/gdg/ Game Design General

I'm working on the tactical combat section of my RPG and I'm having trouble choosing between three approaches to resource management, specifically with special abilities (stuff you might call 'encounter powers' in D&D 4th Edition).

Approach #1 is that every power is its own unique ability, and they can each be used once per battle. If a character knows the Fireball, Heal, and Entangle spells they can use each spell once per battle for a total of three 'casts'. Approach #2 is that characters have something like a 'mana pool' so if they know three spells, and have three 'casts', they can cast any combination of those spells per battle. Perhaps the more powerful abilities would cost more Mana or some such. Approach #3 is that characters can use each ability once per battle, but they can exhaust/spend a different ability of the same level/cost to use one that's already expended. The catch is that using an already exhausted ability has a penalty, they're less effective after the first use.

I feel like the first approach is strongest for ensuring game balance and encouraging characters to get multiple offensive and defensive abilities. The second one seems the most 'natural' and organic to my setting, and generally more intuitive. The third one seems like it's the most appropriate for narrative-style gaming (I mean, the first time you use something it's great, but after that it's just spamming the power) but it doesn't feel like it succeeds at being either realistic or balanced.

Any advice would be most welcome.

Hello folks, I am currently beating my head against the wall when it comes to traits (Page 5)

They are effectively trying to differentiate characters on a more personal basis and helping them with certain rolls.
While I keep looking at them, I think they need to be changed to be a bit easier or clearer.
I was thinking of a couple options
>Merits - Akin to World of Darkness, give a handful of Merits applying to each of the attributes.
>Fate-like Aspects - Pretty much taking the idea of tropes or simple phrases and giving them life.

Any suggestions would be appreciated. I'll watch the thread for any questions I could answer. Thanks ahead of time.

I feel the second one works a bit better for a balance of crunch vs narrative.
What would you consider the average amount of mana for a normal character?

>What would you consider the average amount of mana for a normal character?
About 4-7 at character creation with each 'spell' costing 1 point. Characters would thus also start with 4-7 'spells' since both the mana pool and number of 'spells' known are determined by the same attribute. I say 'spells' because it would also cover combat maneuvers, and a character could have a mixture of martial and magical powers that all drew from the same 'mana pool'. It would be an abstraction of mental awareness and acumen.

In my system characters can generally expect to have a mixture of damage powers, healing powers, and debuff-applying powers. My concern is that if I use a mana system, players will feel encouraged to blow all their mana on their most effective attack power over and over until they win, in order to make the fight go as quickly as possible. Alternatively you have situations where one or more characters spam their healing power over and over again to keep their team healed up and thus dramatically extending the time encounters take to resolve. Not to mention making it really hard to threaten them.

The other problem is that a mana system means picking two similar powers becomes quite redundant. A mage might not want to learn both a Fireball and a Lightning Bolt spell, even if they're slightly more effective in certain situations or against certain enemies. They'd probably get much more mileage out of learning something like a Healing spell that expands their options in a new way. But if you don't use mana then learning two different offensive spells matters more because it means it doubles their magical attacks they can do in a fight.

>players will feel encouraged to blow all their mana on their most effective attack power over and over until they win, in order to make the fight go as quickly as possible. Alternatively you have situations where one or more characters spam their healing power over and over again to keep their team healed up and thus dramatically extending the time encounters take to resolve

I see your point.
Going off that I would suggest making a hybrid of option 1 and 3.
Every power has 3 or so casts, but if you're getting desperate you can sub in one of your casts for another spell (Maybe have it cost double or something)
This would encourage players to think about what and when they are going to use their powers, because going to fast means you've burned to many resources that are useful, while going to slow means the enemy may hold the advantage and you need to burn abilities to survive rather than to deal with a threat.

Am I on the right track? or did I miss something?

I think you're on the right track. My current idea is to use a mana system, like option 2, but with something like the following:

The Rule of Repetition: Enemies adapt to your tactics and learn to see through your maneuvers. Spells become more unstable and difficult to control when cast repeatedly in sequence. In short, one must vary their approach or see their effectiveness drop in battle.
When you use a talent more than once in a given encounter, roll 1d6. If your result is lower than the number of times you've use that talent, you lose a mana point and any damage or healing involved is halved. If the talent had an effect besides damage or healing, roll another 1d6; on a 3 or less that effect doesn't occur.

