random events from its core
: building blockson out to major events?
I don't have a problem eliminating randomness in games in
general, but especially in a game like Amber. The whole point of the
game is that characters represent god-like powers; the slight vagaries
of chance don't impact them nearly as much as it does normal people
like us.
Also, randomness doesn't only come from dice-rolling. Take the
game Diplomacy--the fact that Turkey launches its attack on Russia in
the same turn I launch my attack on France is somewhat random. I
didn't know he was going to do it, so to me it _is_ random--it just
happened, without any knowledge on my part. Similarly, in Amber
characters (and NPCs) do things that others don't know about. It's
often random that 2 things, done independently, happen at the same
time.
Warren Grant
On Mon, 19 Jan 1998 11:23:06 -0500, Viktor Haag <vik...@peergroup.com>
wrote:
>(a) Combat requires one roll from the attacker and one from the defender.
>This one, opposed, roll tells you whether or not you hit, how hard you hit,
>and how severely the wound affects the target. Instant kills are quite
>possible with nasty weapons and good rolls, as are flesh wounds from the
>same weapons (with bad rolls).
Okay, nice explanation of the system. This is the aspect that
interests me the most. How can one roll define all of these variables
so effectively? If you could, please explain...
Warren Grant
wgr...@removethis.imag.net
http://www.writepeople.com
"Two things are infinite:
The universe and human stupidity
and I am not sure about the universe"
Albert Einstein
Warren Grant
On 19 Jan 1998 16:10:42 +0100, tor...@diku.dk (Torben AEgidius
Mogensen) wrote:
>I have also heard of a system where the skills you choose determine
>your attributes, e.g. strength and agility. While this is backwards
>compared to other RPGs, it simulated both that you are likely to
>choose skills that fits your attributes and that these are actually
>trained by skill use (sthrength and agility are not unalterable
>values, you can in fact train them).
This is an interesting idea, but it would have to allow for the fact
that not all characters are alike. By this I mean simply that I would
prefer that if you take a given skill at a given level you are allowed
to *roll* to see if your attributes are affected. It also means that
your attributes would have to start at zero in each case and be
increased by the skills you take. I dont see it working with a system
that starts everyone with the same average score in each attribute.
Still and interesting notion.
>I have considered extending this idea to let skills and attributes
>have mutual positive feedback: The higher your attribute(s), the
>easier it is to increase your skill and the higher your skill is, the
>higher your attribute gets. You can e.g. let each skill have a primary
>and a secondary attribute (which may be the same) and let these
>determine the cost of increasing levels in the skill. Then, for
>e.g. every fifth level in a skill that has an attribute as primary and
>every tenth level in a skill that has an attribute as secondary will
>give you an increase in the attribute. This also to some extent
>handles the "similar skills" issue: Skills similar to those you
>already have are easier to learn than completely different skills.
Also worth considering, although if you were rolling for the increases
as I suggested above, you could simply offer bonuses on the roll based
on your current level. Actually they should probably work against your
chance of an increase, so that attribute scores accelerate at lower
levels and decrease when you climb up the scale.
Michael Schwartz
Warren Grant writes in response to Viktor Haag:
>>This one, opposed, roll tells you whether or not you hit, how
>>hard you hit, and how severely the wound affects the target.
>
>This is the aspect that interests me the most. How can one roll
>define all of these variables so effectively?
Damage in Silhouette is determined by multiplying the Margin of Success by
the weapon's Damage Multiplier and comparing it to the target's Stamina
(which may be modified by armor) as follows:
€ Damage less than half Stamina = no effect
€ Damage greater than or equal to half Stamina = Flesh Wound
€ Damage greater than or equal to Stamina = Deep Wound
€ Damage greater than or equal to twice Stamina = Instant Kill
EXAMPLE:
Character A (Small Arms 2, Agility +1, Pistols specialty) fires at
Character B (Dodge 3, Agility 0, Stamina 30) with his 9mm automatic
(Damage Multiplier 15) as B dives for cover. A rolls 4 and 5, for a total
of [5 + 1 + 1 =] 7, while B rolls 2, 3 and 3 for a total of [3 + 0 + 2
Dodge bonus =] 5.
A has a Margin of Success of 2, for a Damage score of [MoS 2 x DM 15 =]
30. B's Stamina is 30, meaning he would normally have taken a Deep Wound.
Fortunately for B, his leather jacket [Armor Rating 5] just barely allows
him to shrug off the worst of A's shot, taking a Flesh Wound instead.
--
Michael Schwartz msch...@mindspring.com Ann Arbor, MI
==================================================================
"What if life actually *was* fair, and we somehow deserved all the
truly awful things that happened to us?" -- Marcus Cole, Babylon 5
Viktor Haag
Warren Grant wrote:
>
> On Mon, 19 Jan 1998 11:23:06 -0500, Viktor Haag <vik...@peergroup.com>
> wrote:
>
> >(a) Combat requires one roll from the attacker and one from the defender.
> >possible with nasty weapons and good rolls, as are flesh wounds from the
> >same weapons (with bad rolls).
>
> interests me the most. How can one roll define all of these variables
By depending heavily on pre-calculated traits.
A character has a value for Unarmed Damage (fist, foot, elbow, knee, etc.
attacks) and for Armed Dmage (knife, club, etc. attacks), based on a
combination of Skill (hand to hand skill, and melee skill) and attribute
values. Also, a character's choice of weapon will modify the Armed Damage
rating.
Characters also have a series of "wounding" scores, based on multiples of
their "Stamina" which is, in turn, based upon a pair of attributes:
Flesh Wound Score is half stamina
Deep Wound Score is stamina
Instant Death is double stamina.
Finally, characters have a "system shock" trait based on their health.
It'll help to have two character sketches at this point:
Bob Doug
Build attrib. +0 +1
Health attrib. +0 +0
Combat Sense 1 2
HTH Skill 2 0
Melee SKill 1 0
UDamage 5 3
ADamage 4 3
Stamina 25 25
Flesh Wnd 13 13
Deep Wnd 25 25
Death 50 50
Sys. Shock 5 5
Bob and Doug get into a fist fight (not good for Doug, for although he's a
Mercenary, he has no hand to hand skill!).
Turn 1:
Initiative roll:
Bob rolls 4 and has no attribute bonus == 4
Doug rolls 2, 5 and has an attribute bonus of +1 == 6
Doug gets to act first
Doug's attack roll is a 2,3 and he must take the 2 since he's unskilled.
However, he does get to add +1 for his agility attribute, so his attack
total is a 3. Bob's defense roll is 4,5 +1 for his agility, so his defense
total is 6. Doug's attack misses.
Now it's Bob's turn. He rolls 6,6, +1 for his agility so his attack total
is 8 (6 plus 1 for the extra six plus one for his attribute). Doug's
defense roll is a 1, 6. Normally this would be a six, but since he has no
HTH skill, Doug must eat the 1 and fumbles. His defense total is 0 (fumble
results always produce a 0). Bob's margin of success is 8 (his attack roll
of 8 minus Doug's defense roll of 0). His margin of success of 8 times his
unarmed damage of 5 produces an attack of 40 points of severity.
This exceeds Doug's Flesh Wound score of 13, so it's greater than a flesh
wound. It exceeds Doug's Deep Wound score of 25, so it's at least a Deep
Wound. It is less (lucky for Doug) than Doug's Instant Death score of 50.
The punch results in a Deep Wound against Doug. Ouch.
Doug records the deep wound. He now has a wound penalty of -2 to all his
physical activity because of the deep wound, and must mark off 2 of his
System Shock points. Once Doug has no System Shock points left he's hors de
combat, and in shock. If he ever sustains an attack of a severity more than
50, he'll die instantly.
Doug immediately checks to see if he falls unconscious. He makes a health
test agains a difficulty of 1. He rolls two dice (attribute test), and
rolls double-fours. This produces a four plus zero for his health
attribute, so a four. However, he must subtract his wound penalty of -2, so
his health test produces a 2. He just manages to stay conscious.
As you can see, a quick and deadly combat system. With no HTH skill, and a
physical wound penalty of -2 (which also applies to his intiative tests),
Doug's not going to last very long ...
Frank J. Perricone
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 19 Jan 1998 15:24:44 GMT, zzt...@uq.net.au (Travis Hall) wrote:
> You mentioned that you have sold a few copies of this game for the cost of
> the binding. Would it be possible to get a copy? I'd be quite interested
> to see how you have implemented the idea. If you have it in electronic
> form, it would probably be easiest to e-mail it and I can handle printing.
> I'm good at that.
I don't have any printed copies left at the moment (that's why I am sure I
sold 250 :) but I am planning on putting the whole thing up as a web site
pretty soon. The files are not really nice right now: they're umpteen
versions of Word behind and some of the graphics and stuff are out of date.
And there are some typos I'd like to correct after all these years. (This
was first written in 1992 in this form, after a few years of development
and testing.) I'll post an announcement or something when I've done that.
> Also, if you like having classes to choose from during character creation
> (you know, for when the character you are constructing *does* fit a given
> class to a 'T'), it should be easy enough to construct a list of classes
> by assigning them appropriate aptitudes. And if the class is close, but
> not quite right (as is often the case), you can just tweak the class's
> aptitudes to make it work.
Well, I had that originally back when *all* you bought was aptitudes. But
in Prism, you spend character points on those things that are fairly
permanent: stats, abilities, weaknesses, and aptitudes. So you don't know
how many points you'll have for aptitudes, so predefined class templates
don't really work. Don't really help, either; since there's just ten
aptitudes to buy, it doesn't save time to use them. So I dropped them.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: public key: finger hawt...@maple.sover.net, or on my web page
iQB1AwUBNMPPfsyfEemBueK1AQGCFgL9HQDjTge2Oh7CvBpOOyhgHu4Ekcz5p0VA
3zev9DS/YnnFphnTmnqdd4zI4XYC2qX3UeynKS5Hj+lq2zoMZOg7cydqZXyEjJ/h
GqS3V0XMsoZwL6e/OzLIBf4Ce7g71xcf
=JApV
Travis Casey
Viktor Haag <vik...@peergroup.com> wrote:
>Warren Grant wrote:
>> Viktor Haag <vik...@peergroup.com> wrote:
>>
>> >(a) Combat requires one roll from the attacker and one from the defender.
>> >This one, opposed, roll tells you whether or not you hit, how hard you hit,
>> >and how severely the wound affects the target. Instant kills are quite
>> >possible with nasty weapons and good rolls, as are flesh wounds from the
>> >same weapons (with bad rolls).
>>
>> Okay, nice explanation of the system. This is the aspect that
>> interests me the most. How can one roll define all of these variables
>> so effectively? If you could, please explain...
[much cut to appease the bandwidth gods]
>Turn 1:
>Initiative roll:
> Bob rolls 4 and has no attribute bonus == 4
> Doug rolls 2, 5 and has an attribute bonus of +1 == 6
> Doug gets to act first
>
>Doug's attack roll is a 2,3 and he must take the 2 since he's unskilled.
>However, he does get to add +1 for his agility attribute, so his attack
>total is a 3. Bob's defense roll is 4,5 +1 for his agility, so his defense
>total is 6. Doug's attack misses.
>
>Now it's Bob's turn. He rolls 6,6, +1 for his agility so his attack total
From this more detailed description, it seems that each round of combat
requires *six* rolls, not the two mentioned in the shorter description
above -- I think people were confused by your saying "combat requires
one roll from the attacker and one from the defender" -- they thought
you meant that each *round* of combat requires only one roll from each
side, rather than that each *attack* requires only one roll from each
side.
Many older systems determine both hits and their effects from only one
roll by each combatant, and some even do so with only one roll, period.
Thus, I don't think this can be considered very clever of the system's
designers -- although I *do* think that whoever first decided to combine
the "to hit" roll and the damage roll into one roll was clever.
From the longer description, I'd say that this combat system has combined
several good ideas from other systems, but not that it has done anything
truly original. (Please note that this isn't meant as a put-down -- just
an observation. Picking up good ideas from other games and combining
them properly is, IMHO, a mark of an excellent game designer.)
--
|\ _,,,---,,_ Travis S. Casey <efi...@io.com>
ZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ No one agrees with me. Not even me.
|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' visit the rec.games.design FAQ:
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) http://www.io.com/~efindel/design.html
Pardoz
On 19 Jan 1998 05:04:53 GMT, Paul F. Glenn <pgl...@orion.it.luc.edu> wrote:
>This sounds quite similar to CORPS, which I believe predates Conspiracy X.
It is, and it does (by quite a few years).
>Is there anyone familiar with both games who can confirm or reject any
>similarity?
There's some similarity, yes, but not enough to make one point
fingers, if you catch my drift - the systems are different enough that
it might well be just a case of parallel evolution.
--
UNIVERSALIST, n. One who forgoes the advantage of a Hell for persons
of another faith. (A. Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_)
http://www.io.com/~pardoz (Liaden Universe mailing list home page)
http://www.io.com/~pardoz/mythos.html (Mythos Adventure Archive)
http://www.io.com/~pardoz/macros.html (SLRN S-Lang Macro Archive)
Guild of Blades
> So what I was wondering was what particular mechanisms really stand out as being 'defining' mechanics. I'm especially interested in hearing from any designers on here who may have built a game around a particular
> mechanic or system just because it was clever.
Well, this makes for an interesting topic.
When we first started developing the Dark Realms we had the goal of
making a very simple system that used only 1 dice, yet offered many
possible random outcomes.
The end result we came upon was using ratios as the core mechanic. What
do I mean by ratios? Well, every skill, spell field or even Attack level
gets a rating. There are different factors that can go into the creation
of a rating, but when it comes time to play everything has a basic
rating. For example, weapons skill, strength, weapon type (including
metal it is made out of) all add up to give the character an Attack
Level, which is basically the character's attack rating. The higher
(more skill slots, which represent better training) an aptitude in doing
a task or skill, the higher of a rating the character would get in that
skill.
The skill rating (or Attack Level) then gets compared against the
difficulty factor (rating) of trying to accomplish the task. So for
instance, if a character was trying to track something through the
forest, the task of doing that tracking would get an arbitrary number
assigned it by the GM based off his judgement of the difficulty of that
task. The average difficulty was set at 5, then the GM simply decides
how much (many points) the difficulty factor of a task is above or below
average to accomplish. So a tracking skill of (x), or for this example 7
would get compared against a difficulty of (y), which lets call average
in this case, which is 5. The ratio is +2. (7 skill -5 diff).
This is where the Results Table plays such an important role in the
Dark Realms system. Having figured out what the ratio for a task is, the
GM or player rolls the D12 (the only dice in the game) and then cross
references that die result on the column on the Results Table that
stands for the ratio being used. There are columns on the Results Table
ranging from (-5) to (+10 & Above). This gives us a total of 84 possible
outcomes from the use of 1D12 and the whole system, weather it be Magic,
skills, attribute checks or combat can be simplified in the following
equation:
Skill - Difficulty factor= Ratio. Roll 1D12 and reference on Results
Table.
This also made it so when a player is rolling for their success, they
have absolutely no clue what roll they need to gain success. For only
the GM knows exactly how hard of a difficulty level they have assigned
to a task, and hence only he knows which column on the Results Table the
result of the die roll will be cross referenced with. The mathmatical
guessing game/numbers crunching (min/maxing)has been totally taken out
of the system and can not burden either players or GMs. The one Results
Table handles it all for them.
------
On a different mechanic in the Dark Realms, we decided that skill and
especially magic should not be limited in use to the descriptions we
wrote down. It had always seemed lime a limitation on creativity that
had built into nearly all RPGs. So, we utilized the concepts of Fields
for Mgic and Skills. Hence a Dark Realms character has "Skill Fields"
which represent a broad cross section of knowledge and can then learn
more traditional "skills" within that Skill Field. For instance, the
Skill Field of Smithing is the broad knowledge of knowing how to smelt
and forge metals into usable functions. having the Skill Field of
Smithing, the player could then have their character attempt anything
convievablly to do with smelting and forging metals. But Skill Fields
are limited to a rating of 2. For the character to get better at a task,
they must then learn specific Skill, such as Black Smithing or Weapon
Smithing to improve upon their basic Smithing knowledge.
Magic functions on the same premise. A Spelltwister does not gain
"Spells", they gain a "Spell Field". A Spell Field represents a broad
selection of wizardry pertaining to a certain topic. Examples of Spell
Fields would be: Fire, Water, Air, Earth, Necromancy, Detection and so
on. A Spelltwister with the Skill Field of "Fire" could then attempt to
cast any kind of spell that utilizes fire. So, there are no basic spell,
only whatever exacting magic the player can concieve of for use at a
given time to try and accomplish a particular thing. An actual "spell"
is a magic that a character has used many times and become proficient in
its use, thus granting the character bonuses to utilize their Spell
Field in such a practice (always simular) fashion.
