Game Design General /gdg/

Hmm. I suppose I have the mercy of a fire under my ass, then.
If I don't finish this inventory subsystem, I won't have a game to play with the friends who are waiting on it (out of some personal stubbornness).

I made a 'i kill puppies for satan' hack for a more traditional medieval high fantasy game.

Bumperoo

>Dice pool, D6
>Successes are 5, 6
>Spread is anywhere from 1 die to 15 dice
>How crit?

I'm trying to come up with an elegant crit mechanic for a dice pool that ranges from very small to very large.

I started thinking about if all successes are 6, the roll is a crit.

Any ideas?

>I started thinking about if all successes are 6, the roll is a crit.

So the complete noob with only one die has a 1/6 chance of critting, while the demigod with a 15 die pool gets a 1/470 184 984 576 chance of critting.

Well, ok, misthought. All sucesses, not all die. More in the ballpark of 1/32 or something for the demigod then. Still, the basic idea holds, the bigger the dice pool, the lower the chance of a crit.

Yeah, that's why I don't like it. I'm looking for ideas.

I don't hate the idea of exploding 6's. That would ultimately make the "demigod" roll more likely to crit, while being somewhat less consequential, while the noob roll is less likely to crit, but more substantial.

What if a crit requires there to be at least one "third-generation" die?

Meaning that when the first dice explode, you then reroll them, and if any of those explode, it's a crit?

I like it, it's like crit confirmation. Thanks user!

Would this be an inappropriate space to ask for specific fonts I'm looking for to match a book's fonts?

I think /wsr/ might be more up your alley, but the problem is that there are probably more people who know here. (Not me personally, I'm not that good with fonts, but anyway)

You could make dubs and trips have special effects. That way the guys rolling more dice (who are more powerful) have higher chances to pull that stuff off. They wouldn't even have to be successes, rolling triple ones could still be useful.

I sometimes get ideas for games, but I'm terrible at actually turning them into games, and when I try coming up with rules they just fall apart.
How do I avoid this?
I had an idea today that's already collapsing, so I've written down the initial, core concepts and goals before I ruin it.

Here's the gist of it, as an unstructured idea blob:
Suddenly had an idea for a new tabletop game, but then I started to shape the idea inside my head into something with actual structure, it all fell apart almost instantly and the idea seemed terrible instead. Why are all my ideas like that? And what's the point of having ideas if I can't even peek at them without them falling apart?

Tabletop miniature game, but the focus isn't on fighting. The rules should preferably be simple enough that I can play it with my nieces and nephews, but having optional advanced rules is okay. This game is casual as fuck, so making a perfectly balanced competitive game isn't really a goal here.

The players control yokai, japanese folklore monsters (because I have lots of models of them already), sneaking around feaudal Japan and spooking people.
Thus, the gameplay is built aroud that one stock ghost story that the vast majority of traditional Japanese ghost stores are all very, very sight variations of:
Someone is out alone at night, sees stranger, gets close, the stranger turns around and there's something weird with their face, like one eye or slightly oddly shaped teeth. The end.
Translating that into gameplay, the objective is to sneak up on humans, represented as face down counters, and scare them (or lure the humans to you). But to mix it up, there's different kinds of humans, and you usually don't know who you're dealing with before you flip over their counter. So you can get a peasant, who is easy to scare but earns you very few points, or you could end up face to face with an angry samurai. Or even worse, an exorcist!
Also each yokai has different powers and abilities, duh.

Also I guess most yokai would have a "domain", an environment where they're most at home, like kappas living in rivers and tool yokai belonging in and near buildings. And they'd get some kind of advantage while inside their domain, but some would be weakened outside it.

For now, the Domains are Water, Forest, Mountains and Building. Some terrain could even be several domains at once (a bath house is both Building and Water, etc).

There's some sort of stealth, as scaring is more effective when the humans don't see you coming.
When a human counter is flipped over, that's called a Surprise, and makes him or her easier to scare (unless they're an Exorcist or a Policeman, as they can't be surprised).
If a yokai fails to scare a surprised human, they remain face up, and are now Aware, which can have different effects depending on the type of Human (Nobles and Peasants will begin to run away, Samurai and Policemen remain on guard etc).