Example: Juan uses his Fireball talent to scorch a number of enemies, spending one mana. On his next turn he uses it again, spending one mana and rolling a d6 due to the Rule of Repetition. He gets a 5, which is equal to or higher than 2, so his Fireball works normally. Later on in the fight he casts Fireball a third time, and when he rolls a d6 for the Rule of Repetition he gets a 2 (lower than a 3). He loses two mana instead of one, and his Fireball only does half as much as it would normally. If he wanted to cast Fireball again he'd have to roll a 4 or better to avoid draining himself again.

The above is a simplified version of how it would work, it doesn't reflect the mechanics of my system but it's good enough for a rough approximation.

Designing the card layout for my new game. Any suggestions/critique?

The white circles on the top right tab will have coloured symbols for deckbuilding purposes, and the number in the lower tab is the cost to play the card. Otherwise all fields are filled out with their intended function.

Wondering what it would look like if the tab with the deck-building circles was on the left-hand side. It looks good, but the right feels a little cluttered. Is the deckbuilding part of the game, or pre-game? If it part of the game, then it should stay on the right, makes it easier to read as you play.

I had it on the left originally, but for some reason that made the card look weird and unbalanced.

Why this eternal wheel of new ideas while trying to keep polishing the old ones? It's starting to get rather frustrating.

Like now, there is the thread at that sparked my idea ( ), the one about tiered dice and committing them to cause different stances.

So basically the character can at any time commit three dice, the highest die and the two below it (d8 -> d6 & d4) to three things: Action, Attack or Defense.

A basic roll would include the 2(or 3) things: The committed die and stat die. Attack rolls would also have the weapon die, defense rolls would also have the armor die.

Attributes are rated 1-3: 1 has the highest commitable die, 3 has the lowest.

The idea is, as that thread's opening implies, there are no to-hit rolls, meaning you always contest opponent's attack rolls with your defense roll, and if the defense wins, there is no successful attack, and if the attack wins, the character takes the difference amount of damage.

But eugh, I should focus to my own things, the ones I have started. Feel free to comment though.

If your game have secondary, mechanical currency (4e Healing Surges, for example), try using that to represent the exertion of over using the power.

Now this is starting to look neat...

A Merit/Flaw system usually is better when it comes to solid mechanics and fixed stuff, it gives you something solid you know you can always rely on
Aspects are a bit more loose, they tend to be a bit more story-friendly as they imply a larger array of bonuses better fleshing out your character.
Compare a stunt driver merit with a underground racer aspect and you will notice the difference.

I believe you can remove the white lines holding the important keywords box, other than that, have you tried using a different design to have the white circles centered on top?

>have you tried using a different design to have the white circles centered on top
Good idea, I'll play around with that tomorrow.

That's a good idea, thanks. I'm not sure how balanced it would be though, since in my game when you're out of the healing surges equivalent you're knocked out of the fight or even killed. It would be pretty lame to die from using something like Inspiring Shout a second time, rolling a 1, and losing that last healing surge. What would be the in-universe justification for something like that?

I know that I want the resource management system to be intuitive, simple, and balanced, and I know I'm probably going to have to compromise on at least one of those.

He used the last of his strength to keep the allies inspired.
But we know the player won't risk spending his last HS if that meant defeat or death.

I don't know if I should go d20 or 3d6 on my system. I really need some feedback. The document is just bullet points with ideas.

Now that's an idea. The circles would have to go horizontal, though. But it gives a bit more room without cutting into other parts.

I'm going to say what kind of game I want to make, then I'm going to see what people think I should do in terms of the how:

Shapeshifting alien entities known as "Vampires" exist, hiding among humanity and working to manipulate the world for their own ends. These beings feed on human life force, drinking their blood and devouring them. Most people who find out about them become pawns or meals. Some people aren't so lucky.
Sometimes the people killed by these Vampires are instead infected by the same parasite, and become half-vampires themselves in a symbiotic relationship. The symbiote thirsts for the blood of full vampires, and can only be sated by slaying them. The people bonded to these vampiric symbiotes are known as Dhampir, and they fight back against the puppetmasters of the world to drain them of their blood and free the world from their grip.