----------
Ryan S Johnson,
Oh, and I've always liked CoC's insanity rules as well....
---------------------------------------------------
Guild of Blades Publishing Group
(Member of the GPA)
Contacts:
Ryan O. Johnson - President (sales & product inquires)
John L. Ross - Vice President (Web master)
Marisa K. Boese - Chief Editor
Web: http://www.guildofblades.com
e-mail: guildo...@guildofblades.com
Office: Guild of Blades
2002 E. Kalamazoo
Lansing, MI 48912
Phone: (517)267-1409
Bruce Sheffer
You are right that the system is optimal for resolving penetrating
damage which is why it is superior in that area (which is the topic of
the thread). Of course you have to want to know that kind of detail to
appreciate it.
As for slashing, edged weapons, you have to divide the damage by the
number of specific areas hit to see how far into the body the attack
penetrated. In essence, a slash over 3 areas because the equivalent of
being shot in all three areas.
Eric Brochu
In article <69vnfv$4jk$1...@bashir.ici.net>, Joseph Teller <f...@ici.net> wrote:
>
>Paul F. Glenn wrote in message <69umtl$jj9$1...@artemis.it.luc.edu>...
>
>>BTW, I like CORPS, but I find it a bit too detailed for my taste. But I
>>like almost rules-free systems where I can get 'em. So I guess I'd
>>nominate Amber diceless as a cool game mechanic. I like how you resolve
>>things based on rankings and plot, not based on any randomness.
>
>
>
>Although you are welcome to your opinion in regards to how to resolve
>things, do you realize that by eliminating any randomness from a game that
>you are losing a major level of realism from the game, as the universe (as
>quantum mechanics teaches us) is a place with random events from its core
>building blockson out to major events?
>
>multiple levels, by eliminating all randomness you are defeating the purpose
>of emulation.
This wasn't addressed to me, but you placed it in a public forum, so I'm
gonna respond anyway (I'm not trying to flame; I think this is a valid
topic, even if I disagree):
If RPGs are trying to "emulate" anything, it's fiction, not the real
world -- they're entertainment, not simulation. While verisimilitude is
an important quality in an RPG, it is a creative enterprise, not an
objective reflection of reality.
Are you seriously suggesting that AD&D (or any other RPG) actually
reflects the day-to-day life experiences of _anyone_?
Would you say a novel or a film fails to "emulate the real world,"
because (Burroughs aside) it was created entirely through a deliberate,
creative process rather than a random process? And if so, does this
make it a less desirable model for an RPG?
And if you want to bring quantum physics into this, the truth is,
randomness on a quantum level does not translate into randomness on
higher levels. The decay of an individual carbon-14 isotope is random;
the half-life of carbon-14 is not.
- Eric Brochu.
Eric Brochu
In article <69vqdi$r...@embla.diku.dk>,
Torben AEgidius Mogensen <tor...@diku.dk> wrote:
>To me "clever" mechanics are simple systems that achieve a good
>simulation of what they try to model. Hence, complex systems are not
>clever, even if they are good simulations, and not all simple systems
>are clever.
[snip]
>I have considered extending this idea to let skills and attributes
>have mutual positive feedback: The higher your attribute(s), the
>easier it is to increase your skill and the higher your skill is, the
>higher your attribute gets. You can e.g. let each skill have a primary
>and a secondary attribute (which may be the same) and let these
>determine the cost of increasing levels in the skill. Then, for
>e.g. every fifth level in a skill that has an attribute as primary and
>every tenth level in a skill that has an attribute as secondary will
>give you an increase in the attribute. This also to some extent
>handles the "similar skills" issue: Skills similar to those you
>already have are easier to learn than completely different skills.
I think we're seeing why clever mechanics are so rare. ;)
I think one of the best things about FUDGE is that it divorces
skills and attributes. Instead, it simply encourages players to
make up characters that make sense. Want to play a scientist?
Take a high Intelligence, Education and appropriate skills --
don't worry about defaults, attribute/skill bonuses, etc. And
yes, you could play a dumb-as-bricks nuclear physist, but it
wouldn't make sense, and where's the fun in that?
Of course, it supposes players won't try to min-max (the
prevention of which seems to be one of the main purposes of all
those attribute-skill systems anyway), but I've never seen a
system that tried to prevent it that worked, anyway. This system
is simple and it works very well to let you quickly make up the
character you envision.
- Eric Brochu
Bruce Sheffer
Maybe not an objective reflection, but certainly one of concensus. I
think the goal of a rpg should be to produce the result, and do it
consistantly, expected by the majority of the players. So a dropped
rock should not take 5 minutes to fall 10 feet on a 1 Gee world if the
players are expecting a realistic result. On the other hand if I lined
up 500 guys who survived storming a machine gun nest, the players might
think that survivability was expected and would want their characters to
be able to achieve the same result. What would be bad is if I gathered
those survivors from 50,000 comrades who died doing the same thing and I
as the game designer planned on setting their probability of success
based on the latter ratio. So a mechanic should reflect the perceived
or accepted rate of success.
Peter
Dave Nalle wrote:
>
> In article <jsneadEM...@netcom.com>, jsn...@netcom.com (John R.
> Snead) wrote:
>
> > okr...@usa.net wrote:
> >
> > : as being 'defining' mechanics. I'm especially interested in
> hearing from
> > : any designers on here who may have built a game around a particular
> > : mechanic or system just because it was clever.
> >
> > system in Eden Publication's Conspiracy X.
> >
> > It uses the now very common stats and skills both go from 1 (cripple/novice)
> > to 5 (one of the best on the planet).
>
> to be very troubling. More troubling is the idea that the difference
> between an average person and the best in the world is only 2 steps.
> This scale has become very popular, and I think that it inhibits
> roleplaying to some degree, because it makes it harder to use the
> mechanics to describe most characters in any detail. It also reduces the
> uniqueness of characters at least as represented in stats.
I agree with you here. On the other hand, a scale where the average
value is 10
will often lead to chunking, where several stat values are "grouped
together"
One Swedish RPG (Draker och Demoner) does this
stat group
0-8 1
9-12 2
13-16 3
17-20 4
21-? 5
Of course, if your DEX is 12, you have a better chance of making a DEX
saving
throw and someone with a DEX of 10, but you're still in the same group,
so you get the same bonus to combat skills as a DEX 10 (or DEX 9) person
does.
(you do learn them faster, however, but that's only after character
creation)
?-?
In the RPG skeleton system I've made, the human average is still 3,
because I think
that the lower values aren't that interesting. If you have a 1 in
something, you're
severaly crippled, if you have a 2, it's easy to notice. But the maximum
value for
a human isn't 5, it's 8. Non-humans can have higher values, but apart
from Strength
and Size, the system handles super-human stat values badly, so I tend to
say that
it can handle every genre except superheroes (and it can handle
superheroes like
Batman or Spiderman, but they're exceptions)
> Dave
Peter Knutsen
Peter
Joseph Teller wrote:
>
> Paul F. Glenn wrote in message <69umtl$jj9$1...@artemis.it.luc.edu>...
>
> >BTW, I like CORPS, but I find it a bit too detailed for my taste. But I
> >like almost rules-free systems where I can get 'em. So I guess I'd
> >nominate Amber diceless as a cool game mechanic. I like how you resolve
> >things based on rankings and plot, not based on any randomness.
>
> Paul:
>
> Although you are welcome to your opinion in regards to how to resolve
> things, do you realize that by eliminating any randomness from a game that
> you are losing a major level of realism from the game, as the universe (as
> quantum mechanics teaches us) is a place with random events from its core
> building blockson out to major events?
>
> And since a roleplaying game attempts to emulate the "real world" on
> multiple levels, by eliminating all randomness you are defeating the purpose
> of emulation.
I've never played Amber, but it seems to me that players who are
*really* good
at storytelling and visualising gets a huge advantage over less skilled
players.
Another thing is that roleplaying should enable you to play a character
different
from yourself. I.e. you should be able to play a skilled swordsman or
merchant,
and the outcome should not depend greatly on your personal haggling
ability
or ability to describe detailed feints and tricks, but on the skills
"haggling"
or "broadsword" on the skill list on your characters' sheet.
> Joe
Peter
Liki
Guild of Blades wrote in message <34C46D...@pilot.msu.edu>...
(healthy snippage...)
> Magic functions on the same premise. A Spelltwister does not gain
>"Spells", they gain a "Spell Field". A Spell Field represents a broad
>selection of wizardry pertaining to a certain topic. Examples of Spell
>Fields would be: Fire, Water, Air, Earth, Necromancy, Detection and so
>on. A Spelltwister with the Skill Field of "Fire" could then attempt to
>cast any kind of spell that utilizes fire. So, there are no basic spell,
>only whatever exacting magic the player can concieve of for use at a
>given time to try and accomplish a particular thing. (...)
Can you generally explain how damage for casting a fireball-like spell would
be determined, what limits might be imposed by the GM on the caster, etc.
etc. ? Thanx up front..
~Liki
Kevin J. Chase
In article <884996699....@dejanews.com>, <okr...@usa.net> wrote:
>So what I was wondering was what particular mechanisms really stand out
>as being 'defining' mechanics. I'm especially interested in hearing from
>any designers on here who may have built a game around a particular
>mechanic or system just because it was clever.
>
I'm not a designer, but I think I can provide some input here. One of
the most innovative mechanics I can think of was the all-in-one
rainbow-colored resolution chart from TSR's Gamma World, Third
Edition. For each skill (or whatever) level, there was one column
numbered from 0 to 99 (IIRC). You found your column, and rolled
percentile dice. High rolls ended up at the top of the column in the
red band (outstanding success), not-so-high in the orange band (far
above-average success), and so on, right down to black at the bottom
(tragic failure). This one table could handle combat, negotiations
and haggling, poisons and environmental hazards, puzzling out ancient
artifacts, and just about anything else that came up in the game.
(Success rolls in GURPS and various other games can also create this
range of successes, but this was the first mechanic I'd seen that
could do it, and the big colorful chart was a wonderful, intuitive
visual aid. You could estimate your chances immediately, although you
needed a copy of the chart in front of you.)
I think it was the poisons that caught my attention first. A poison
or environmental hazard had an Intensity (which determined which
column to use) and some amount of damage that it did. A roll in the
blue band (marginal success) would do the listed damage, while a roll
in the orange would do something like quadruple. I think it was
finally out of your system if it rolled in the black. Thus, a
low-damage, high-intensity poison would take a _long_ time to kill
you, but you would have a very hard time getting rid of it. This
modelled chronic wasting diseases well, too. It struck me mainly
because this was the second RPG I'd played (three guesses which was
first), and it was a revelation to find RPG poisons that did something
_other_ than Save-or-Die.
Of course, the armour rules were broken, but no one's perfect.
I don't know if this system was kept in the Fourth Edition, but I know
that a stripped-down version was used in Star Frontiers' Zebulon's
Guide Vol. 1 (effectively the beginnings of Star Frontiers, Second
Edition). I haven't seen it anywhere else.
--
k...@njcc.com ``Do not suspect that I am not Human.''
Paul MacDonald
Bruce Sheffer wrote:
>
> Paul MacDonald wrote:
> >
> > My problem with the Tri Tac system is that it kinda falls apart for
> > swung, edged weapons. It's great for bullets and arrows and the like.
> > Of course that system is optional...
> >
> > Paul MacDonald
>
> You are right that the system is optimal for resolving penetrating
> damage which is why it is superior in that area (which is the topic of
> the thread). Of course you have to want to know that kind of detail to
> appreciate it.
>
> As for slashing, edged weapons, you have to divide the damage by the
> number of specific areas hit to see how far into the body the attack
> penetrated. In essence, a slash over 3 areas because the equivalent of
> being shot in all three areas.
A thought came to me while pondering this. Since the body areas a
divided up into 6x6 grids you could determine the center of the blow
normally and the throw a d8 to determine the way the blade crosses the
silhouette. by referencing the following diagram:
8|1|2
7|*|3
6|5|4
If the number happens to land off the silhouette you still know where
the rest of the blade went.
A bit too cumbersome?
Paul MacDonald
Dangel Family
Michael T. Richter wrote:
> To me, these odds tables are a compelling mechanism for modelling skill vs.
> aptitude. Silhouette isn't perfect by far, but it is, in my opinion, one of
> the top three games in this regard.
What are the other two top games?
etho...@flash.net
In Article<6a3h88$1...@pluto.njcc.com>, <k...@pluto.njcc.com> write:
> In article <884996699....@dejanews.com>, <okr...@usa.net> wrote:
> >So what I was wondering was what particular mechanisms really stand out
> >as being 'defining' mechanics. I'm especially interested in hearing
from
> >any designers on here who may have built a game around a particular
> >mechanic or system just because it was clever.
> >
> >Rusty
>
> I'm not a designer, but I think I can provide some input here. One of
> the most innovative mechanics I can think of was the all-in-one
> rainbow-colored resolution chart from TSR's Gamma World, Third
> Edition. For each skill (or whatever) level, there was one column
> numbered from 0 to 99 (IIRC). You found your column, and rolled
> percentile dice. High rolls ended up at the top of the column in the
> red band (outstanding success), not-so-high in the orange band (far
> above-average success), and so on, right down to black at the bottom
> (tragic failure).
They used that in Gamma World as well as Marvel Super Heroes?
Interesting to know.
Eric the .5b
Everyone's Shadow
<snip>
Thank you Mr Richter. That was very useful. You should have a dedicated
games review page :-) (I'm a great fan of CoD)
I'm now /very/ interested in the Silhouette system - it's a pity the
settings don't appeal.
Does anyone know if DP9 have plans for another game using the system?
> To me, these odds tables are a compelling mechanism for modelling skill
vs.
> aptitude. Silhouette isn't perfect by far, but it is, in my opinion, one
of
> the top three games in this regard.
What are the other two? I'd guess CORPS was one.
Jeremy
Brad Thurkettle
Viktor Haag wrote in message <34C37DEA...@peergroup.com>...
>
>Here's a synopsis of the Silhouette system:
Thanks to Michael & Viktor both your posts were informative. (Which is
something good for this ng)
I would agree it is a very elegant mechanic. Probably not as simple as a
roll dice, add stat, add skill and compare to target number but probably a
better simulation of how skilled people can more predictably achieve
results.
I also like the Combat Sense roll.
Cheers
Brad
Michael T. Richter
Aargh! I hate it when people both e-mail and post!
I'll copy from my e-mail to you:
Another mechanism for modeling skill vs. aptitude is to use the aptitude to
either restrict skills (which Silhouette does in part) or to at least make
skills more expensive past a certain point.
In the first camp we have CORPS. CORPS divides its skills into primary,
secondary and tertiary levels. Secondary skills are specialized
sub-divisions of primary skills while tertiary skills are specialized
sub-divisions of secondary skills. As an example a
primary/secondary/tertiary split might be Melee Weapons/Thrown
Weapons/Knives. Primary skills are given a default level equal to
one-quarter of the controlling attribute (rounded down). They are limited
to a maximum level of the controlling attribute. Secondary skills default
to 0 and are added to the primary skill they're attached to. They are
restricted to a maximum level of one half the primary skill (rounded down).
Tertiary skills default to 0 and are limited to half the attached secondary
skill. (There are other reasons related to skill costs to branch into
secondary and tertiary skills, of course.)
Using the skill split given above, a person with an Agility rating of 7
would default to skill level 1 in Melee Weapons and could go to skill level
7. He would then be forced into secondary branching and could elect to take
Thrown Weapons up to level 3. He would then be forced to branch again and
could elect to take Knives up to level 1. This means that he would wind up
having an effective skill level of 11 when throwing knives, level 10 when
throwing, say, hand grenades and level 7 when bashing somebody over the head
with a pool cue.
In another completely different school, the latest version of C&S has its
Skillscape system. This system, although a tad bookwork-intensive for my
tastes, has a wonderful blend of attributes affecting skill costs by
altering the difficulty level of skills. If you don't meet the minimum
requirements for a skill, you can still learn the skill -- you just have to
expend more character points (which themselves model time and effort) to do
so. Thus if you *really* want to swing that two-hander without being a
muscle-bound oaf, you could do so but your other skills will suffer for your
bloody single-mindedness. If this system were robbed for another game and
given less book-intensive mechanisms, it would probably be my overall
favorite.
Dangel Family wrote in message <34C56BF3...@erols.com>...
>
>
>Michael T. Richter wrote:
>
>> To me, these odds tables are a compelling mechanism for modelling skill
vs.