>How do I avoid this?
write all the terrible rules down in v0.1
improve them 5% in v0.2
improve them 5% in v0.3

etc

the most important thing is to write down all the ideas you have (or evaluate + write down if they replace something else) before changing those ideas

The problem is that I have bits of rules, but not a core mechanic, because I'm an idiot and I usually pick a mechanic, work on it, and then realize it's shit. I'm also worried that some of my original ideas will turn out to work against the rest of the game (for example, I'm building everything on the humans being NPCs rather than directly controlled by a human, and that might be a terrible foundation to build on. What if it should've been an asymmetric game all along?).

Right now, I need to come up with and stick to a couple of mechanics:
Scaring people (basically combat, probably with dice).
Some way to move the Humans around, without making it a game of just making the humans move away every time your opponent gets close.
Some way to do sneaking without it being overly complicated or feel like a chore, like in most tabletop games.

Rulebook
section 1
blank
section 2
blank
section 3
mechanic
section 4
blank

problem solved

if you need to change it later it may be painful but it's gonna be less work to use the prepared infrastructure in the rulebook to change it

Dude, relax, first and foremost the key is what do you want to play? You can rework the mechanics to fit any style of play you want. It's really not a matter of which format works the best. Do you want to play an asymmetric game where you play as the different humans that flip and your nieces and nephews play as the youkai trying to scare you? Then you can design the game in that direction. Do you want the game to stay purely spooky ghost focused? Then that's the direction design should follow. There isn't a correct direction; it's wherever you and your audience want to go.
What's the end goal? Whoever has the most points from scaring people? Is there a time limit (set number of turns) or does each player maybe get to scare two random humans each, one at a time. Is it possible for humans to randomly group up, scoring more potential points, but making them more difficult to scare? Keep these sorts of things in mind.

Only way to tell if it's a bad foundation is by testing.

Take the perspective of an artisan at his craft. He makes a piece, he knows it's flawed, but he keeps creating. With practice, there are fewer flaws and he knows he's getting better at his craft.

The businessman wants to throw together a game and unleash it on the public for massive coin. The artisan just loves making games, never wants to stop, and gets better at it all the time.

At that point, I'd go with a number of successes over the target is a crit. Depending on the numbers, something like double or a set number like 5 over might work.

My idea is making character creation fulfills the background some (most?) players don't make.

So, at first you choose (every option always have the roll option for truly random result):
1 - Race and gender, giving you the base stats
2 - Origin. Are your parents peasants? Nobles? wanderers? Townsfolk? Merchants? This grant a bonus to the "family profession" (so, Smithson knows the basics of blacksmith).
3 - Infanthood. Was it free in the fields? In the streets of the town? OR did your parents put you in the monastery? Or as a squire of a noble? Or as a servant of the mayor in its manor? This grants a bonus to one social skill. You also choose a "Buddy" (can be another PC).
4 - "Adolescence" (the name did not exist in medieval ages): You finally can choose a profession on your own, but not without drawbacks: you must choose one "bully". If you choose swordfight, maybe it is the nerd mage, or a rival swordsboy, or an urchin thief.
5 - Crisis. This is when you leave home to adventure. Was running away from something? Seeking knowledge?

This should make CharGen more fluid and natural.

Thoughts?

An option I've planned for my own game, but not seen in others, is Culture. It would probably fit well in your list.

A players race might determine their starting physical attributes, but their Culture is quite important in determining base skills or mental attributes. It can also influence their starting gear and go a long way in making the character seem more three dimensional.

Bump.

My big problem is that I'm completely stuck at choosing a dice mechanic to base it all on. There's just so many possible ones (1d6 with modifiers? 2d6 and pick highest or lowest based on the situation? Dice pools? Different die sizes to represent stronger characters? Etc). It's such a basic but important thing that needs to be decided early, and I have no idea how to do it.