The idea is to make combat that feels visceral and exciting despite being rolling dice. I'm thinking about reappropriating a system I made for a Naruto inspired game where there was energy floating around the area as narrative points that could be used to power up abilities, but would then be expended to allow other people to gather up that energy. Reworking that so that it's not the ambient chi of an area but instead the blood spraying around would be a neat idea.

When players defeat other Vampires, they'd also gain blood currency, that can be used to upgrade your character like experience points, or to trade with NPCs like it was money.

The general idea is a sort of hectic mishmash of ̶s̶h̶o̶w̶s̶ ̶I̶'̶v̶e̶ ̶n̶e̶v̶e̶r̶ ̶a̶c̶t̶u̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶w̶a̶t̶c̶h̶e̶d̶ ideas I like from various anime and media: Guyver, the Tagers from CthulhuTech, Witchblade (anime and comic), Kill la Kill, Blood+. Just lots of gonzo bullshit.

A lot of the character creation and advancement would center on the actual Dhampir form. The symbiotes themselves would probably have randomized personality traits.

>lol do my work for me

It's more that I'm spitballing and asking for advice. What sort of existing systems to look into and so forth.

Good way to make combat feel involved and visceral is keep everything low durability. You can't take a punch, so you have to hit before they hit you. Its not to say things are a glass cannon, but the idea is everything hits hard. Not RPG related but an idea is like how Warmahordes feels, the infantry mostly take 1 point to kill, while Warjacks take 20-30, but attacks can deal a lot, so the theory is it only takes 4 or 5 good strong attacks to kill a jack, but it feels like a lot more due to the meaty-ness of the numbers.

What are people's thoughts on a core mechanic where you roll d6s based on one trait and look for target numbers based on another?

So say you have a Stealth of 4 and a Dexterity of 3, you'd roll 4d6 and look for any that come up 1, 2, or 3. More hits is better. Things would probably cap out at 5 in 6 chance of a hit.

The main problem with that is I want a more Superhero tone. If players have low health, they'd get splattered easily.

I kinda use a similar system. Went with a modular way of writing it out, so instead of explaining it everytime, I just have a single format and plug in what goes where.

Bump til I get home.

hey man id love to give a critique, rulebooks are my thing:

the project goal shouldnt be in the rulebook.
there shouldn't indents in the paragraphs.
don't describe youre game as generic even if its supposed to be general.
change the font to not arial.
i have no idea what the game is, the supposed setting if there is one. the goal of the document is missing or hard to find.

this may seem harsh, but that isnt my intention. rules editting is a hobby of mine

I'm hoping I can get around to fill out the rest of it tomorrow. At least get some playtest lists up for trying out.

>What would you consider the average amount of mana for a normal character?

You know, the loonies say that we all are born with alot of psychic potential and then it drops after our teen years, supposedly its dedicated to mastering skills we learn to do in adulthood. I mean, like alot. Children would be like 100 psychic units, teens would 80-100, and adults drop to like 15-20, if you want to use a made up unit for measure.

In this theory, people we call psychics have abundant units, like 200 or something, and they don't drop off at adulthood.

What are some good keyword mechanics for a ccg without player health or blocking?

So I recently got done with a 24 hour drive back home and much of that time I was thinking about different mechanics. Just for a dogfighting game I'm working on, I came up with this:

Retool everything to work on 2d6 or d12 instead of d20. I'm already using 2d6/d12 as a simple measure of altitude (displayed like a MTG spin counter). If I go with d12 the game will still require gaming dice, but I get the flat probabilities that would probably be better for the math. With 2d6, its easier to get the required dice and the math might not suffer as much with the probability curve.

Since I'm basing the game off a vidya source, I should be able to easily convert the plane statistics into 1-10 ratings. There will be options to modify your plane physically, and those plane stats will be what you roll against in different contests. Armor, for example, will act as DR, and either be limited to 8 total, or just have missiles deal 20% damage minimum. Mobility might be involved in accuracy, or it might need to represent getting on someone's Six. I'm not sure if it can be both. Speed is obvious and I already have rules written for that. And there's some other stats that the game uses that I don't know if I can/need/want to use like Stability, though I might be able to use that as something related to the mobility problem.