>> aptitude. Silhouette isn't perfect by far, but it is, in my opinion, one
of
>> the top three games in this regard.
>
> What are the other two top games?
>
Tim Dedeaux
Peter <pet...@post1.tele.dk> wrote:
> Joseph Teller wrote:
>> Paul F. Glenn wrote in message <69umtl$jj9$1...@artemis.it.luc.edu>...
> I've never played Amber, but it seems to me that players who are
> *really* good
> at storytelling and visualising gets a huge advantage over less skilled
> players.
Preventing this is, in my opinion, the GM's #1 job in any diceless game.
I play almost exclusively diceless these days (it's easier on everyone,
because we usually have little time to learn new game systems, there's
often not a system that we can all agree on being just right for the
adventure at hand, and one of our players is legally blind), and this is a
big, important thing in cooperative games.
This issue of storytelling and visualising isn't important in "the
pc's are equals, fight each other just for the heck of it" tactics games
(which are very quick and usually no-brainers), but in a storylines or
campaigns (and especially with newer players), the GM has to rule with a
velvet gloved iron hand to keep a weak character whose player is good at
tactics and description from slaughtering a strong character whose player
is a novice at such things.
I'll admit that this is a big danger with diceless games, and it
may prove disruptive in the early days of the game, but it can be
overcome if the GM is vigilant enough. Diceless games involve a great
deal of trust and cooperation between the players and the GM. This trust
and cooperation can be the safety net that catches the campaign when
problems like this come up.
> Another thing is that roleplaying should enable you to play a character
> different from yourself. I.e. you should be able to play a skilled
> swordsman or merchant, and the outcome should not depend greatly on
> your personal haggling ability or ability to describe detailed feints
> and tricks, but on the skills "haggling" or "broadsword" on the skill
> list on your characters' sheet.
Being able to play a swordsman or merchant should depend on concept,
visualization, and skill selection, not on personal haggling ability or
personal swordsmanship. That much is true (I think just having the skills
on the character sheet is just a little oversimplified). A little research
or knowledge should go into every character, otherwise you just have the
player saying "I uh, do like, forensic stuff and find out who killed her,
or, something."
I have noticed, however, that most of the time (in diceless games), the
players make characters who can do the things they've only read up on.
College students who read up on the physics of space flight play
starfighter pilots; dabblers in martial arts play mighty warriors who
perform with ease manuevers that would but the players in traction if
they even thought about trying them; somebody who just read a book on
forensics plays a medical examiner, and so on.
Role-playing characters different from yourself should entail more than
grabbing a couple of skills from a list, otherwise the player is going to
miss out on really being able to "get into" the role and explore the
possibilities of being "the world's greatest consulting detective." In my
experience, role-playing disparate characters is more fun with a little
research, or at least previous knowledge, and after all, isn't fun what
this whole game is about?
--
Timothy
Dedeaux T H I S S P A C E F O R R E N T
tdedeaux
@mc.edu
Terry Austin
"Michael T. Richter" <mric...@rogers.wave.ca> wrote:
>In another completely different school, the latest version of C&S has its
>Skillscape system. This system, although a tad bookwork-intensive for my
>tastes, has a wonderful blend of attributes affecting skill costs by
>altering the difficulty level of skills. If you don't meet the minimum
>requirements for a skill, you can still learn the skill -- you just have to
>expend more character points (which themselves model time and effort) to do
>so. Thus if you *really* want to swing that two-hander without being a
>muscle-bound oaf, you could do so but your other skills will suffer for your
>bloody single-mindedness. If this system were robbed for another game and
>given less book-intensive mechanisms, it would probably be my overall
>favorite.
>
Just a technical note: The only "minimum requirement" for a skill,
i.e., the only thing affecting its difficulty, is character vocation
(which vaguely resembles class, but only *very* vaguely), and whether
or not it is a Mastery skill (one of the 2-5 or so skills you are best
at). Thus, if you *really* want to swing that two-hander even though
you're a Power Word mage, you could do so, but your other skills (the
magical ones, that is) will suffer for your bloody single-mindedness.
Other than that, right on.
(Attributes do affect hit percentages and damage, but not as
importantly as vocation.)
---------------------------------
-- Terry Austin, Grand Inquisitor, Loyal Order of Chivalry & Sorcery
Hyperbooks Online http://www.hyperbooks.com/
VDS (Vehicle Design System) by Greg Porter at BTRC
Paradox Equation, by Sharon L Reddy
- Download the first book for free!
Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y
In article <6a41dp$rnf$1...@news.on>, Michael T. Richter <m...@ottawa.com> wrote:
>Aargh! I hate it when people both e-mail and post!
That's funny, I sort of prefer to get that kind of reply since it guarantees
I'll actually see the reply.
>In the first camp we have CORPS. [...]
Ah, one of my favorite systems. I use it for everything. Of course, I
*also* use GURPS (modified with a mess of house rules) for everything,
*and* I use a bunch of more specialized systems for everything as well.
>[...] Primary skills are given a default level equal to
>one-quarter of the controlling attribute (rounded down).
Well, rounded nearest actually, if you'll allow me to nitpick, so your example
below is a bit off (a character with 7 AGL defaults to skill level 2 in Melee).
[snippety]
>Using the skill split given above, a person with an Agility rating of 7
>would default to skill level 1 in Melee Weapons and could go to skill level
>7. He would then be forced into secondary branching and could elect to take
>Thrown Weapons up to level 3. He would then be forced to branch again and
>could elect to take Knives up to level 1. This means that he would wind up
>having an effective skill level of 11 when throwing knives, level 10 when
>throwing, say, hand grenades and level 7 when bashing somebody over the head
>with a pool cue.
>In another completely different school, the latest version of C&S has its
>Skillscape system. This system, although a tad bookwork-intensive for my
>tastes, has a wonderful blend of attributes affecting skill costs by
>altering the difficulty level of skills. If you don't meet the minimum
>requirements for a skill, you can still learn the skill -- you just have to
>expend more character points (which themselves model time and effort) to do
>so. Thus if you *really* want to swing that two-hander without being a
>muscle-bound oaf, you could do so but your other skills will suffer for your
>bloody single-mindedness. If this system were robbed for another game and
>given less book-intensive mechanisms, it would probably be my overall
>favorite.
I may possibly grow to like 3rd edition C&S a lot. Haven't used it yet (but
may soon); it seems to combine a certain "retro charm" with a fairly detailed
system which is nowhere near as baroque and clunky as earlier editions (which
I know only by reputation) apparently were. Your description of its skill
system is a little bit off, though -- controlling attributes do not really
affect the cost of learning skills (well, a character's two primary vocational
attributes determine how many skills you can choose to "master" and get extra-
cheap; up to seven for the insanely talented born when the stars are right).
(Now if only the worthy folks at Highlander Designs had had a bit more
experience with desktop publishing software or whatever they used *before*
they published the rulebooks, the game might even look good; as it is, one
must not only be able to refrain from judging a book by its cover but also
by its internal layout and font choices in order to appreciate the game).
--
Leif Kj{\o}nn{\o}y | Skyclad: "Life's just a process of delamination,
www.pvv.org/~leifmk| stripping your hopes, dissecting them gently.
Math geek and gamer| I've opened my heart and to my consternation
GURPS, Harn, CORPS | when I peered inside it was small, dark and empty."
Torben AEgidius Mogensen
bro...@hercules.cs.uregina.ca (Eric Brochu) writes:
>I think we're seeing why clever mechanics are so rare. ;)
>I think one of the best things about FUDGE is that it divorces
>skills and attributes. Instead, it simply encourages players to
>make up characters that make sense.
This is basically back to the "GM/player decides" kind of rule which,
though it works well, is not really clever mechanics, since the
cleverness resides in the GM/player, not in the rule.
Additionally, I have a feeling that the reson you thought my idea
overly complicated is that you don't consider it necessary to model
what it tries to model. This is another issue entirely.
Torben Mogensen (tor...@diku.dk)
Michael T. Richter
Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y wrote in message <6a4nuu$odo$1...@due.unit.no>...
>> Aargh! I hate it when people both e-mail and post!
>That's funny, I sort of prefer to get that kind of reply since it
guarantees
>I'll actually see the reply.
On the other hand it makes me waste my time in the e-mailed private response
only to see that it was supposed to be public.
>>[...] Primary skills are given a default level equal to
>>one-quarter of the controlling attribute (rounded down).
>Well, rounded nearest actually, if you'll allow me to nitpick, so your
example
>below is a bit off (a character with 7 AGL defaults to skill level 2 in
Melee).
Oops. <blush> I knew that. Really, I did. Bad fingers! Bad fingers!
>I know only by reputation) apparently were. Your description of its skill
>system is a little bit off, though -- controlling attributes do not really
>affect the cost of learning skills (well, a character's two primary
vocational
Hmmm... I was typing that from memory (too lazy to go get the books from my
shelf), so I may have had some details wrong. If that is the case, it is
yet another game I have which modifies skill costs by governing attribute.
I could have sworn that it was C&S3, though...
<hasty reading>
...It looks like you're absolutely right. Now I have to go digging through
my games to see where I got this system of modifying skill costs by
attribute value from. (Or this could have come from one of my own house
modifications of C&S3. Or my brain may just have finally overdosed on
Micro$oft APIs and burned out.)
Bruce Sheffer
Paul MacDonald wrote:
>
> Bruce Sheffer wrote:
<snip>
> > As for slashing, edged weapons, you have to divide the damage by the
> > number of specific areas hit to see how far into the body the attack
> > penetrated. In essence, a slash over 3 areas because the equivalent of
> > being shot in all three areas.
>
> A thought came to me while pondering this. Since the body areas a
> divided up into 6x6 grids you could determine the center of the blow
> normally and the throw a d8 to determine the way the blade crosses the
> silhouette. by referencing the following diagram:
>
> 8|1|2
> 7|*|3
> 6|5|4
>
> If the number happens to land off the silhouette you still know where
> the rest of the blade went.
>
> A bit too cumbersome?
>
> Paul MacDonald
No,works great and is the method that I use. The only real problem with
the 6x6 grid is that each grided body area (chest, leg, head) will be
different widths so the same swing against an arm might cut across 3
inches and then six inches across the chest. This is why the body
charts work best for penetration in a single area. We are trying to
resolve this for the next edition. Now in slashes the damage tends to
be superficial, only affecting flesh and muscle which is easy to model
as straight hpt reduction. Its when you get into organs and bones that
you have problems.
Jon Bricker
In article <69vqdi$r...@embla.diku.dk>, tor...@diku.dk (Torben AEgidius
Mogensen) wrote:
> okr...@usa.net writes:
>
> >So what I was wondering was what particular mechanisms really stand out
> >as being 'defining' mechanics. I'm especially interested in hearing from
> >any designers on here who may have built a game around a particular
> >mechanic or system just because it was clever.
>
I do not know if thiswas brought up before but the combat system for Lace
& Steel still is the best I've every seen for fencing. Based on a set of
cards that really made you think of what you were doing. No other system,
that i've seen, has even come close.
--
Jon Bricker
Spam Block:: remove no-hormel from address to respond via e-mail
Martin Mertens
The German RPG "Das Schwarze Auge" has a neat mechanic that I'd label
'risky attack'. Basically, a combatant can announce a 'level x risky
attack', subtracting x from his effective skill for that attack and,
if succeeding after all, dishes out an additional x points of damage.
(I guess that various 'called shot'-mechanics have a similar concept.)
In my homebrew game, open-ended damage rolls are an integral feature.
The system is hit point based (but that's another discussion :-), with
weapons inflicting various amounts of D6s. If a die comes up with a
six, it is rerolled (the result being added up) until it comes up with
a 'non-six'. Example: Roll 6, 6, 4 with one die and inflict 16 hits.
This system (inspired by Warhammer) makes critical hit tables
redundant, as even a dragon can theoretically be slain with a single
hit (as it should be - IMHO). Considering that a sword does approx.
1D6 hits, and that a dragon has several hundred hit points, you'd have
to roll an awful lot of sixes, though. ;-(
Greetings, Martin
Eric Brochu
In article <6a4po8$s...@embla.diku.dk>,
>
>>I think we're seeing why clever mechanics are so rare. ;)
>
>>I think one of the best things about FUDGE is that it divorces
>>skills and attributes. Instead, it simply encourages players to
>>make up characters that make sense.
>
>This is basically back to the "GM/player decides" kind of rule which,
>though it works well, is not really clever mechanics, since the
>cleverness resides in the GM/player, not in the rule.
I agree -- up to a point. But while the cleverness could be said to
reside in the players, the system definately encourages this kind of
intellgent player input, rather than trying to force it through the
rules. The "cleverness" is in FUDGE's knowing where to let the rules drop
and let the players take over, and I think it does it quite well.
>Additionally, I have a feeling that the reson you thought my idea
>overly complicated is that you don't consider it necessary to model
>what it tries to model.
Again, I agree. I was just trying to be cute. I do consider any system
that tries to quantify and enforce what I think could be left to common
sense a needless complexity, but I don't fault you for trying, and I hope
my post didn't come across as sarcastic, because I didn't mean it that way.
- Eric Brochu.
Dangel Family
Between CORPS and Silhouette, which has the better mechanics? Which is the
better overall system (aside from setting)?
Guild of Blades
> > Magic functions on the same premise. A Spelltwister does not gain
> >"Spells", they gain a "Spell Field". A Spell Field represents a broad
>
> Can you generally explain how damage for casting a fireball-like spell would be determined, what limits might be imposed by the GM on the caster, etc. etc. ? Thanx up front..
Sure. To explain this I have to clarify that each column on the Results
Tbale has a range of number spread at random across the 12 different
rows (1D12). The hugher the ratio, the higher these numbers go. For
example, the highest number on the (-5 to -4) coulumn is a 3 and there
are a total of 9 (-)dashes. A dash represents failure for skill
resolution.
In combat, most offensive based spells can be translated directly from
"Spell Field" level into "Attack Level". Hence a spelltwister casting a
fireball at skill level of 7 would have a 7 Attack Level. The "fireball"
spell would also take 7 spell points to cast. It should also be noted
that mages do not have to use a Spell Field at its maximum level if they
wish to conserve on spell points. In fact, a spell may be cast at level
"zero", using no spell points, but also having a skill rating of zero.
It can still be used sucessfully at level zero if the difficulty isn't
to harsh. (i.e. skill level 0- difficulty of 2 still has the character
rolling for success on the -3 to -2 coulumn, which isn't terrable.
Anyway, the skill level of an offensive spell can usually be translated
directly into the "attack level" for the attack. So, in the above
example, if the target the fireball was aimed at had a Defense level of
4, then the attack would be resolved on the +2 to +3 column of the
Results Table. The number Result on the Results Table indicated by the
dice roll is the amount of damage inflicted (this can be added to or
subtracted from pending good armor or spell skills).
Ryan S Johnson
Michael Schwartz
Jeremy, aka "Everyone's Shadow" writes:
>I'm now /very/ interested in the Silhouette system - it's a pity the
>settings don't appeal. Does anyone know if DP9 have plans for another
>game using the system?
They have several, last I checked. Take a gander at their website for the
skinny on "Tribe 8" and "Lightyears", two new projects in developmental
stages.
Their URL is: http://www.dp9.com
--
Michael Schwartz msch...@mindspring.com Ann Arbor, MI
==================================================================
"What if life actually *was* fair, and we somehow deserved all the
truly awful things that happened to us?" -- Marcus Cole, Babylon 5
Klyfix
In article <6a04fp$g2c$1...@artemis.it.luc.edu>, pgl...@orion.it.luc.edu (Paul F.
Glenn) writes:
>
Also, randomness doesn't only come from dice-rolling. Take the
game Diplomacy--the fact that Turkey launches its attack on Russia in
the same turn I launch my attack on France is somewhat random. I
>didn't know he was going to do it, so to me it _is_ random--it just
>happened, without any knowledge on my part. Similarly, in Amber
>characters (and NPCs) do things that others don't know about. It's
>often random that 2 things, done independently, happen at the same
>time.
But as I recall of Diplomacy a goodly portion of the game is
manipulating the other players; you get Turkey to attack Russia, then you take
them both over for example. In the same sense, my concern with diceless play is
that it could become an exercise in GM manipulation; learning what they like
and what sort of stuff they respond to. If one can't read people well, or isn't
good at such manipulation, they're going to be at a disadvantage while those
who are good at that sort of thing will be in great shape.
V.S. Greene : kly...@aol.com : Boston, near Arkham...
John R. Snead
Jon Bricker (jeb...@no-hormel.eurekanet.com) wrote:
: In article <69vqdi$r...@embla.diku.dk>, tor...@diku.dk (Torben AEgidius
: Mogensen) wrote:
: > okr...@usa.net writes:
: >
: > >So what I was wondering was what particular mechanisms really stand out
: > >as being 'defining' mechanics. I'm especially interested in hearing from
: > >any designers on here who may have built a game around a particular
: > >mechanic or system just because it was clever.