I know what game I want to make, and I'm pretty okay at making rules once I have a foundation to build on, but I'm waaay too bad at math to build that fundation.

I know that playtesting is important, but I have to have something to playtest first, and I'm kind of weary from tons of failed games I made where I wrote and playtested for months, only to realise that the core mechanics were so bad that it didn't really matter. So please excuse me if dice mechanics make me nervous.

...how does that solve anything?

For every natural six you roll, you may choose and reroll one of your other dice. Dice can only be rerolled once.

Looking at my skill list.

How would you group or distinguish
Herbalism, Alchemy and Medicine?

Herbalism covers identifying and finding plant and implies knowledge of uses.
Alchemy is needed in relation to magic and is guaranteed to be widely useful and powerful.
Medicine (or Healing) can encompass using medicinal plants, chemicals, bandaging, stitching, splinting, bedside manner and diagnosis.

How to deal cover the bases best and deal with the bleedover?

What mechanical effects would you use to take advantage of this combat system?

Combat goes through a strict sequence of phases: ambush, ranged, melee, close. Entire parties act at once until close range; then people you attack counterattack if they're still alive. Close repeats if it has to, but it's hella lethal.
- Ambush: Only people with surprise act. (Surprise is determined by skill rolls.)
- Ranged: Relatively hard to get good abilities for. Basic weapon attacks do 1d6 damage.
- Melee: Easy to get good abilities for. Basic weapon attacks do 2d6 damage.
- Close: Stupid lethal. Basic weapon attacks do 4d6 damage. (The average character has 14 health.)

Here's what I have so far:
- Boring accuracy and damage buffs and AOE attacks
- Opponent defends using a skill instead of armor (worth knowing: the skill system can put up with almost anything)
- You skip this entire phase and get a big effect next phase (for spellcasting)
- If this attack is successful, you repeat this phase. ("hold the line" attacks, easy with polearms) (There's a cumulative accuracy penalty to stacking these.)
- Victim "lags behind" by a phase, they can't do anything until a phase gets repeated
- Modify the initiative score (your party might go first next phase)
- You disappear from the combat entirely until a specific phase (rogue-ish ambush attack)
- Penalize accuracy for people who don't target you this stage (considering making this global in melee/close)

How does that system deal with two archers fighting? Do the fire twice each and then run to punch each other?

> I'm completely stuck at choosing a dice mechanic to base it all on.
Say you have two beneficial things of equal weight. Call them +1 bonuses. Do you want two stacked +1s to be...
- Twice as good as one +1?
- Less than twice as good as +1?
- More than twice as good as +1?
- Exactly as good as one +1?

Herbalism seems like the one that's in danger of getting crowded out. I'd make it so someone with medicine knows how to use St. John's Wort for healing, but explicitly doesn't know what that plant looks like in the wild unless they have herbalism (they've only seen it pre-picked and dried).

You might also want to consider trimming your skill list. Usually big skill lists are the wrong solution. But that's hardly universal. Depends on your design goals.

Yes, though it would be entirely reasonable for the GM to declare this stays in the ranged phase.

However, the system is generally a little wonky for 1v1 (I'm okay with this flaw), and a pure archery fight would out-of-genre. I'd also like to point out that a pure archery fight implies that one of the combatants is making a terrible mistake (the one with the relative melee advantage should advance).

Failed to find anything on the 'net so I'll inquire here:

Has anyone heard of a ruleset (I don't remember where I read it originally) or a webpage with the Magic System that uses a difficulty level (you have to beat) to cast spells?

Note this difficulty level is something like a shopping-list, with all the modifiers according to effect:
So, you start with 1 for each effect, and:
+1 for each (squared?) inch of range,
+1 for each (squared?) inch of AOE,
+1 for each additional bonus to effect.

To ease up the casting, you get to:
Channel mana: add bonus for each turn of channeling
Sacrifice: add bonus for each (appropriate) sacrifice

At the end, naturally, you get to roll to see if you cast, and if you fail - all the (now negative) magic hits you instead.