Does any of the above seem particularly objectionable at any level? Part of the goal of this game was to have a dogfighting game that could be played with the fewest resources required, so I'm trying to get as much fidelity out of those simple rules as I can. Even if you're just playing using your altitude dice as both your rolls and your plane's location on a scratch paper grid, it should still be functional.

Go treasure, like Pkmn TCG.

Bump

Treasure? I'm unfamiliar. I was referring to things like flying or reach & the like. In the game I'm working on there is no blocking but there is counterattack so maybe something to do with "unless you have not!reach, constructs with not! flying can attack without being counterattacked."

Would need a bit more context on how the game works.

Bumping.

I know there is no context for the rules, but what do you think about my variant character sheets? At least I think they're pretty neat. Not too fancy, I admit, especially that FTW one could be more decorative. If I happen to find any way to decorate it in a sensible way, I will.

For context, Night Drifters is basically an Initial D spoof and FTW is a Magical Girls -game.

>No context for rules
>For context

Go me! I meant that the rules haven't been written in a form that you guys have seen.

I actually like 'em. Nice and clean. Almost gives me a DitV vibe.

I have this idea for a magic/psionic powers mechanic based on zodiac signs.
Your character has X sign so they have certain bonuses and penalties towards other signs and each sign has certain inmunities and exclusive powers
Its very simplistic but I feel something can come out of it

This is primarily my "Write rules and shit down so they are there" book.
>I put project goals in there for threads like these, just so people don't have to ask "So what are your goals with this system" blame /r/gamedesign for that
>Indents in the paragraphs are for me mostly, I get annoyed when things aren't organized that way.
>I mainly describe it as generic, because my goal with it is simply "Run anything I want in it" and the term "generic" fit, probably will change it.
>I'm weird, I like Arial and most everyone can read it fairly well, welcome to having shitty eysight.
>As stated above, it's my "collect rules n' shit" book, I'm actually going to be editing a part of it tomorrow.

Could work, just remember to balance things the best you can.
Also, look everything over when you have a rough draft done. Players will always find the littlest detail to make themselves overpowered as all hell.

Can anybody throw dice curves at me?
mostly dicepool ones but will take anything

I am deciding on what rolling system to use

anydice.com/program/a434

Just check out the summary. If you're going for a roll total-based game (instead of successes or anything like that), the curves are actually about the same, the total and mean averages just shift up when you use larger dice.

If you want successes, there's a handy function here:
anydice.com/program/f44
It's a premade function in anydice, it has d10 with successes over 7 and double successes on 10. Fumble (-1) if there's no successes and a 1.

Then here's a similar success-based one, but with d6. 4-6 are successes, 1-3 are not. No fumble:
anydice.com/program/a435

And then I made some silly ones. They are "Is your highest die larger than?"

With d20s, the highest die must be 15 or over for a roll to succeed.
With d12s, the highest die must be 10 or over for a roll to succeed.

anydice.com/program/a436

>lol I'm retarded

>anydice.com/program/f44
>It's a premade function in anydice, it has d10 with successes over 7 and double successes on 10. Fumble (-1) if there's no successes and a 1.
That's something I can use. Thanks!

If you plan to use it, you might want to read up on Exalted 3rd to see how to NOT use it. The system is so broken when the maximum difficulty of a roll is 5 and you can roll up to 20 dice at a time, with little repercussions.

Like, with 5 successes, you can basically tame hurricanes. I know Exalted is supposed to be somewhat INSANE but I just think that's dumb. Like, even a relatively normal roll without charms is easily somewhere about 9 dice, which has almost 50% chance at succeeding in almost ANYTHING.

I plan on the average being 3 or 4 dice, with a target of 2, or an opposed roll against a similar 3 or 4 dice. I already have a hard limit of 7 dice on a roll, for unforeseen situations.

The distinguishing mechanics of my card game is that each player starts with a big guy and a bunch of basic permanents that passively boost their big guy's power. The starting permanents are fragile and provide small boosts compared to ones you can play. There is a limit that starts at 0 and is passively boosted by some permanents. When your big guy attacks, you can only keep a number of power boosting permanents equal to that limit. A player loses if their big guy is destroyed. You can either focus on turning your big guy into a threat or just summoning new threats.