: >
: I do not know if thiswas brought up before but the combat system for Lace
: & Steel still is the best I've every seen for fencing. Based on a set of
: cards that really made you think of what you were doing. No other system,
: that i've seen, has even come close.
Ever see an old FGU game called Flashing Blades? it's basically Three
Musketeers role-playing and has little to offer other than the single
best fencing system I've ever seen. Lots of rules for dirty tricks,
using cloaks and improvised weapons and other fun stuff. I *love* the
L&S sorcery deck, but for fencing it is pretty limited. Many-on-one
combat gets dull since you simply add all the attackers hands together,
and odd variations, dirty tricks and similar stuff are essentially
impossible.
-John Snead jsn...@netcom.com
Viktor Haag
Dangel Family wrote:
>
> Between CORPS and Silhouette, which has the better mechanics? Which is the
> better overall system (aside from setting)?
It depends entirely on what you're looking for. Silhouette's a fast-playing
but rather thin set of roleplaying rules that really doesn't extend *too*
far beyond a skill and combat system. The Jovian Chronicles advanced rules
supplement includes support for character "perks and flaws". JC also has
provides rules for character interaction with the game environment
(vaccuum, radiation, asphyxiation, etc). The 2nd ed. Heavy Gear rulebook
has incorporated some of these environmental rules as well.
CORPS on the other hand is an elegant system based on a rock solid simple
mechanic. However, like most of Greg Porter's games, it's extremely dense,
and he builds all sorts of wonderfully complex options on top of the
underlying mechanics. CORPS has much more detail than Silhouette, and is
designed as a "generic toolbox" system, like HERO or GURPS. CORPS also has
a more "realistic" or gritty feel than Silhouette. While combat in
Silhouette can be deadly, the system does scale well to the anime-style
backgrounds its designed for. CORPS was originally designed for a gritty,
conspiracy style campaign, and that flavour still shows through.
--
Viktor Haag The PEER Group, Inc.
mailto:vik...@peergroup.com Technical Writer
"Unlike serial-killer profiling, writing is a
lonely and depressing profession ..." Jose Chung
Paul F. Glenn
Klyfix (kly...@aol.com) wrote:
: But as I recall of Diplomacy a goodly portion of the game is
: manipulating the other players; you get Turkey to attack Russia, then you take
: them both over for example. In the same sense, my concern with diceless play is
: that it could become an exercise in GM manipulation; learning what they like
: and what sort of stuff they respond to. If one can't read people well, or isn't
: good at such manipulation, they're going to be at a disadvantage while those
: who are good at that sort of thing will be in great shape.
There is a great deal of manipulating in Diplomacy, but one's
manipulations don't always work. Maybe I didn't want Turkey to attack
Russia, and even tried to lobby against it, but it happens anyway. My
basic point was that, even without dice, unpredictable (and hence sort of
random) events happen because players and NPCs do things that others don't
expect when they don't expect them.
As to manipulation being a key part of the game, I think there's
some truth to that, and it doesn't bother me too much as long as its in
character. But it doesn't have to dominate. In the Amber campaign I've
played in, my character didn't want to be involved in the scheming at all,
so he wasn't manipulative, but I had a blast playing him. Maybe some
other characters were more influential or more powerful or more
successful; I didn't care. If you play a character you enjoy, power and
success aren't that important. And anyone who plays Amber to powergame is
missing the point.
Paul Glenn
pgl...@orion.it.luc.edu
"Once and for all, there is a great deal I do not want to know. Wisdom
sets bounds even to knowledge."
--Friedrich Nietzsche, "The Twilight of the Idols"
Michael W. Ryan
Dangel Family <dan...@erols.com> writes:
> Between CORPS and Silhouette, which has the better mechanics? Which is the
> better overall system (aside from setting)?
Woof. Tough one.
I have both. I like both. Both are good. I think it comes down to
preferences.
I tend to lean towards Silhouette mainly because I like how Silhouette
breaks up the attributes (I have a problem with intelligence and
perception ability being bound up in one attribute). I also find
that I can get a better handle on attribute and skill levels in
Silhouette.
One area in which you might find CORPS the better choice is that its
skill levels less granular than Silhouette. By this I mean that
there's a finer division between levels of skill. I.e. unskilled to
elite in Silhouette ranges from 0 to 4, while the same range in CORPS
would be 1 to 10.
I also think that Silhouette has a more "casual" feel (in gameplay
style, not in production value) than CORPS. For me, right now, this
is preferable.
--
Michael W. Ryan
Email: mr...@netaxs.com WWW: http://www.netaxs.com/~mryan/
PGP fingerprint: 7B E5 75 7F 24 EE 19 35 A5 DF C3 45 27 B5 DB DF
PGP public key available by fingering mr...@unix.netaxs.com (use -l opt)
Michael T. Richter
Viktor Haag wrote in message <34C76D18...@peergroup.com>...
>> Between CORPS and Silhouette, which has the better mechanics? Which is
the
>> better overall system (aside from setting)?
>It depends entirely on what you're looking for. Silhouette's a fast-playing
>but rather thin set of roleplaying rules that really doesn't extend *too*
>far beyond a skill and combat system. The Jovian Chronicles advanced rules
>supplement includes support for character "perks and flaws". JC also has
>provides rules for character interaction with the game environment
>(vaccuum, radiation, asphyxiation, etc). The 2nd ed. Heavy Gear rulebook
>has incorporated some of these environmental rules as well.
>CORPS on the other hand is an elegant system based on a rock solid simple
>mechanic. However, like most of Greg Porter's games, it's extremely dense,
>and he builds all sorts of wonderfully complex options on top of the
>underlying mechanics. CORPS has much more detail than Silhouette, and is
>designed as a "generic toolbox" system, like HERO or GURPS. CORPS also has
>a more "realistic" or gritty feel than Silhouette. While combat in
>Silhouette can be deadly, the system does scale well to the anime-style
>backgrounds its designed for. CORPS was originally designed for a gritty,
>conspiracy style campaign, and that flavour still shows through.
Erm...
Me too!
:-)
Bill McHale
Dangel Family (dan...@erols.com) wrote:
: Between CORPS and Silhouette, which has the better mechanics? Which is the
: better overall system (aside from setting)?
Well, in my opinion Silhouette is the better system, though it does not
have anything like many of the powers and advantages that Corps has.
However the opposed role mechanic is just so elegant...
--
Bill
***************************************************************************
(question == (2b || !2b)); If Shakespeare was a C programmer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home page - http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~wmchal1
***************************************************************************
Travis S. Casey
>I tend to favor a 1-10 scale for normal humans. Simple and straightforward.
I agree, almost... I use a 0-10 scale for normal humans, with 0 being
no ability (e.g., the agility of a completely paralyzed person), 5 being
average, and 10 being human maximum for attributes.
For skills, I use a scale where 0 is no training/experience, 5 is
"professional" level, and 10 qualifies you as one of the best in the
world. The *very* best in the world might have an 11. Higher skill
ratings are also possible for characters who aren't from this world...
e.g., an alien from a more advanced civilization visiting Earth would
be considered to have some of his skills higher than 10 in an Earth-based
campaign -- he/she/it knows more in those fields than any Earthling.
--
|\ _,,,---,,_ Travis S. Casey <efi...@io.com>
ZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ No one agrees with me. Not even me.
|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' Keeper of the rec.games.design FAQ:
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) http://www.io.com/~efindel/design.html
Dangel Family
Michael T. Richter wrote:
> Bill McHale wrote in message <6aa6pg$eg3$2...@news.umbc.edu>...
> >: Between CORPS and Silhouette, which has the better mechanics? Which is
> the
> >: better overall system (aside from setting)?
>
> I'd have to ask "better for what?" before answering a question like that.
> If I wanted a gritty, realistic game--especially a game set in a modern
> setting--I'd vote CORPS hands-down over Silhouette. If I want a game more
> suited to slightly larger than life action up to totally cinematic action
> I'd vote Silhouette.
Setting aside the realistic vs. cinematic distinction, which of the two has
the better mechanics, is more extensible, has the best supplements, on-line
sites, etc. Which of the two is a more worthwhile time investment to learn,
use, modify, develop. I guess which of the two is "better" in a generic
sense?
Michael T. Richter
Bill McHale wrote in message <6aa6pg$eg3$2...@news.umbc.edu>...
>: Between CORPS and Silhouette, which has the better mechanics? Which is
the
>: better overall system (aside from setting)?
>Well, in my opinion Silhouette is the better system, though it does not
>have anything like many of the powers and advantages that Corps has.
>However the opposed role mechanic is just so elegant...
I'd have to ask "better for what?" before answering a question like that.
Alan D Kohler
On Mon, 19 Jan 1998 15:37:43 -0500, msch...@mindspring.com (Michael
Schwartz) wrote:
>Warren Grant writes in response to Viktor Haag:
>
>>>This one, opposed, roll tells you whether or not you hit, how
>>>hard you hit, and how severely the wound affects the target.
>>
>>This is the aspect that interests me the most. How can one roll
>>define all of these variables so effectively?
>
>Damage in Silhouette is determined by multiplying the Margin of Success by
>the weapon's Damage Multiplier and comparing it to the target's Stamina
>(which may be modified by armor) as follows:
(Snip)
>A has a Margin of Success of 2, for a Damage score of [MoS 2 x DM 15 =]
>30. B's Stamina is 30, meaning he would normally have taken a Deep Wound.
>Fortunately for B, his leather jacket [Armor Rating 5] just barely allows
>him to shrug off the worst of A's shot, taking a Flesh Wound instead.
A leather jacket allowed him to shrug of a she the worst of a pistol
shot..? I think there is a point beyond which some armors will fail to
do *any* good.
This brings up one point about my homebrew game, Guild & Empire, that
I am particularly fond of.
Weapons in G&E have a penetration rating and a damage rating,
separated by a slash. for example, 8/5 would be a typical medium
pistol, having a penetration value of 8 and damage rating of 5. Armor
is rated in AV.
When you hit a target in G&E subtract the penetration from the
victim's AV (just for the purposes of calulation - the armor does not
simply ablate away!). Then any remaining AV is subracted from damage
rating for that hit. The damage rating is, like your game, muliplied
by a level of success. IMO, this handles the characteristics of armor
and weapons better.
As an example, let's say you get you hit a target with a LOS of 3
(that's level of success... I won't go into my dice mechanics just
yet) with the above pistol. Let's say the target is wearing armor with
an AV of 10 (About that of a modern light ballistic cloth vest.)
First step: Subract PR from AV: 10 - 8 = 2. The armor that actually
gets applied to this attack is 2.
Second step: Subtract modified AV from DR. 5 - 2 = 3.
This number is multiplied by the level of success. 3 x 3 = 9. In my
system, that would be a medium wound.
By way of comparison, if that person had been wearing a leather jacket
(I haven't calculated AV for a leather jacket, but let's say for the
sake of argument it is 5 - that sounds about right.) The PR of the
round would have totally overcome any protective value of the leather
vest. All of the DR - 5 - gets through. This person would have taken 3
x 5 = 15 points. In my game, that is a severe wound.
Spam Filter Notice: Remove "REMOVE2REPLY" to reply by email.
Alan D Kohler <hwk...@REMOVE2REPLYpoky.srv.net>
New on my RPG Pages: The swashbuckling South Seas campaign!
General: http://poky.srv.net/~hwkwnd/homepage.html
Planescape: http://poky.srv.net/~hwkwnd/Plnscp.html
World of Trinalia: http://poky.srv.net/~hwkwnd/Trinalia.html
Alan D Kohler
On 23 Jan 1998 16:49:56 GMT, efi...@bermuda.io.com (Travis S. Casey)
wrote:
>>I tend to favor a 1-10 scale for normal humans. Simple and straightforward.
>
>I agree, almost... I use a 0-10 scale for normal humans, with 0 being
>no ability (e.g., the agility of a completely paralyzed person), 5 being
>average, and 10 being human maximum for attributes.
>
>For skills, I use a scale where 0 is no training/experience, 5 is
>"professional" level, and 10 qualifies you as one of the best in the
>world. The *very* best in the world might have an 11. Higher skill
>ratings are also possible for characters who aren't from this world...
>e.g., an alien from a more advanced civilization visiting Earth would
>be considered to have some of his skills higher than 10 in an Earth-based
>campaign -- he/she/it knows more in those fields than any Earthling.
Wow... a resounding "me too." You almost described my homebrew game.
"Guild & Empire" revolves around that scale for most human characters.
Skills tend to be a bit lower since they start out at zero ice the
human norm of 5, but most people who make their living using a skill
will have at least a 4 or 5 in it.
Alan D Kohler
>Bill McHale wrote in message <6aa6pg$eg3$2...@news.umbc.edu>...
>>: Between CORPS and Silhouette, which has the better mechanics? Which is
>the
>>: better overall system (aside from setting)?
>
>>Well, in my opinion Silhouette is the better system, though it does not
>>have anything like many of the powers and advantages that Corps has.
>>However the opposed role mechanic is just so elegant...
>
>I'd have to ask "better for what?" before answering a question like that.
>If I wanted a gritty, realistic game--especially a game set in a modern
>setting--I'd vote CORPS hands-down over Silhouette.
I've never played Silhouete - or CORPS. But just from what I have seen
here, I probably would never buy Silhouette. The dice system sounds
like it is as quirky probability-wise as WoD is. CORPS on the other
hand, sounds like its skills are arranged similar to my homebrew game,
and might be a game I would like.
FWIW.
ed
The noble hwk...@REMOVE2REPLY.poky.srv.net (Alan D Kohler) spake on the
day of Sat, 24 Jan 1998 04:21:35 GMT:
>>A has a Margin of Success of 2, for a Damage score of [MoS 2 x DM 15 =]
>>30. B's Stamina is 30, meaning he would normally have taken a Deep Wound.
>>Fortunately for B, his leather jacket [Armor Rating 5] just barely allows
>>him to shrug off the worst of A's shot, taking a Flesh Wound instead.
>
>A leather jacket allowed him to shrug of a she the worst of a pistol
>shot..? I think there is a point beyond which some armors will fail to
>do *any* good.
Joseph Wambaugh once noted that the Police Issue .38 did in fact have a
habit of not being able to penetrate a good leather jacket. And even if
it did, it was not necessarily fatal, leading many Police Officers to
buy heavier caliber weapons.
ed
--
edh...@equus.demon.co.uk _//// http://www.equus.demon.co.uk/
o_/o /// For devilbunnies, Diplomacy, RPGS,
__\ ///__ Conspiring Rodents and other stuff
Michael Schwartz
Alan Kohler writes:
>A leather jacket allowed him to shrug off the worst of a pistol shot?
>I think there is a point beyond which some armors will fail to do
>*any* good.
I agree completely, but allow me to add this:
A's Margin of Success of 2, in this case, was significant enough to
incapacitate B *except* for the presence of B's armor. Had A achieved a
MoS of 3 or higher [Damage 45+] or targetted an unarmored location, B's
leather jacket would have been useless and he *would* have taken a Deep
Wound (or worse) regardless.
>This brings up one point about my homebrew game, Guild & Empire, that
>I am particularly fond of.
I'll point out that your homebrew mechanics entail more effort to compute.
While perhaps marginally more realistic, they would likely bog down
gameflow more than the Silhouette system.
They *would* adapt nicely to Silhouette, though, were a greater level of
realism desired. Any plans to make "Guild & Empire" available on the 'net?
Michael Schwartz
Alan Kohler writes:
I've never played Silhouete - or CORPS. But just from what I have seen
>here, I probably would never buy Silhouette. The dice system sounds
>like it is as quirky probability-wise as WoD is.