The question is, what is the flavor behind all of this?

Ancient gods duking it out. The permanents you play can be things like place of power, worship sites, or heroes bringing glory and praise to the god's name.

That or something similar. A Romance of the Three Kingdoms with Warlords and their armies would also fit your mechanical concept.

But that doesn't have to make sense of
>When your big guy attacks, you can only keep a number of power boosting permanents equal to that limit.

Of course it can. It all depends on what you choose to represent those permanents. Conquered cities, shrines, whatever. The fluff is pretty easy to reconcile.

On another note, when do you think it's best to use two combat stats like MtG's power/toughness vs one combat stat like Duel Masters' just power?

I think it depends on how you want creatures to contribute. I don't know Duel Masters, but in MtG, creatures aren't your only win condition, and generally, except for a few, you'll need a few to take out your opponent, so having it two separate stats and how damage works in MtG works.

i like this system, with just a couple of buts.
the combat seems confusing at first, maybe reorder the pages a little. you went into advanced combat before i could understand how basic combat worked.
i think i got it near the end anyway, and the responses are neat.
about the traits, it does seem a bit loose. maybe put costs depending on how broad the trait and provide or require a brief description of when a trait would apply.

Fallout 4 did a leveled classless system perfectly. Just needs lots of options.

Ugh, that's why I hate trying to write on my phone. Such a mess.

bumping for responses.

I'm working on the rewrite which I'd normally be sharing anyway, but:
a) We're on page 10, and
b) feedback could help before I finish/post the next version
but mostly a)

My gut feel is that dogfighting is not die-roll random unless the hardware is extremely unreliable. I figure that it's more of a simultaneous-decision game, where each player secretly indicates which way they intend to turn, all are revealed at once, and then the specs of the plane come into play for the rest of the combat round. The idea of planes flying at some random altitude, or only being able to climb to a certain altitude because of a random die roll, does not make sense to me.

(with pic of a simultaneous-decision vidya game.)

Plane movement is not subject to dice rolling. The game is "zoomed out" a bit where each grid square roughly represents a half-mile of space (or you can think of it as watching in the war room. Your physical game grid is that same war room grid). The dice come into play once you want to maintain missile/gun reticle lock. The planes won't be drastically leaving their 1/2mile by 1/2mile squares beyond their normal forward movement, so that randomness comes from the mixture of both planes jockeying for position. But as for movement at large, players remain in full control (outside of stalling) of which grid squares they intend to fly towards. That was a poor explanation on my part. Right now the only rolls so far involve weapon accuracy and possibly pre-fire accuracy (maintaining radar lock).

I fixed up traits a bit, made it more akin to Burning Wheel with Vice, Virtue, Value, and Vilify.
I need to rewrite combat a bit to make things clearer, it's one of those moments when I know it perfectly, but it can come off as confusing for anyone else.

I'm working on a cardboard computer type game; does anyone have any general advice on design for this sort of thing? I don't have any specific problems yet, but I'd rather not dash my ship on the rocks so to speak if people know where they are.

>cardboard computer type game
what does this mean in /gdg/ context?

Does it seem unwieldy to have this many of this kind of ability:
Warrior # (+# strength against minions and gods.)
Vandal # (+# strength against non-minion idols.)
Zealot # (+# strength against idols and gods.)
Attacker # (+# strength when attacking.)
Guard # (+# strength when not attacking.)

Also, I have two different "graveyards" and am wondering what the second one should be called. You have the dead zone, which is where destroyed permanents and used spells go, then you have the other zone, which is where discarded cards, permanents subjected to special removal, and overloaded idols go.

It means a boardgame that directs players against a challenge controlled by the game rules. Examples include Kingdom Death Monster and Sentinels of the Multiverse.

It acts a little like there's a GM controlling the action, but it actually is all just following rules. The rules decide what each enemy targets and how they act and so on. They're effectively "programmed", often randomized somewhat by having a deck of cards determining what they do.

Discard pile and no

Nvm call it hell

Oh okay, I had thought of that concept myself but had never associated it with that term.

I can't help much, but I do know from AI programming is simpler AI rules are more likely to lead to seemingly more complex behaviors and are much, much easier to write.

Why do you need a grid?

A grid technically isn't absolutely necessary, but I'm designing with one in mind. The game is designed with the premise that the players are at their character's base, watching the missions unfold over top a war room grid. So while they may place themselves in the role of pilots, the literal people in the room and actual, physical grid/table they're playing on can also be seen as "part of the game". A lot of (read: all) inspiration is taken from the Ace Combat series of games, and their use of a grid for briefing and debriefing is a perfect thematic tool.

Also, I can easily convert the rules to be gridless if I wanted, but designing gridless from the outset may/may not make things easier to then make secondary grid rules. Its also intended to be more tactical than theater of the mind, but that also can be converted from a primary grid system.

These are the current rules so far: docs.google.com/document/d/1-x7vMbcJeXps8ZaeTa2ovoXK2yoB7ICqcEmNKP1dlww/edit
I've made some additions today, and maybe some of the other rules I've written so far will provide more context.

bampin

Dogfight user here again with two easy, opinion based questions.

1) I'm thinking now about whether to use 1d12 or 2d6 as my main rolling mechanic. In my opinion, 1d12 works better for the math I want with its flat rates compared to 2d6's curve and lack of 1s, and just looks nicer as the altitude spin counter than 2d6. However, simplicity and ease are design goals, and as far as obtaining dice, 2d6 is far likelier than 1d12. Is it worth sacrificing the aesthetic and better math of the d12 for ease of access of 2d6?

2) In the source inspirational material, the A2A and A2G stats increased damage and Stability was just for stalling. In the current revision, I have Stability acting as both acquiring radar lock and stall recovery while A2A and A2G act as damage modifiers. Would it make more sense to relegate Stability to just stall recovery (its hard to make it represent minimum speed when speed increments translate to ~300mph jumps) and for A2A/A2G be the lock-on stats? That would reduce the importance of Stability. Missiles would also preferably deal flat damage instead of variable, which was my initial and probably preferable idea.

1d12 vs 2d6?
Should A2A/A2G affect damage or lock-on success?

You really need to take those borders in, I think. It's 5.6mm border assuming that's 330dpi (which would make that image a standard poker card size, same as MTG cards) which will really divorce the inner card from the actual card. For reference, the old MTG card borders were about 3.1mm, about 4.3mm from edge to the actual inner frame rather than background. They've apparently shrunk since by about a millimeter to expand the background.

You're using something like a sixth of your horizontal space on stuff totally external to the card information. Add in padding from text to inner border and it's probably like 20%. The visual design is good, conveys a pretty strong identity - hopefully the one you want - but the spacing is pretty whack. If your cards will rarely have a lot of text that could be fine but for something with per-card rules or non-keyword abilities it likely won't hold up.

Gap between title and keyword block could probably be increased a little, too. Being so distinct suggests the keyword block should have equal spacing both above and below. And if the white circles are only for deckbuilding (or occasional synergy effects - not an "every turn" deal) they could probably be made a bit smaller to maximize your artwork.

thinking even more about which dice I should use:

I've also considered d10 and d% as options. With the way the math is currently working, I'm of the opinion that the dice to be larger than the possible stats. Some stats will have an effective limit even lower than the hard coded max of 10. The Evasion roll is a key factor. When you can get good, meaty bonuses to completely avoiding damage like 16.6% and 33.3% on a 1d12 roll, I don't want 100% evasion to be abusively easy to attain. D% would work pretty well in many cases, but I'm partial to the far less granular math I'm currently using.

Looking through some scenarios with Andice, it's really starting to look like 1d12 is going to be the best options. It's even tangentially related to the o'clock positions, which is a useful aspect.

Confirmation or counter-arguments are still welcome.

will 1d6 work?

I originally planned for it to be d6 based, but particularly once ranges came into play, the d6 was just not quite granular enough. Especially when it comes to the current iteration of plane stats, if your aiming stat is 3 and you roll max, it still might be frequently impossible to hit something unless there are a lot of additional bonuses to stack. I'd prefer to keep bonuses down and also to not have them overshadow the dice rolls. By doubling the d6 into d12, I can double the amount of increments without going so far as to make most increments meaningless (like with most d%).