The die probabilities are fairly normal in Silhouette, albeit in a
distribution somewhere between a bell curve and a linear projection. Here
are the Silhouette probability figures for two different task difficulties
and for fumbles, which you'll find are considerably less skewed than those
of the Storyteller system (I'd post a set of Storyteller probability
figures which a friend and I did back when playtesting Vampire: the
Masquerade, but prefer to wait
Probabilities of success at an easy task (threshold = 3) with no modifiers
are as follows:
Percent Training/Skill Ratio
======= ============== =====
44.44% -- Unskilled (level 0) -- 16/36
66.67% -- Rookie (level 1) -- 04/06
88.89% -- Qualified (level 2) -- 32/36
96.30% -- Veteran (level 3) -- 208/216
98.77% -- Elite (level 4) -- 1280/1296
99.59% -- Legendary (level 5) -- 7744/7776
Probabilities of success at a moderate task (threshold = 4) with no
modifiers are as follows:
Percent Training/Skill Ratio
======= ============== =====
25.00% -- Unskilled (level 0) -- 09/36
50.00% -- Rookie (level 1) -- 03/06
75.00% -- Qualified (level 2) -- 27/36
87.50% -- Veteran (level 3) -- 189/216
93.75% -- Elite (level 4) -- 1215/1280
96.88% -- Legendary (level 5) -- 7533/7776
Fumble probabilities (which do not increase due to threshold) for
characters of a given skill are:
Percent Training/Skill Ratio
======= ============== =====
30.56% -- Unskilled (level 0) -- 11/36
16.67% -- Rookie (level 1) -- 01/06
2.78% -- Qualified (level 2) -- 01/36
0.46% -- Veteran (level 3) -- 01/216
0.08% -- Elite (level 4) -- 01/1296
0.01% -- Legendary (level 5) -- 01/7776
(For anyone who wonders how the ratio divisors were derived, the numbers
given are based on R ^ n (R raised to the power of n), where R = the
number of results possible per die (in this case, 6) and n = the number of
dice being rolled (in this case, equal to the skill level). Unskilled
tasks are rolled on two dice, but the lower result (rather than the
higher, as is typical) is kept.)
Michael T. Richter
Michael Schwartz wrote in message ...
>Probabilities of success at a moderate task (threshold = 4) with no
>modifiers are as follows:
> Percent Training/Skill Ratio
> ======= ============== =====
> 25.00% -- Unskilled (level 0) -- 09/36
> 50.00% -- Rookie (level 1) -- 03/06
> 75.00% -- Qualified (level 2) -- 27/36
> 87.50% -- Veteran (level 3) -- 189/216
> 93.75% -- Elite (level 4) -- 1215/1280
> 96.88% -- Legendary (level 5) -- 7533/7776
I have a little nit-pick here. The percentages are right in so far as they
go, but the "no modifiers" bit is impossible. If you have a level 3 skill,
you *must* have a governing stat of at least +1; level 4, +2; level 5, +3.
This is going to skew your charts somewhat. The modified results will be,
assuming minimal characteristics (approximately): Veteran: 96.3%, Elite &
Legendary: 99.9%.
In actuality, if you have a skill at Legendary level, you're almost, but not
quite, guaranteed to be able to perform any task of difficulty 6 or less.
--
Michael T. Richter - m...@ottawa.com - http://24.112.92.82/~mtr
"A man cannot live intensely except at the cost of the self"
Rick PIkul
In article <6aehf9$43f$1...@news.on>, "Michael T. Richter" <m...@ottawa.com> wrote:
>Michael Schwartz wrote in message ...
>>Probabilities of success at a moderate task (threshold = 4) with no
>>modifiers are as follows:
>
>> Percent Training/Skill Ratio
>> ======= ============== =====
>> 25.00% -- Unskilled (level 0) -- 09/36
>> 50.00% -- Rookie (level 1) -- 03/06
>> 75.00% -- Qualified (level 2) -- 27/36
>> 87.50% -- Veteran (level 3) -- 189/216
>> 93.75% -- Elite (level 4) -- 1215/1280
>> 96.88% -- Legendary (level 5) -- 7533/7776
>
>I have a little nit-pick here. The percentages are right in so far as they
>go, but the "no modifiers" bit is impossible. If you have a level 3 skill,
>you *must* have a governing stat of at least +1; level 4, +2; level 5, +3.
>This is going to skew your charts somewhat. The modified results will be,
>assuming minimal characteristics (approximately): Veteran: 96.3%, Elite &
>Legendary: 99.9%.
False, that restriction is on beginning characters only. When
spending experence you can increase your skills to any level you can afford.
The table is correct, although I doubt you will see any legendary skilled
characters with a 0 governing attribute.
Phoenix, FALH
Michael T. Richter
Tatiana Schwartz wrote in message ...
>>The percentages are right in so far as they go, but the "no modifiers"
>>bit is impossible. If you have a level 3 skill, you *must* have a
>>governing stat of at least +1; level 4, +2; level 5, +3.
>If you have a negative modifier which offsets the positive modifier
>provided by your above-average attribute, then a "no modifier" situation
>is possible.
True, but then the table doesn't put all o fthe people being tested on equal
footing and makes the percentage chance comparisons moot, doesn't it?
>Also, the "skill levels can be purchased no higher than the
>governing attribute plus two" limit applies to character creation *only*.
>It is possible to increase any skill to *any* level after play begins.
>Compare the tables from sections 3.4.3 and 3.9.2 if you are in need of
>clarification.
I disagree with this interpreteation. The rule in 3.4.3 says: "You cannot
purchase a skill at a level higher than its governing attribute plus two."
There is nothing in 3.4.3 which indicates that this applies only to
character generation and nothing in 3.9.2 indicates that this requirement
changes.
Oops. I just checked out HG2 and the rules there explicitly state that the
limitation applies only during character generation. I stand corrected.
>You are correct, but only for newly-created characters rather than those
>with in-game experience. Fortunately for you, this newsgroup is supplied
>with bungee cords, for just such an poorly-timed leap to conclusions... ;)
Well, to be fair the rules in HG1 and JC are terribly unclear on this point.
My error was not actually clear until HG2 came out *and* I read the little
bit of extra stuff they wrote in that one small section.
>>In actuality, if you have a skill at Legendary level, you're almost,
>>but not quite, guaranteed to be able to perform any task of difficulty
>>6 or less.
>Exactly why legends are as frightening as they are...
Hell, a level 4 is sufficiently frightening for my tastes. You're pretty
much guaranteed to roll a 5 or 6 and very likely to have a high attribute on
top of that.
Alan D Kohler
>Alan Kohler writes:
>
>>A leather jacket allowed him to shrug off the worst of a pistol shot?
>>I think there is a point beyond which some armors will fail to do
>>*any* good.
>
>I agree completely, but allow me to add this:
>
>A's Margin of Success of 2, in this case, was significant enough to
>incapacitate B *except* for the presence of B's armor. Had A achieved a
>MoS of 3 or higher [Damage 45+] or targetted an unarmored location, B's
>leather jacket would have been useless and he *would* have taken a Deep
>Wound (or worse) regardless.
>
>>This brings up one point about my homebrew game, Guild & Empire, that
>>I am particularly fond of.
>
>I'll point out that your homebrew mechanics entail more effort to compute.
>While perhaps marginally more realistic, they would likely bog down
>gameflow more than the Silhouette system.
>
>They *would* adapt nicely to Silhouette, though, were a greater level of
>realism desired. Any plans to make "Guild & Empire" available on the 'net?
Yes. Right now I am in school, so progress is slow. I feel like the
general skill system and basics of the combat system are a strong
system, but I think I need to simplify some of the combat mechanics
(*not* the PR/DR mechanic, which I find realistic and not that
difficult in exectution...) I intend it as a classic to hard SF game
in the tradition of traveller, but the Task sytem is percentile based.
Alan D Kohler
On Sat, 24 Jan 1998 14:13:39 -0500, msch...@mindspring.com (Michael
Schwartz) wrote:
>Alan Kohler writes:
>
>I've never played Silhouete - or CORPS. But just from what I have seen
>>here, I probably would never buy Silhouette. The dice system sounds
>>like it is as quirky probability-wise as WoD is.
>
>The die probabilities are fairly normal in Silhouette, albeit in a
>distribution somewhere between a bell curve and a linear projection. Here
>are the Silhouette probability figures for two different task difficulties
>and for fumbles, which you'll find are considerably less skewed than those
>of the Storyteller system (I'd post a set of Storyteller probability
>figures which a friend and I did back when playtesting Vampire: the
>Masquerade, but prefer to wait
>
>Probabilities of success at an easy task (threshold = 3) with no modifiers
>are as follows:
>
> Percent Training/Skill Ratio
> ======= ============== =====
> 44.44% -- Unskilled (level 0) -- 16/36
> 66.67% -- Rookie (level 1) -- 04/06
> 88.89% -- Qualified (level 2) -- 32/36
> 96.30% -- Veteran (level 3) -- 208/216
> 98.77% -- Elite (level 4) -- 1280/1296
> 99.59% -- Legendary (level 5) -- 7744/7776
>
>Probabilities of success at a moderate task (threshold = 4) with no
>modifiers are as follows:
>
> Percent Training/Skill Ratio
> ======= ============== =====
> 25.00% -- Unskilled (level 0) -- 09/36
> 50.00% -- Rookie (level 1) -- 03/06
> 75.00% -- Qualified (level 2) -- 27/36
> 87.50% -- Veteran (level 3) -- 189/216
> 93.75% -- Elite (level 4) -- 1215/1280
> 96.88% -- Legendary (level 5) -- 7533/7776
>
>Fumble probabilities (which do not increase due to threshold) for
>characters of a given skill are:
>
> Percent Training/Skill Ratio
> ======= ============== =====
> 30.56% -- Unskilled (level 0) -- 11/36
> 16.67% -- Rookie (level 1) -- 01/06
> 2.78% -- Qualified (level 2) -- 01/36
> 0.46% -- Veteran (level 3) -- 01/216
> 0.08% -- Elite (level 4) -- 01/1296
> 0.01% -- Legendary (level 5) -- 01/7776
See, I find this intuitively inobvious (but not so much so as WoD is.)
I much prefer percentile systems, where the probability chance of
success is inherently obvious, making it much easier, IMO, for the GM
to handle tasks on the fly.
Quite honestly, the only "multiple dice" system that I really think
does a good job is FUDGE... and while I like FUDGE, it is a little
grainy for my taste.
Regrettably, most percentile systems have fallen by the wayside of
late... and I can see why. Most percentile based systems are a bit too
simple (there is such a thing) or inelegant. But the G&E task systems
combines the best aspects of percentile and success based systems.
All IMO, of course.
Michael Schwartz
Alan Kohler writes:
>See, I find this intuitively inobvious; I much prefer percentile
>systems, where the probability...is inherently obvious, making it
>much easier for the GM to handle tasks on the fly.
There is no such thing as "intuitive probabilities"; the only reason a
given die mechanic feels more or less "intuitive" than another is due to
the individual's familiarity and comfort with the math behind it.
Calculate the probabilities for *any* die mechanic and it becomes just as
"intuitive."
>Quite honestly, the only "multiple dice" system that I really think
>does a good job is FUDGE...
Because FUDGE uses a static number of dice regardless of skill level, it
is not strictly a "multiple dice" system as you suggest. Probabilities in
FUDGE map as a normal bell curve, much like GURPS or Hero System. The
Silhouette probability curve maps very differently (sorry I can't graph it
here properly; it would make more sense were a visual model available).
Storyteller, Shadowrun and the D6 System are the only other "multiple
dice" systems I can recall. Compared to the Silhouette engine, both
Storyteller and Shadowrun have problems which can be fixed by tweaking the
fumble mechanic. The D6 System would have probabilities similar to
Silhouette save for the inclusion of the "wild die", which add substantial
complexity to the model.
>Regrettably, most percentile systems have fallen by the wayside of
>late... and I can see why. Most percentile based systems are a bit too
>simple or inelegant.
RuneQuest...Call of Cthulhu...HarnMaster...Blue Planet...James Bond 007.
All detailed, all elegant, all percentile-based. Of these, only James Bond
007 is effectively no longer in circulation, although whether the latest
edition of RuneQuest (currently under development) will retain the
percentile mechanic of previous versions can only be answered by TAHGC.
>The G&E task system combines the best aspects of percentile- and
>success-based systems. All IMO, of course.
Of course you would say that. Spoken like a true game designer... :)
Alan D Kohler
>Alan Kohler writes:
>
>>See, I find this intuitively inobvious; I much prefer percentile
>>systems, where the probability...is inherently obvious, making it
>>much easier for the GM to handle tasks on the fly.
>
>There is no such thing as "intuitive probabilities"
Never said that there was. Did I ever use that phrase? I said the
probabilities were inherently obvious in percentile system.
As an illustration, off the top of your head, what target number in
WoD would you need for a trait level total of 5 to have about a 50%
chance of getting 1 or more success. By tapping on my calculator a few
times, I can find that find that 8 or 9 is about the number that you
are looking for. But doing that several times in a game session would
slow things down immensely.
Now let's take a simple perctile system, say rolemaster. What modifier
would I need to give a character with a +60 skill mod a 50% chance of
success. More or less, -10. Now that's obvious. Perhaps not
"intuitive," becasue I did do a calculation, but the math is math that
I could do in my head without consulting my calculator and disrupting
the flowof the game.
>; the only reason a
>given die mechanic feels more or less "intuitive" than another is due to
>the individual's familiarity and comfort with the math behind it.
>Calculate the probabilities for *any* die mechanic and it becomes just as
>"intuitive."
No it does not. Calculations are, *dy definition*, not intuitive.
Having to haul a notecard around so you can gauge what would make a
challenging task for a character with a certain skill does not make
the process more intuitive. Sure, carying around a notecard may be no
big loss, but I see no big gain by using dice systems that vary the
number of dice just becasue they are "neat."
>>Quite honestly, the only "multiple dice" system that I really think
>>does a good job is FUDGE...
>
>Because FUDGE uses a static number of dice regardless of skill level, it
>is not strictly a "multiple dice" system as you suggest. Probabilities in
>FUDGE map as a normal bell curve, much like GURPS or Hero System.
Actually, the curve is much shallower - and IMO, more suited to the
task of handling game mechanics - than rolling 3d6. However, you are
right. FUDGE uses a static number of dice like many systems that went
before it. Unlike many systems that went before it, its designer
obviously knows about, thought about, and applied some knowledge of
probability.
I personally find nearly any system that varies the number of dice,
either for skill or attribute level (like WoD or Star Wars) or
difficulty level (like T4) to be attrocious dice mechanics for running
a game. It is difficult to gauge the effects of task difficulty or
attribute level on the outcome, and when those factors do vary, the
resulting effect on the probability of the outcome do not reflect
reality well, IMO. I think most such system have elegance as a selling
point, but they really have some problems making a realistic
simulation. I bet WoD's designer thought the WoD dice system was quite
"elegant," but a quick tabulation of the probabilities (esp. regarding
botches) reveal how broken it is.
> The
>Silhouette probability curve maps very differently (sorry I can't graph it
>here properly; it would make more sense were a visual model available).
>
>Storyteller, Shadowrun and the D6 System are the only other "multiple
>dice" systems I can recall. Compared to the Silhouette engine, both
>Storyteller and Shadowrun have problems which can be fixed by tweaking the
>fumble mechanic. The D6 System would have probabilities similar to
>Silhouette save for the inclusion of the "wild die", which add substantial
>complexity to the model.
>
>>Regrettably, most percentile systems have fallen by the wayside of
>>late... and I can see why. Most percentile based systems are a bit too
>>simple or inelegant.
>
>RuneQuest...Call of Cthulhu...HarnMaster...Blue Planet...James Bond 007.
Never played blue planet, but of the remainder, I would only call
James Bond elegant myself.
>All detailed, all elegant, all percentile-based. Of these, only James Bond
>007 is effectively no longer in circulation, although whether the latest
>edition of RuneQuest (currently under development) will retain the
>percentile mechanic of previous versions can only be answered by TAHGC.
>
>>The G&E task system combines the best aspects of percentile- and
>>success-based systems. All IMO, of course.
>
>Of course you would say that. Spoken like a true game designer... :)
I did say "IMO." I do recognize that my game (indeed, ANY game) will
not please everyone.
I may have father's eyes. I have my opinions of what a game system
should be like and none out there matched it - G&E will obviously
reflect my tastes and be well best suited to those with similar
tastes. While I rag on WoD, I am sure tons of enjoyable games have
been run by that system despite its foibles. Some find its flaws
acceptable. I do not. So if WoD (or whatever) is your cup of tea and
suits your every whim, then more power too you. But if there are
others out there who feel that percentile-based dice mechanics have
more to offer than variable-dice schemes, then perhaps my system has
something to offer.
I have recieved MANY complements on it while parading pieces of my
game on the WebRPG Game Design forum, so I don't think I'm totally
biased. :-)
Bill McHale
s.umbc.edu> <6ab9a4$e5i$1...@news.on> <34c9702d...@news.srv.net>
<mschwartz-240...@ip126.ann-arbor.mi.pub-ip.psi.net> <34cb7fd0...@news.srv.net> <mschwartz-250...@ip150.ann-arbor2.mi.pub-ip.psi.net> <34cbf962....@news.sr:
v.net>
Distribution:
Alan D Kohler (hwk...@REMOVE2REPLY.poky.srv.net) wrote:
: On Sun, 25 Jan 1998 21:29:04 -0500, msch...@mindspring.com (Michael
: Schwartz) wrote:
: >Alan Kohler writes:
: >
: >>See, I find this intuitively inobvious; I much prefer percentile
: >>systems, where the probability...is inherently obvious, making it
: >>much easier for the GM to handle tasks on the fly.