Its not like d6 /can't/ work, but d12/2d6 feels much better. Its not like a d12 system is that bad either. It just means that it requires gaming dice which most Veeky Forums related people have. However, the "marketability" of Xd6 systems make it that much easier to introduce the game to non-Veeky Forumsesque people. For some of my friends, this homebrew could end up being their first introduction to ttrpgs.

I'm a fan of the D12, but ultimately, its about what math you want. Is the flat rate is better, than go with the D10 or D12 over the 2D6. Yeah, they are harder to get a hold of, but unless you are making it require a buttload of them, a few D12's are not hard to get a hold of for most people if they play tabletop RPGs, and D10's are even easier to get nowadays.

I'm unsure largely because I still have to consider future maths. Its also about how the curve vs flat rate interacts with my current math intentions.

Its an argument that crops up with dnd often. Some people say dnd would work better if it were built with a curved probability in mind, and in some cases they're right. However in others, the flat rate is better for the specific math. I was just trying to go for max ease-of-use which would be 2d6. However, I think I end up sacrificing too much by using the curved probability (which drastically affects the weight of stats and bonuses) and only having 11 numerical possibilities. With 1d12 I get all 12 possibilities and an even 8.33% increment increase, which means I can take advantage of multiple divisions like 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/6, etc.

I only expect people need 1d12, or at absolute most 2d12 if players really don't want to roll their altitude spin counter. I know some people can't into remembering numbers for more than a few seconds.

Well, personally, I prefer curve over flat, but that's me. If it doesn't work for what you intend, then don't use it. You also have to consider the amount of spread. DnD is across 20 different results, that's a lot of room and doesn't really need the tight math a bell curve brings. And you bring up a good point of the weight of stats and bonuses, with 2D6, a single +1 weighs a lot.

I haven't looked over your rules yet, but the other part to look at is opposed vs. unopposed rolls. 2D6 works for target numbers, but not so well for opposed rolls, due to that curve. Unless you want a lot of clash without either side having a heavy hand over the other, I'd avoid heavy bell curves for opposed rolls.

If your aiming stat is 3, maybe you load improved missiles, and only use your cannon when you're on the opponent's six? Shouldn't a poor stat force you to change how your play?

yes but, even the best of luck would still make it impossible to land. At least with 2d6 or 1d12 you could have a 3 to aim, roll a 12, and still have that 15 as opposed to a 9 with 1d6. What I don't want to do is: You have an aim stat of 3. You stack better wings for +1, use a better engine for +1, use a different cockpit mod (electronics) for a +1, use QAAM Missiles for +2, then roll 1d6+3+5. Sure, that might work with that specific loadout, but it becomes increasingly impossible to land hits as you deviate from the optimal path. With less powerful modifiers you can still perform worse without being completely castrated. Its all about reducing how drastic the swings can be.

And some of these things depend on other mechanics that still need to fall into place. I still need to determine exactly what is the aiming stat anyway (Stability or A2A/A2G) and whether or not A2A/A2G should make damage variable or have it immutably fixed. Both of those directly influence what influence that 3 to Aim really has. (If anyone wants to chime in on that, that'd be nice too. Health is fixed at 100%, but is really just 10 as it moves in increments of 10%. Missiles are binary "did you beat the Evasion Roll" while Guns deal damage based on how much you beat the Evasion Roll by, so I get to keep that in mind when trying to figure the other parts out).

And of course, now that I've written so much support for the d12 and I reread previous posts like and , 2d6 is starting to become a bit more attractive.

If we go off of the idea that Probability Curves work better for Target Numbers, it starts to look better for 2d6. Stalling (if I even choose to keep that as a roll) is rolling under a stat as TN. Firing Missiles involves the attacker rolling to set the TN, which is then contested by the defender's Evasion Roll. Again, its roll vs TN which is advantage 2d6, but its also just a contested roll, so it should be advantage 1d12. However, Guns/Rockets are success by degrees (Attacker rolls to set TN like normal, but deals more damage depending on the difference between the TN and Evasion Roll), so that's advantage flat increments (1d12). Lets also (not?) ignore the fact that I just listed off 3 separate resolution mechanics because at least they make moderate sense. The Stall recovery is the weakest of the three and also the most different, so that could easily just get chopped. Missile and Gun rules are going to stay the same though. Missiles are rather binary in nature while degrees of success work perfectly for multi-projectile weapons like Guns or Rocket Pods. Whatever you roll is the ammo you use, while the difference between Attack and Evasion determines how many of those land. Those are pretty solid and sensible representations in my eyes.