: >
: >There is no such thing as "intuitive probabilities"
: Never said that there was. Did I ever use that phrase? I said the
: probabilities were inherently obvious in percentile system.
While you did not explicitely state it, you did imply it by your
juxtaposition of "intuitively inobvious" with "where the probability...is
inherently obvious".
: As an illustration, off the top of your head, what target number in
: WoD would you need for a trait level total of 5 to have about a 50%
: chance of getting 1 or more success. By tapping on my calculator a few
: times, I can find that find that 8 or 9 is about the number that you
: are looking for. But doing that several times in a game session would
: slow things down immensely.
: Now let's take a simple perctile system, say rolemaster. What modifier
: would I need to give a character with a +60 skill mod a 50% chance of
: success. More or less, -10. Now that's obvious. Perhaps not
: "intuitive," becasue I did do a calculation, but the math is math that
: I could do in my head without consulting my calculator and disrupting
: the flowof the game.
Yes, you are correct, but on the other hand how well does the latter
situation reflect real life? Say you have to leap a ten foot gorge or
plunge to your death; do you A. based on experience think you can make it
or not and then jump, or B. do you calculate out the exact probability of
success before you jump?
The Silhouette die mechanic actually does a pretty good job of simulating
the first situation. (I agree with you about the World of Darkness
because of the botch die and the frequent requirement for multiple
successes, combined with different target numbers, a real nightmare to
even approximate a chance for success) Most players will develop a a good
grasp of what target numbers they can or cannot reach, and how easy or
difficult a task is.
: >; the only reason a
: >given die mechanic feels more or less "intuitive" than another is due to
: >the individual's familiarity and comfort with the math behind it.
: >Calculate the probabilities for *any* die mechanic and it becomes just as
: >"intuitive."
: No it does not. Calculations are, *dy definition*, not intuitive.
: Having to haul a notecard around so you can gauge what would make a
: challenging task for a character with a certain skill does not make
: the process more intuitive. Sure, carying around a notecard may be no
: big loss, but I see no big gain by using dice systems that vary the
: number of dice just becasue they are "neat."
But there is no need to carry around a note card. If I have a +1 attr,
and a skill of 3, then I know I have a very good chance of getting a 5 or
better, and a mediocre chance of a 6 or better, I don't need to know the
actual percentage.
: >>Quite honestly, the only "multiple dice" system that I really think
: >>does a good job is FUDGE...
: >
: >Because FUDGE uses a static number of dice regardless of skill level, it
: >is not strictly a "multiple dice" system as you suggest. Probabilities in
: >FUDGE map as a normal bell curve, much like GURPS or Hero System.
: Actually, the curve is much shallower - and IMO, more suited to the
: task of handling game mechanics - than rolling 3d6. However, you are
: right. FUDGE uses a static number of dice like many systems that went
: before it. Unlike many systems that went before it, its designer
: obviously knows about, thought about, and applied some knowledge of
: probability.
Actually I do believe that the designers of Hero and Gurps had quite a
good grasp on the probabilities involved. However they wanted the results
to be very dependaple, but also to have a wide disribution of possible
results.
: I personally find nearly any system that varies the number of dice,
: either for skill or attribute level (like WoD or Star Wars) or
: difficulty level (like T4) to be attrocious dice mechanics for running
: a game. It is difficult to gauge the effects of task difficulty or
: attribute level on the outcome, and when those factors do vary, the
: resulting effect on the probability of the outcome do not reflect
: reality well, IMO. I think most such system have elegance as a selling
: point, but they really have some problems making a realistic
: simulation. I bet WoD's designer thought the WoD dice system was quite
: "elegant," but a quick tabulation of the probabilities (esp. regarding
: botches) reveal how broken it is.
Well I don't think you are going to get much opposition bashing the WoD
system, I do believe most people here would agree that it is broken
(though I have heard that it is much improved in Trinity/Aeon, pitty the
correction wasn't developed in time for 2nd edition WoD). The Silhouette
system is very different, and more elegant. At the very least it uses
fewer dice on average. Also it manages to seperate the effects of
attributes and skills.
Alan D Kohler
On 26 Jan 1998 14:28:47 GMT, wmc...@umbc.edu (Bill McHale) wrote:
>s.umbc.edu> <6ab9a4$e5i$1...@news.on> <34c9702d...@news.srv.net>
><mschwartz-240...@ip126.ann-arbor.mi.pub-ip.psi.net> <34cb7fd0...@news.srv.net> <mschwartz-250...@ip150.ann-arbor2.mi.pub-ip.psi.net> <34cbf962....@news.sr:
>
>v.net>
>Distribution:
>
>Alan D Kohler (hwk...@REMOVE2REPLY.poky.srv.net) wrote:
>: On Sun, 25 Jan 1998 21:29:04 -0500, msch...@mindspring.com (Michael
>: Schwartz) wrote:
>
>: >Alan Kohler writes:
>: >
>: >>See, I find this intuitively inobvious; I much prefer percentile
>: >>systems, where the probability...is inherently obvious, making it
>: >>much easier for the GM to handle tasks on the fly.
>: >
>: >There is no such thing as "intuitive probabilities"
>
>: Never said that there was. Did I ever use that phrase? I said the
>: probabilities were inherently obvious in percentile system.
>
>While you did not explicitely state it, you did imply it by your
>juxtaposition of "intuitively inobvious" with "where the probability...is
>inherently obvious".
Don't blame me for you reading into my statement. :-) Especially when
you are telling me that I am saying something that doesn't exist. You
are right... there is no such thing as intuitive probability.
Probability is a mathematical model of events. Intuition basically
implies the ability to arrive at a conclusion without the use of
rational processes... such as mathmatics.
However, It is fair game for me to say that dice mechanics aren't
intuitively obvious... IOW, they do not well reflet my instinctive or
intuitive sense of reality... which is what MOST game designers use as
the basis for their dice mechanics. The problem I see with many games'
dice mechanics are that the designers frequently now little enough
about probability that they don't really now how well their dice
mechanics represent reality.
>: As an illustration, off the top of your head, what target number in
>: WoD would you need for a trait level total of 5 to have about a 50%
>: chance of getting 1 or more success. By tapping on my calculator a few
>: times, I can find that find that 8 or 9 is about the number that you
>: are looking for. But doing that several times in a game session would
>: slow things down immensely.
>
>: Now let's take a simple perctile system, say rolemaster. What modifier
>: would I need to give a character with a +60 skill mod a 50% chance of
>: success. More or less, -10. Now that's obvious. Perhaps not
>: "intuitive," becasue I did do a calculation, but the math is math that
>: I could do in my head without consulting my calculator and disrupting
>: the flowof the game.
>
>Yes, you are correct, but on the other hand how well does the latter
>situation reflect real life?
That depends on what you mean. Rolemaster itself I'm not too fond of.
However, I *certainly* don't think (and mathmetical probability
supports this view) that binomial distribution reflects reality well
*at all*.
I think that realistic "diminishing returns" are better represented in
the cost scheme for skills and attributes than in the dice mechanics.
I find games that try to do both (e.g., GURPS) astonishingly quirky.
> Say you have to leap a ten foot gorge or
>plunge to your death; do you A. based on experience think you can make it
>or not and then jump, or B. do you calculate out the exact probability of
>success before you jump?
*I* would do A (that's "intuition" or "instinct" right there, BTW).
But since dice/task mechanics and attribute systems attempt to make a
probability model utilizing an attribute system, in a game, it is a
little hard to avoid some of B going on.
>The Silhouette die mechanic actually does a pretty good job of simulating
>the first situation. (I agree with you about the World of Darkness
>because of the botch die and the frequent requirement for multiple
>successes, combined with different target numbers, a real nightmare to
>even approximate a chance for success) Most players will develop a a good
>grasp of what target numbers they can or cannot reach, and how easy or
>difficult a task is.
Once again, I don't have too much familiarity with Silhouette; that's
why I use WoD as an example.
>: >; the only reason a
>: >given die mechanic feels more or less "intuitive" than another is due to
>: >the individual's familiarity and comfort with the math behind it.
>: >Calculate the probabilities for *any* die mechanic and it becomes just as
>: >"intuitive."
>
>: No it does not. Calculations are, *dy definition*, not intuitive.
>: Having to haul a notecard around so you can gauge what would make a
>: challenging task for a character with a certain skill does not make
>: the process more intuitive. Sure, carying around a notecard may be no
>: big loss, but I see no big gain by using dice systems that vary the
>: number of dice just becasue they are "neat."
>
>But there is no need to carry around a note card. If I have a +1 attr,
>and a skill of 3, then I know I have a very good chance of getting a 5 or
>better, and a mediocre chance of a 6 or better, I don't need to know the
>actual percentage.
Perhaps I'll have to go back and read this thread again, but doesn't
Silhouette involve a varying number of dice, where the best dice is
used, and any 6's add 1 to the result? In my mind, that's binomial (or
a variant therof) which puts in in the same ballpark as WoD. But I
didn't want to make any direct critiques of a system that I am not
familiar with nor considered at some length, so I used WoD to be safe.
:-)
>: >>Quite honestly, the only "multiple dice" system that I really think
>: >>does a good job is FUDGE...
>: >
>: >Because FUDGE uses a static number of dice regardless of skill level, it
>: >is not strictly a "multiple dice" system as you suggest. Probabilities in
>: >FUDGE map as a normal bell curve, much like GURPS or Hero System.
>
>: Actually, the curve is much shallower - and IMO, more suited to the
>: task of handling game mechanics - than rolling 3d6. However, you are
>: right. FUDGE uses a static number of dice like many systems that went
>: before it. Unlike many systems that went before it, its designer
>: obviously knows about, thought about, and applied some knowledge of
>: probability.
>
>Actually I do believe that the designers of Hero and Gurps had quite a
>good grasp on the probabilities involved.
Hero - pehaps. GURPS - no way. GURPS combines a balooning cost scale
with a non-linear curve, which convultes the probability. If the
designer had thought about it, he might have though twice.
> However they wanted the results
>to be very dependaple, but also to have a wide disribution of possible
>results.
>: I personally find nearly any system that varies the number of dice,
>: either for skill or attribute level (like WoD or Star Wars) or
>: difficulty level (like T4) to be attrocious dice mechanics for running
>: a game. It is difficult to gauge the effects of task difficulty or
>: attribute level on the outcome, and when those factors do vary, the
>: resulting effect on the probability of the outcome do not reflect
>: reality well, IMO. I think most such system have elegance as a selling
>: point, but they really have some problems making a realistic
>: simulation. I bet WoD's designer thought the WoD dice system was quite
>: "elegant," but a quick tabulation of the probabilities (esp. regarding
>: botches) reveal how broken it is.
>
>Well I don't think you are going to get much opposition bashing the WoD
>system, I do believe most people here would agree that it is broken
>(though I have heard that it is much improved in Trinity/Aeon, pitty the
>correction wasn't developed in time for 2nd edition WoD). The Silhouette
>system is very different, and more elegant. At the very least it uses
>fewer dice on average. Also it manages to seperate the effects of
>attributes and skills.
I personally don't think that separating the effects of attributes and
skills is a good idea. I think it is unrealistic. In that aspect, I
like WoD. It's the dice mechanics mechanics I abhor (well, that and
the literary philosophy...) But systems just like WoD are currently
popular because of the neat-o factor.
The fact that silhouette uses less dice and means you have fewer
convolutions of the probabilties of the individual dice, which means
that it is easier to get an intuitive grasp of what is going on. But
it is still a binomial system (If I understand it correctly) which I
find to be a poor way to model tasks.
All IMO, of course.
Stephan Aspridis
Alan D Kohler wrote:
> > The Silhouette
> >system is very different, and more elegant. At the very least it uses
> >fewer dice on average. Also it manages to seperate the effects of
> >attributes and skills.
>
> I personally don't think that separating the effects of attributes and
> skills is a good idea. I think it is unrealistic.
Sorry to jump in here...
Silhouette does not separate the effects of attributes and skills, it
just decouples them somewhat e.g.
In Silhouette, the governing attribute still has quite an impact on the
outcome of a task (it is added to the highest number rolled and you
cannot have a skill of more than attribute +2). However, the mechanic
used makes quite a difference whether you have a high attribute and a
low skill or a mediocre attribute and a high skill:
A. Attribute +2, Skill 1
B. Attribute 1, Skill 3
A. has a maximum of +9, but fumbles 1 out of 6
B. has a maximum of +10 and fumbles 1 out of 216
in addition, B has a vastly higher chance of rolling a high number, so
while B cannot perform much more difficult tasks than A., he can perform
them more reliably because he has the skill to do so.
Ciao,
Stephan
Michael W. Ryan
hwk...@REMOVE2REPLY.poky.srv.net (Alan D Kohler) writes:
> As an illustration, off the top of your head, what target number in
> WoD would you need for a trait level total of 5 to have about a 50%
> chance of getting 1 or more success. By tapping on my calculator a few
> times, I can find that find that 8 or 9 is about the number that you
> are looking for. But doing that several times in a game session would
> slow things down immensely.
Umm... in my experience, difficulties are usually set to reflect the
difficulty of the action, not the likelihood of a specific character
to have a specific chance of success. I.e. trying to shoot an
unsuspecting man with a sniper rifle at 500 meters would be "easy".
In Silhouette, this translates (looking at a simple table of
difficulty levels) as a threshold of 3.
The LIKELIHOOD of a given individual making this shot depends on the
individual. The adjective "easy" assumes that everything else is
equal, and the individual is reasonably proficient and doesn't have
any reasonable apptitude or hinderance at the task.
While not as immediately obvious as a percentile system, some small
experience with the mechanics gives you a very good feel for the
likelihood of various tasks. You know what the effect modifiers
(including attribute modifiers) have on the possible result, and what
effect skill has on the result. They're distinct but understandable.
> Now let's take a simple perctile system, say rolemaster. What modifier
> would I need to give a character with a +60 skill mod a 50% chance of
> success. More or less, -10. Now that's obvious. Perhaps not
> "intuitive," becasue I did do a calculation, but the math is math that
> I could do in my head without consulting my calculator and disrupting
> the flowof the game.
But do most people really say "I think he should have a 50% chance of
hitting"? I think most people say "even though that barn's pretty
big, Bob, Cross-eyed Dan is still not going to hit it. You should let
Bullseye Pete take a shot, he can't miss."
[snip]
> I personally find nearly any system that varies the number of dice,
> either for skill or attribute level (like WoD or Star Wars) or
> difficulty level (like T4) to be attrocious dice mechanics for running
> a game. It is difficult to gauge the effects of task difficulty or
> attribute level on the outcome, and when those factors do vary, the
> resulting effect on the probability of the outcome do not reflect
> reality well, IMO. I think most such system have elegance as a selling
> point, but they really have some problems making a realistic
> simulation. I bet WoD's designer thought the WoD dice system was quite
> "elegant," but a quick tabulation of the probabilities (esp. regarding
> botches) reveal how broken it is.
I've never once worked out any real probabilities for Silhouette's
mechanics. I still know what effects skill level and modifiers will
have on chances of success. This didn't take long, or any particular
gift.
Michael W. Ryan
hwk...@REMOVE2REPLY.poky.srv.net (Alan D Kohler) writes:
But there is a difference. Attributes reflect natural talent, while
skills reflect training. While someone with a high natural talent can
get remarkable results, if untrained, they will tend to be erratic and
prone to error. Training yields not only a the potential for good
results, it also lends to more consistency and fewer errors
(i.e. lower chance of fumbling).
Bill McHale
Alan D Kohler (hwk...@REMOVE2REPLY.poky.srv.net) wrote:
: However, It is fair game for me to say that dice mechanics aren't
: intuitively obvious... IOW, they do not well reflet my instinctive or
: intuitive sense of reality... which is what MOST game designers use as
: the basis for their dice mechanics. The problem I see with many games'
: dice mechanics are that the designers frequently now little enough
: about probability that they don't really now how well their dice
: mechanics represent reality.
Ah, but one's view of reality is subjective. Different people will have
different views about what is realistic. Even if one, through careful
study, is able to document the real probabilities, someone is going to
claim that it does not seem real to them.
: That depends on what you mean. Rolemaster itself I'm not too fond of.
: However, I *certainly* don't think (and mathmetical probability
: supports this view) that binomial distribution reflects reality well
: *at all*.
: I think that realistic "diminishing returns" are better represented in
: the cost scheme for skills and attributes than in the dice mechanics.