Now as far as Stability vs A2A/A2G, I'm strongly leaning towards making A2A/A2G the accuracy stat and giving all weapons flat damage. That works much better with Health and Armor as DR math. That leaves Stability kind of weak unless Stalling is a more common than expected occurrence. I don't know if I want to, but I could also make Evasion a new derived stat from Mobility+Stability which might play nicer with plane upgrade modifiers. Commentary welcome.

If guns are based off of increments of success, even if flat has an advantage, you might want to look at the curve roll for balance sake. Since it means a more predictable result, you can balance guns around that, while still having that wildcard factor. Missiles are binary, so the only thing you'd have to worry about is the average of hitting; a slightly less chance to hit might balance out the curve.

For example, 7 is the middle of the curve for 2D6. When looking at missiles, you can increase the TN to higher that that (or lower if you go roll under, try to keep it the same through out the rules), it A. shows that missiles are generally a slower moving projectile and one that pilots focus on avoiding, so having a lower chance comes into play with that, and B. covers the fact that if it hits, it hits and does all its damage. While guns going by the same 7 average, can go 7 for a hit for minimum damage, and then goes up for the higher/lower result, while 7 is still the most likely, damage can be balanced from their. Guns would be plinking damage, little bits that hit more reliably but with less force, and the better the shot, the more of these plinks hit the target. While missiles are a big "Fuck you" hammer, more concentrated and less spread out, so harder to catch the other fighter.

Yeah, it all really makes that 1d12 vs 2d6 competition strong. Since the attack TN is based on the Attacker's result, the curve might be better to help manipulate the average. If I need Gun and Missile disparity I can always add more gun damage upgrades. Another interesting thing is that guns effectively ignore Armor, since 10% damage increments are the minimum. Missiles might be anywhere from 2-4 hits to kill, while guns have the theoretical possibility of 1-10. I might not ever need to be able to roll a 1 with a d12 in most appreciable instances, and that 2 minimum of the 2d6 might be able to help my math out anyway.

Ok, let's say the players are observing the grid, a unit has an Aim of 3, and a 12 is rolled on d12. What are the players told about what happened? "Plane down, no idea what happened"? "Your very good die roll caused the enemy pilot to derp right into your line of fire and get shot down"?

the 3 and 12 are irrelevant distinctions to the players. The result of aiming is in all actuality a 15, which means a quick radar lock.

I'm using "Aiming" as synonymous with "Acquiring radar lock". its assumed in any engagement (real or tabletop) you only have a limited window of opportunity to fire, so acquiring a lock asap is desirable. Normally you might not get that lock easily, either through piloting skill or older electronics, but in that instance the stars aligned, the enemy pilot made a tactical mistake, or you were just able to stay plastered to his 6. Its not that the dice control fate, its that they reflect what fate has decided, which is a subtle distinction to make.

I mean, all AWACS really needs to say is "Splash one Bogey" , but the GM/Players can be as colorful as they want through the pilot's eyes.

Cannon are not aimed through radar lock, right? What could possibly obscure a missile radar lock?

Unless you're using WWI-WWII planes, then cannons may also lock, but both require even more precision than missiles. You can fire advanced missiles at targets behind you just by the pilot looking in their general direction. You cannot do the same with cannons.

Missiles and other guidance systems are affected by tons of potential countermeasures.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_jamming_and_deception

I think the Defense stat is questionable. The kind of planes that dogfight don't "take less damage" when they are hit. Defenses like chaff or flares are used in combination with evasive action, if successful, the missile travels through the countermeasure, suddenly lacks a target, and you take no damage. If you get hit, your plane is probably done fighting, and it doesn't matter if it was from a missile or a M61 cannon.