: I find games that try to do both (e.g., GURPS) astonishingly quirky.
: > Say you have to leap a ten foot gorge or
: >plunge to your death; do you A. based on experience think you can make it
: >or not and then jump, or B. do you calculate out the exact probability of
: >success before you jump?
: *I* would do A (that's "intuition" or "instinct" right there, BTW).
: But since dice/task mechanics and attribute systems attempt to make a
: probability model utilizing an attribute system, in a game, it is a
: little hard to avoid some of B going on.
Ah, but the point is that a non-percentile based system will have most
people lean to A more strongly.
: >The Silhouette die mechanic actually does a pretty good job of simulating
: >the first situation. (I agree with you about the World of Darkness
: >because of the botch die and the frequent requirement for multiple
: >successes, combined with different target numbers, a real nightmare to
: >even approximate a chance for success) Most players will develop a a good
: >grasp of what target numbers they can or cannot reach, and how easy or
: >difficult a task is.
: Once again, I don't have too much familiarity with Silhouette; that's
: why I use WoD as an example.
Fair enough, but I just want to make sure that their systems have more
differences than they have in common.
: >: >; the only reason a
: >: >given die mechanic feels more or less "intuitive" than another is due to
: >: >the individual's familiarity and comfort with the math behind it.
: >: >Calculate the probabilities for *any* die mechanic and it becomes just as
: >: >"intuitive."
: >
: >: No it does not. Calculations are, *dy definition*, not intuitive.
: >: Having to haul a notecard around so you can gauge what would make a
: >: challenging task for a character with a certain skill does not make
: >: the process more intuitive. Sure, carying around a notecard may be no
: >: big loss, but I see no big gain by using dice systems that vary the
: >: number of dice just becasue they are "neat."
: >
: >But there is no need to carry around a note card. If I have a +1 attr,
: >and a skill of 3, then I know I have a very good chance of getting a 5 or
: >better, and a mediocre chance of a 6 or better, I don't need to know the
: >actual percentage.
: Perhaps I'll have to go back and read this thread again, but doesn't
: Silhouette involve a varying number of dice, where the best dice is
: used, and any 6's add 1 to the result? In my mind, that's binomial (or
: a variant therof) which puts in in the same ballpark as WoD. But I
: didn't want to make any direct critiques of a system that I am not
: familiar with nor considered at some length, so I used WoD to be safe.
: :-)
Binomial? Correct me if I am wrong (its been a couple of years since I
did Stat) but isn't binomial when you have two high points in the
distribution (Like in exam grades you tend to have peakes around two
scores one for those who studied and one for those who did not). If it is
that then Silhouette definitely does not fit the model. The probibility
curve shifts from being linear for a person with a skill of one to being a
skewed bell curve with its peak near the high numbers for a person with a
skill of 4 or higher.
: >: >>Quite honestly, the only "multiple dice" system that I really think
: >: >>does a good job is FUDGE...
: >: >
: >: >Because FUDGE uses a static number of dice regardless of skill level, it
: >: >is not strictly a "multiple dice" system as you suggest. Probabilities in
: >: >FUDGE map as a normal bell curve, much like GURPS or Hero System.
: >
: >: Actually, the curve is much shallower - and IMO, more suited to the
: >: task of handling game mechanics - than rolling 3d6. However, you are
: >: right. FUDGE uses a static number of dice like many systems that went
: >: before it. Unlike many systems that went before it, its designer
: >: obviously knows about, thought about, and applied some knowledge of
: >: probability.
: >
: >Actually I do believe that the designers of Hero and Gurps had quite a
: >good grasp on the probabilities involved.
: >Well I don't think you are going to get much opposition bashing the WoD
: >system, I do believe most people here would agree that it is broken
: >(though I have heard that it is much improved in Trinity/Aeon, pitty the
: >correction wasn't developed in time for 2nd edition WoD). The Silhouette
: >system is very different, and more elegant. At the very least it uses
: >fewer dice on average. Also it manages to seperate the effects of
: >attributes and skills.
: I personally don't think that separating the effects of attributes and
: skills is a good idea. I think it is unrealistic. In that aspect, I
: like WoD. It's the dice mechanics mechanics I abhor (well, that and
: the literary philosophy...) But systems just like WoD are currently
: popular because of the neat-o factor.
Think about it this way, in Silhouette it is possible to have a person who
is a gifted marksman who is very light on training (atribute +3, Skill 1).
He can and often does make brilliant shots, but fairly often his shot is
going to completely miss, possibly with disasterous consequences. Now
consider an veteran marksman who has trained himself for years but not
overly talented (attribute +1, Skill 3). Now he will only rarely achieve
the level of success that the young hotshot can, but his preformance will
be consistently high, and his distaterous failures very few. The ability
to make that distinction (experience versus talent) is one of the things
that has made me a big fan of Silhouette.
: The fact that silhouette uses less dice and means you have fewer
: convolutions of the probabilties of the individual dice, which means
: that it is easier to get an intuitive grasp of what is going on. But
: it is still a binomial system (If I understand it correctly) which I
: find to be a poor way to model tasks.
Again if you and I understand the same thing when we say binomial, then it
is not binomial.
Alan D Kohler
On 27 Jan 1998 00:05:25 -0500, mr...@netaxs.com (Michael W. Ryan)
wrote:
>hwk...@REMOVE2REPLY.poky.srv.net (Alan D Kohler) writes:
>> Now let's take a simple perctile system, say rolemaster. What modifier
>> would I need to give a character with a +60 skill mod a 50% chance of
>> success. More or less, -10. Now that's obvious. Perhaps not
>> "intuitive," becasue I did do a calculation, but the math is math that
>> I could do in my head without consulting my calculator and disrupting
>> the flowof the game.
>
>But do most people really say "I think he should have a 50% chance of
>hitting"? I think most people say "even though that barn's pretty
>big, Bob, Cross-eyed Dan is still not going to hit it. You should let
>Bullseye Pete take a shot, he can't miss."
While I gave perhaps an oversimplified example, I will say that I
think it is essential for the GM to have a very good grasp on the
outcomes of tasks he presents to his (her) players if said GM expects
to control the flow of the adventure.
>[snip]
>
>> I personally find nearly any system that varies the number of dice,
>> either for skill or attribute level (like WoD or Star Wars) or
>> difficulty level (like T4) to be attrocious dice mechanics for running
>> a game. It is difficult to gauge the effects of task difficulty or
>> attribute level on the outcome, and when those factors do vary, the
>> resulting effect on the probability of the outcome do not reflect
>> reality well, IMO. I think most such system have elegance as a selling
>> point, but they really have some problems making a realistic
>> simulation. I bet WoD's designer thought the WoD dice system was quite
>> "elegant," but a quick tabulation of the probabilities (esp. regarding
>> botches) reveal how broken it is.
>
>I've never once worked out any real probabilities for Silhouette's
>mechanics. I still know what effects skill level and modifiers will
>have on chances of success. This didn't take long, or any particular
>gift.
To each their own. From what I've seen, it would be nearly as annoying
to judge as WoD.
Alan D Kohler
On 27 Jan 1998 00:23:52 -0500, mr...@netaxs.com (Michael W. Ryan)
wrote:
>hwk...@REMOVE2REPLY.poky.srv.net (Alan D Kohler) writes:
>> I personally don't think that separating the effects of attributes and
>> skills is a good idea. I think it is unrealistic. In that aspect, I
>> like WoD. It's the dice mechanics mechanics I abhor (well, that and
>> the literary philosophy...) But systems just like WoD are currently
>> popular because of the neat-o factor.
>
>But there is a difference. Attributes reflect natural talent, while
>skills reflect training.
You are correct. But in my mind, exerting a task is nearly analogous
to exertig a skill in terms of probabilities - and many tasks have no
appropriate skill or "governing attribute" ... unless you assign a
singular attribute to each skill, which I find highly unrealistic in
certain instances.
So to accomodate such a concern, do what many games do: Skills start
at 0 (or whatever means "no skill" in your system." Attributes start
at a mediocre value. But have the overall scale the same (in the case
of my homebrew game, 0-10)
> While someone with a high natural talent can
>get remarkable results, if untrained, they will tend to be erratic and
>prone to error. Training yields not only a the potential for good
>results, it also lends to more consistency and fewer errors
>(i.e. lower chance of fumbling).
I agree. That still does not justify putting those two variables on
different axes, when I think they should operate fundamentally
identical.
IMO, skill and attribute should be on the same axis; task difficulty
on a separate axis. It makes more sense thatway.
Alan D Kohler
On 27 Jan 1998 14:52:06 GMT, wmc...@umbc.edu (Bill McHale) wrote:
>Alan D Kohler (hwk...@REMOVE2REPLY.poky.srv.net) wrote:
(Snip first part - no comments that I take issue with)
Well, Silhouette is pretty clearly binomial... but it just so happens
that your analysis is not wrong. As you add more variables to a
binomial distribution, it begins to look like a normal distribution,
which does approach said bell curve. Put statisticains don't find
normal distribution to be a good approximation to binomial until you
get 25+ variables.
And just to clarify, binomial is a distribution where you are
concerned whether or not a specific number of variables exceed a
discrete value... thus if I wanted to model the Silhoutette dice
mechanic, binomial distribution is the method I would use (the "sixes
add +1" thing muddies the issue a little and makes it so it's not
exactly binomial, but binomial would be my starting point.)
However, there is one major difference I will note: WoD counts the
total number of successes, where Silhouette is only concerned with the
best one. But since you ARE concerned with the number of 6's, that
part of the equation is clearly binomial and comparable with WW.
I still don't like it, this example notwithstanding. As a
counterexample, my game uses a reason statistic. This would be applied
to simple conundrums or logic problems. However, doing a math problem
requires a skill, but the essential process is the same.\
I tend to think of attributes as "bundled skills that everyone has."
>: The fact that silhouette uses less dice and means you have fewer
>: convolutions of the probabilties of the individual dice, which means
>: that it is easier to get an intuitive grasp of what is going on. But
>: it is still a binomial system (If I understand it correctly) which I
>: find to be a poor way to model tasks.
>
>Again if you and I understand the same thing when we say binomial, then it
>is not binomial.
It is. You are looking at the sum of two binomial probabilities... the
chance that out of N dice, one is a given number, plus the chance that
of those N dice, the chance that M of them are sixes.
Bruce Baugh
>different views about what is realistic. Even if one, through careful
>study, is able to document the real probabilities, someone is going to
>claim that it does not seem real to them.
If anything, _especially_ then. :) The FBI's statistics on damage and
deaths from firearms, for instance, are almost totally unlike the
intuition of anyone who hasn't actually been a frontline soldier or
emergency room staff or something of the sort. So with lots of fields.
What game rules tend to reach is plausibility, not reality - and this is
fine, but sometimes one wishes for less chest-beating about it.
--
Bruce Baugh <*> bruce...@mindspring.com
The Codex Brucaica <*> http://www.mindspring.com/~brucebaugh
New science fiction by S.M. Stirling, rolegaming, writers' tools
Alan D Kohler
>In article <6aksam$322$1...@news.umbc.edu>, wmc...@umbc.edu (Bill McHale) wrote:
>
>>different views about what is realistic. Even if one, through careful
>>study, is able to document the real probabilities, someone is going to
>>claim that it does not seem real to them.
>
>If anything, _especially_ then. :) The FBI's statistics on damage and
>deaths from firearms, for instance, are almost totally unlike the
>intuition of anyone who hasn't actually been a frontline soldier or
>emergency room staff or something of the sort. So with lots of fields.
>What game rules tend to reach is plausibility, not reality - and this is
>fine, but sometimes one wishes for less chest-beating about it.
Funny you should mention that...
(Changed the topic... I am really not dicussing Silhouete anymore...)
When designing my wound system (something I'm still working on,
actually), I based it on a farily simple assumption. If you look at
actual casualty records from wars, et al., the typical gunshot wound
has about this distribution with about a 90% certainty:
Hit in head: victim died.
Hit in extremiy: victim lived.
Hit in torso: flip a coin. Talis - die. Heads - live.
(I think I heard this either here or on rec.games.design first...)
Now my game isn't THAT cut and dried, but that is the basic model I
used for weapon damage in the gunshot wound range. I temper this with
an expendable "karma point" system to make combat more suvivable and
conducive to long term character development. :-) However, if you are
a character sans karma point is my homebrew system in a firefight, the
above distribution is the boat that you are in.
Fairly realistic, I think, with room for a bit of the cinematic as
well.
John R. Snead
Alan D Kohler (hwk...@REMOVE2REPLY.poky.srv.net) wrote:
: Funny you should mention that...
: (Changed the topic... I am really not dicussing Silhouete anymore...)
: When designing my wound system (something I'm still working on,
: actually), I based it on a farily simple assumption. If you look at
: actual casualty records from wars, et al., the typical gunshot wound
: has about this distribution with about a 90% certainty:
: Hit in head: victim died.
: Hit in extremiy: victim lived.
: Hit in torso: flip a coin. Talis - die. Heads - live.
: (I think I heard this either here or on rec.games.design first...)
: Now my game isn't THAT cut and dried, but that is the basic model I
: used for weapon damage in the gunshot wound range. I temper this with
: an expendable "karma point" system to make combat more suvivable and
: conducive to long term character development. :-) However, if you are
: a character sans karma point is my homebrew system in a firefight, the
: above distribution is the boat that you are in.
: Fairly realistic, I think, with room for a bit of the cinematic as
: well.
You may well know much more about this than I do, but I would assume that
the type of weapon used would make a large difference here. A .22 pistol
simply doesn't do that much damage, and I'd be pretty damn surprised to
find out that 50% of body wounds from a .22 were fatal. OTOH, this may
be about right for a .45 or a 9mm. However, if you're talking shotguns
I'd assume almost all body wounds would be fatal.
Does anyone have any datat to support or refute my assumption that weapon
type is at least as important as location hit in determining firearm
damage. I'm assuming I'm correct, but some actual data would be pretty
handy.
Thanks-
-John Snead jsn...@netcom.com
On a related note, I did once see some figure for locations hit by gunfire
in WWI and discovered that a simple 1D6 roll of:
1 head
2 arms
3 chest
4 abdomen
5 left leg
6 right leg
is within less than 5% of the real figures.
Alan D Kohler
On Wed, 28 Jan 1998 09:13:54 GMT, jsn...@netcom.com (John R. Snead)
wrote:
>Alan D Kohler (hwk...@REMOVE2REPLY.poky.srv.net) wrote:
>
Oh, certainly. Most of the casualty figures I refer to are figures
with respectable size rifle rounds. Most rifle rounds will go striaght
through your noggin', while a .22 shells have been known to graze off
of a persons skull.
Just as a few example of modern weapons detailed by my system:
22 short 6/4
9mm shot 5/5
.32 acp 5/4
9 mm para 7/6
7.62 NATO 11/9
5.56 NATO 10/8
.50 cal 15/15
These numbers assume no modifications for hollow point, armor
piercing, etc. The numbers are penetration and damage, respectively.
(Some gun enthusiasts might argue these numbers - there is a mechanic
available to tweak these numbers as needed, but the given numbers
shown are derived purely from projectile size and KE.) For the purpose
of this example, let's assume our victim has no armor, making
penetration irrelevant. So, let's just use the second number.
In my system, wounds are split into 6 levels, named respectively,
graze, light, medium, heavy, severe, and mortal/maim. The last
category is "mortal" if a vital organ and "maimed" if an extremity.
Each category encompasses 3 points for a normal sized human, i.e.,
graze is 1-3, light is 4-6, etc.
Damage is inflicted by multiplying damage rating (AFTER adjusting for
armor, in this example, there is none) by success level. Head hits are
DOUBLED (though I am considering tweaking this down to x1.5)
Let's say our gunner is nice and consistant and gets 2 levels of
success on all the targets downrange. His first shot is with a 22
short. His first target would take 8 points (16 if hit in the head). 8
points is a medium wound; the 16 in the head would be mortal.
Next he picks up anUZI (essentially, 9mm para, damage 6) and hits
another target with the same LOS (2). This would do 12 points, 24 if a
head wound. 12 points is a HEAVY wound, 24 if in the head, which is
again mortal.
As you can see, I did take into account weapon type, while sticking to
the generic model I mentioned earlier.
>Does anyone have any datat to support or refute my assumption that weapon
>type is at least as important as location hit in determining firearm
>damage. I'm assuming I'm correct, but some actual data would be pretty
>handy.
As to wound statistics, I don't have any on hand anymore.
As for guns.
I use my own variation of 3G3 (Guns, guns, guns, 3rd edition, by
BTRC). It lists a wide variety of round types and even has rules for
designing SF weapons.
The formulas I used to come up with the penetration and damage figures
above are:
Penetration: 2.33 x (E/D)^.25
Damage: 1.31 x E ^ .25
D is the diameter of the round in mm. Multiply D by 25.4 if round
size is in inches.
E is muzzle energy of the weapon.
>On a related note, I did once see some figure for locations hit by gunfire
>in WWI and discovered that a simple 1D6 roll of:
>
>1 head
>
>2 arms
>
>3 chest
>
>4 abdomen
>
>5 left leg
>
>6 right leg
>
>is within less than 5% of the real figures.
I use this in my game:
1 Head
2-4 Chest
5 R. Arm
6 L. Arm
7-8 Abdomen
9 R. Leg
0 L. Leg
I beleive in the "one roll per shot" paradigm of combat resolution,
thus I simply use the second dice of the percentile roll. You will
note that since percentiles tend not to fall on exactly 0, there is a
small slight towards the head and chest under this system; I chose the
upper body as the low numbers for this purpose; it is the area that
most experienced shooters aim for.
red
John R. Snead wrote:
> Does anyone have any data to support or refute my assumption that weapon
> type is at least as important as location hit in determining firearm
> damage. I'm assuming I'm correct, but some actual data would be pretty
> handy.
I recommend the following page, which has a lot of useful, raw data:
http://www.incose.com/stop/
includes a list of street effectiveess percentages. He also explains
how the data was derived (under the heading "Why shoot goats?")
Alternatively, here is a list of links over here:
http://www.cyberhighway.net/~dwyatt/shoot.html
In my opinion, location is more significant than the projectile, but
there is some controversy over this issue.
Carter T Butts
Excerpts from netnews.rec.games.frp.misc: 28-Jan-98 Reailism in game
mechanics .. by Alan D Kohler@REMOVE2REP
> (Changed the topic... I am really not dicussing Silhouete anymore...)
>
> When designing my wound system (something I'm still working on,
> actually), I based it on a farily simple assumption. If you look at
> actual casualty records from wars, et al., the typical gunshot wound
> has about this distribution with about a 90% certainty:
>
> Hit in head: victim died.
> Hit in extremiy: victim lived.
> Hit in torso: flip a coin. Talis - die. Heads - live.
> (I think I heard this either here or on rec.games.design first...)
>
One comment on that: the particular load being used matters a great
deal, especially as far as stopping power goes (which is primarily
determined (insofar as I am aware) by the stretch cavity left by the
bullet). Decent data on wounding is hard to get (unless you can find a
copy of the International Journal of Wound Ballistics...they don't carry
it at CMU for some reason :-)), but there is some out there. (We've
been ajusting the AR damage system to make it reproduce the Marshall and
Sanow data, for instance.) IMHO, fitting your wound system to the Real
Thing is definately the way to go...and it will certainly reduce
players' tendency to engage in superfluous combat. :-)
-Carter
Dave Nalle
In article <jsneadEn...@netcom.com>, jsn...@netcom.com (John R.
Snead) wrote:
> Alan D Kohler (hwk...@REMOVE2REPLY.poky.srv.net) wrote:
>
> : Funny you should mention that...
> : (Changed the topic... I am really not dicussing Silhouete anymore...)
>
> : When designing my wound system (something I'm still working on,
> : actually), I based it on a farily simple assumption. If you look at
> : actual casualty records from wars, et al., the typical gunshot wound
> : has about this distribution with about a 90% certainty:
>
> : Hit in head: victim died.
> : Hit in extremiy: victim lived.
> : Hit in torso: flip a coin. Talis - die. Heads - live.
> : (I think I heard this either here or on rec.games.design first...)
>
> : Now my game isn't THAT cut and dried, but that is the basic model I
> : used for weapon damage in the gunshot wound range. I temper this with
> : an expendable "karma point" system to make combat more suvivable and
> : conducive to long term character development. :-) However, if you are
> : a character sans karma point is my homebrew system in a firefight, the
> : above distribution is the boat that you are in.
>
> : Fairly realistic, I think, with room for a bit of the cinematic as
> : well.
>
> You may well know much more about this than I do, but I would assume that
> the type of weapon used would make a large difference here. A .22 pistol
> simply doesn't do that much damage, and I'd be pretty damn surprised to
> find out that 50% of body wounds from a .22 were fatal. OTOH, this may
> be about right for a .45 or a 9mm. However, if you're talking shotguns
> I'd assume almost all body wounds would be fatal.
Not necessarily. Shotgun damage declines dramatically with range and
spread. A blast that would kill anyone at 10 feet might be just a
nuisance at 50.
> Does anyone have any datat to support or refute my assumption that weapon
> type is at least as important as location hit in determining firearm
> damage. I'm assuming I'm correct, but some actual data would be pretty
> handy.
Calibre, velocity, spin, range, entry angle and many many other factors
figure in when determining how effective a bullet is at killing someone
when hitting them in a particular part of the body. And it can be tricky,
because in some cases a low-velocity bullet like the Civil War miniball
can do a lot more damage than a smaller calibre, high-velocity bullet like
a modern .22.
Charles Hardin wrote some excellent material on firearm damage for the
game aid Firepower (temporarily out of print) which explores these issues
in some detail.
Dave
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I write both as an individual and as a company representative
Scriptorium Fonts & Art: http://ragnarokpress.com/scriptorium
Ysgarth RPG Site: http://www.ragnarokpress.com/ragnarok/ysgarth
Alan D Kohler
>Excerpts from netnews.rec.games.frp.misc: 28-Jan-98 Reailism in game
>mechanics .. by Alan D Kohler@REMOVE2REP
>> Funny you should mention that...
>> (Changed the topic... I am really not dicussing Silhouete anymore...)
>>
>> When designing my wound system (something I'm still working on,
>> actually), I based it on a farily simple assumption. If you look at
>> actual casualty records from wars, et al., the typical gunshot wound
>> has about this distribution with about a 90% certainty:
>>
>> Hit in head: victim died.
>> Hit in extremiy: victim lived.
>> Hit in torso: flip a coin. Talis - die. Heads - live.
>> (I think I heard this either here or on rec.games.design first...)
>>
>
>One comment on that: the particular load being used matters a great
>deal, especially as far as stopping power goes (which is primarily
>determined (insofar as I am aware) by the stretch cavity left by the
>bullet).
If you look at my reply to Mr. Snead, I have listed the statistics for
a variety of RL rounds as detailed in my game. When figuring a round's
characteristic, I figure stopping power in by subracting a penalty
from a weapon's damage characteristic if it's penetration exceeds its
unmodified damage characteristic... this represents the fact that
higher penetration rounds tend to zip through flesh doing less damage
compared to a lower penetration / higher stopping power round of the
same energy.
> Decent data on wounding is hard to get (unless you can find a
>copy of the International Journal of Wound Ballistics...they don't carry
>it at CMU for some reason :-)), but there is some out there. (We've
>been ajusting the AR damage system to make it reproduce the Marshall and
>Sanow data, for instance.) IMHO, fitting your wound system to the Real
>Thing is definately the way to go...and it will certainly reduce
>players' tendency to engage in superfluous combat. :-)
I'm glad we agree. :-)
Peter
Carter T Butts wrote:
>
> Excerpts from netnews.rec.games.frp.misc: 28-Jan-98 Reailism in game
> mechanics .. by Alan D Kohler@REMOVE2REP
> > Funny you should mention that...
> > (Changed the topic... I am really not dicussing Silhouete anymore...)
> >
> > When designing my wound system (something I'm still working on,
> > actually), I based it on a farily simple assumption. If you look at
> > actual casualty records from wars, et al., the typical gunshot wound
> > has about this distribution with about a 90% certainty:
> >
> > Hit in head: victim died.
> > Hit in extremiy: victim lived.
> > Hit in torso: flip a coin. Talis - die. Heads - live.
> > (I think I heard this either here or on rec.games.design first...)
> >
>
> One comment on that: the particular load being used matters a great
> deal, especially as far as stopping power goes (which is primarily
> determined (insofar as I am aware) by the stretch cavity left by the
> copy of the International Journal of Wound Ballistics...they don't carry
> it at CMU for some reason :-)), but there is some out there. (We've
> been ajusting the AR damage system to make it reproduce the Marshall and
> Sanow data, for instance.) IMHO, fitting your wound system to the Real
> Thing is definately the way to go...and it will certainly reduce
> players' tendency to engage in superfluous combat. :-)
That's what I mean, personally, when I say (write) realism. Not
consistency
with large amounts of statistical data, but a set of mechanics that
encourage
the players to avoid combat.
Plausibility plays a role too, of course. The most probable hit
location
should be the torso, because it's the largest area when seen from the
front
(and it's also the area covered by body armour).
A lot of fancy numbers and formulae doesn't impress me (although AR
does,
'cept I can't understand the math, honestly), as long as the system
doesn't enable a player character to walk througha large mob of
peasants,
without getting a scratch (like in AD&D, with a heavily armored
high-level
fighter).
> -Carter
--
Peter Knutsen
Tim Dedeaux
Organization:
John R. Snead <jsn...@netcom.com> wrote:
> Alan D Kohler (hwk...@REMOVE2REPLY.poky.srv.net) wrote:
Warning: this is gross and morbid. I do not advocate violence in any
way, and I warn those with delicate natures to avoid this post. Inside
this post are paragraphs about tissue damage, shock, where you have to hit
someone to kill him, and even the mercy killing of a terminally ill cat
(no, that's not a joke, and it's not off topic, either). You have been
warned.
> You may well know much more about this than I do, but I would assume that
> the type of weapon used would make a large difference here. A .22 pistol
> simply doesn't do that much damage, and I'd be pretty damn surprised to
> find out that 50% of body wounds from a .22 were fatal.
I assume you're referring to .22L rounds, not .223 Assault Rifle
rounds. You're right. A .22 round isn't lethal unless you hit with
extreme accuracy. I know this because my father had to put down a cat
that was dying slowly (the Vet wouldn't be open for another 40+ hours, and
the cat didn't have more than 5 or 6 agonizing hours left). The cat was
too big to smother (with gasoline fumes: it's more merciful than anything
else because the vapors kill in seconds), so he shot it - three times at
point blank range - with a .22 pistol. The third shot killed the cat,
which was just a little bigger than average.
I know this is morbid, but we couldn't help the poor thing, and we
couldn't just let him suffer . . . living in a rural area and trying to
take care of the local population of semi-feral cats ain't always pretty
(and they usually won't let us near them unless they're so sick they're
doomed anyway) . . . okay, I'll stop whining now :)
Statistics say the round's performance against people is
proportionately poorer. Now don't get me wrong: a .22L can kill, but it
probably won't do it through shock (tissue shock, or the body's jolting
reaction to immediate, radical and harmful changes to the body, is what
drops most gunshot victims). A .22 has to hit something vital, which
means the shooter much have a lot of accuracy *within* the hit location,
taking out the heart, going through the temple or eye, or maybe getting a
lung, to drop someone in one shot. An expert shooter can do this (which
is one reason I like letting a person's skill influence the damage his or
her weapon does . . . a .22 or even a writing pen can kill in one blow if
it's used correctly), but the rest of us cannot, except through a freak
stroke of luck (or murdering a helpless opponent).
> OTOH, this may
> be about right for a .45 or a 9mm. However, if you're talking shotguns
> I'd assume almost all body wounds would be fatal.
For a .45 within 20 yards or a rifle at any range, I'd agree.
I'm more reserved about the 9mm (it's *so* tiny . . . about the size of a
.38 round, which for some mysterious reason is actually .357 of an inch,
and while it travels quickly, it doesn't hold on to its muzzle
velocity very well). While the 9mm guns are deadly, it's mostly because
they are so accurate and hitting vital spots is easier (and because they
can easily be packed into 10, 15, or 18 round magazines, even in small
guns).
The .45 and most rifle rounds are very lethal and usually able to
drop a man with a single random torso hit (ie, you just got his main body,
not a precision hit to the heart, spine, or lungs). This may not mean the
guy's dead, but it means he's out of the fight and in need of serious
medical help unless he's hyperaggressive due to drug use, psychosis, or
the "rage" state of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (witness Audie Murphy
during WWII, who was shot repeatedly in the abdomen with a .50 cal
machinegun and kept fighting until the crisis passed).
The above statement doesn't apply to the .223 at beyond 130
meters, or at extremely close range due to a reported tendency to
overpenetrate - beyond 20 yards the .223 is deadlier than the .45 by
a wide margin. Maximum effective range for most handguns is 50 yards, and
that's pushing it even for an expert shot . . . MP's can hit 3 to 4 *foot*
groups at 100 yards, but I wouldn't bet on hitting a moving, dodging
target and stopping him at that range with any pistol. The 7.62 assault
rifle round is deadly at any range, but its kick is such that most armies
are moving away from it because it's just too much of a pain to shoot in
selective fire (ie, burst or full-auto) mode, which is what most soldiers
use anyway (making the .223 round much better for a fully automatic
military rifle, but the 7.62mm round better for something bolt action or
semi-automatic).
As a side note: it's my opinion that the Desert Eagle .44,
.454 and .50 cal handguns are not really wiser choices than a good Glock
.45 ACP (which I prefer to the Sig Sauer model, though I am certainly no
expert) for any kind of combat shooting. They're all big guns and thus
difficult to conceal (if you want concealability and stopping power, get a
.40 subcompact and train for a few weeks to learn to handle the kick), but
people I've talked to who've shot the big Desert Eagles complain that they
just aren't of the same quality as Glock or Sig Sauer guns.
It is almost always the case (according to reports I've read) that
the .45, especially if loaded with Glaser brand rounds (expensive little
buggers that fragment inside the person, simulating the effects of being
hit with a small shotgun at point blank range), will stop anyone who will
be stopped by a .44 or .454 (or even .50). If you need more power than
the .45 gives, you probably need a rifle or shotgun. Of course, if Desert
Eagles get to the quality of Glock or Sig (or if one of the most respected
companies starts making .44 or bigger autopistols), then ignore this rant.
.44 revolvers are also good for "working guns" - ie, guns to use
around a farm, because they can use the lowest-powered rounds available to
them and still get the lethality of a fully-powered .357 or .38 pistol.
The difference is that using lower powered rounds (assuming the rounds are
competently made, of course), is that the gun lasts longer than when using
"hot loads." This is off-topic since you're talking about combat guns,
but hey . . .
Shotguns are iffy. At close range and assuming they don't have to
penetrate thick leather or ballistic fabric (I'm not talking real armor
here, just an obstacle), shotguns can be brutal. They penetrate deeply
enough to hit vitals but spread out so much chew up a lot of tissue. The
shock alone may well be fatal . . . at long range, it's not such a big
deal. A shotgun isn't a wand of death, but at point blank range (and pbr
only) it comes really close.
God forbid that you load even a small bore shotgun (.410) with
flechette darts (of limited legality even in the U.S. . . I found out
about them through a police catalog that got sent to my house, even though
I'm not a cop - shrug - but I don't think I'd be allowed to order them
without showing proof of being a police or security officer . . . although
I'm not sure). Those things have longer range, better penetration, and
at least equal (usually far superior) tissue damage to buckshot.
> Does anyone have any datat to support or refute my assumption that weapon
> type is at least as important as location hit in determining firearm
> damage. I'm assuming I'm correct, but some actual data would be pretty
> handy.
I think the evidence strongly supports this. Shock and actual
tissue damage are the two big factors in dropping someone. High-caliber
guns cause a great deal more shock, even in less-than vital locations (and
stomach wounds can prove a very slow, painful, and unavoidable death if
they're nasty enough and medical care isn't given at once), and so drop
(and even kill) people more often. Little rounds require higher accuracy
*WITHIN* the hit location (not just torso, upper right lung) to kill. In
the hands of an expert shooter, the gun's caliber is irrelevant. For the
rest of us . . . the biggest gun you can comfortably handle and shoot well
(for my 6'7", 275 lb frame, the .45 ACP, preferably Glock) is the best
choice for self-defense [1]
> On a related note, I did once see some figure for locations hit by gunfire
> in WWI and discovered that a simple 1D6 roll of:
> 1 head
> 2 arms
> 3 chest
> 4 abdomen
> 5 left leg
> 6 right leg
> is within less than 5% of the real figures.
Cool . . . I guess I know what "hit locations" table I'll use if I ever
use a "hit locations" table again :)
1) Concealability is also a big issue . . . after all, a customized .45
with Glaser rounds doesn't do you a bit of good if it's too big
to carry around with you . . . a .22 or even pellet gun you
have with you is infinitely better than the assault rifle you
left at the house.
--
Timothy
Dedeaux "In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king"
tdedeaux - Gerard Erasmus
@mc.edu