So, for example, you have a Magic 4 Warlock, and you try to cast a +4 fear check on an approaching enemy 3" away after spending a turn Channeling:
1 (starting) + 3 (range) + 0 (AoE is just one person) + 4 (for fear bonus) - 4 (for Channeling) = 4
Casting is Magic + d6 - so, basically, it's cast automatically.

>I'd also like to point out that a pure archery fight implies that one of the combatants is making a terrible mistake (the one with the relative melee advantage should advance).

Well, assuming that's possible. Something like 'A river' or even just difficult terrain would make that difficult.

Yeah, that'd be something you'd resolve by repeating the ranged phase.

I'd rather not get bogged down in edge cases for the purpose of answering my question though. Normally combat keeps advancing through the phases.

Bump.

Dear other side of the planet: I could still use feedback on if you're up for it.

Probability Percentage of Die Results when rolling D10 Pools and keeping the lowest number, Successive 1s become negative

Made this to help me balance core mechanics in a game I'm working with,

Thoughts on Die pool systems, D10s especially?

I think I might have something to build on now:
Instead of having annoying stealth rolls and such, sneaking is represented by yokai moving slower outside of their domain. Spooking is done by rolling a d6 (or a higher die, I'll experiment a bit) and rolling higher than the Human's Bravery. Not sure what happens if the test is failed, but if it succeeds, the human is removed and the player keeps the Human's counter, as well as earning a number of Magic Points, MP.

Yokai have few, if any, stats and numbers. Instead, they have Perks (passive abilities), and Spells (activated abilities). Spells can be very useful, and have effects ranging from helping or hindering yokai to moving or revealing Humans. However, casting Spells usually take up a yokai's whole turn (meaning you'll have to use teamwork to get the most out of them), and they need MP.
MP is shared among all the yokai a player controls, and are gained by Spooking or by draining MP from Domains, ie terrain features (at the start of the game, a random amount of MP counters are placed on each Domain, so you can't stand still and drain MP from the same spot forever).

I'm more interested in examining stuff that exists, as opposed to making my own stuff right now. In particular, I wanted to read about pathfinder. Does anyone know anywhere I can read honest analysis on what options in the game (especially related to feats, magic items, and class features) are unpickable vs must-haves? I've been reading through the books myself, but there's just so much to process.

I'm more interested in examining stuff that exists, as opposed to making my own stuff right now. In particular, I wanted to read about pathfinder. Does anyone know anywhere I can read honest analysis on what options in the game (especially related to feats, magic items, and class features) are unpickable vs must-haves? I've been reading through the books myself, but there's just so much to process.

i am gonna make a game where you can draft your own planet and solar system. then you start the real game where you go resource gathering and building and making jumpgates to other players solar system to build on their planets.

i was wondering what kind of things pop up in your mind when you hear this. any kind of suggestion or tips?

For one: Damn cool idea, I guess the theme of your game also goes towards larger scale combat like mercenary companies or whole armies even? Because the combat system surely gives me that feeling of large, charging forces.

Anyway, back to mechanics.
To help with the issue of:
It would work when you do all phases and then restart the sequence at "ranged" instead of repeating "close" all the time after reaching it.
At the end of a phase give combatants the option to
-advance closer (opposed by things like terrain, traps, spears if going from melee to close etc.)
-stay put (might be opposed by things like morale/fear effects, would be great if your setting has monsters for example)
-retreat (which again might be opposed by terrain or enemy abilities. bad case you stay where you are, worst case you eat an extra attack).

If someone advances while in close combat he breaks through and shifts an enemy ranged combatant gets shifted to melee or close.

This way combatants can fullfill different combat roles and you can simulate things like falling back and luring the enemy into a trap etc.
Also, to keep things from going on to long: firing ranged into close has a considerable chance of harming allies, so once the fight has reached this stage you are incentivised to help out there instead of sitting back. Unless of course you prefer to fuck over the enemy archers or melee reinforcements that sit in the back as well.

You might also want to think about increasing damage for people who fire into another engagement level, so ranged into melee is more effective than ranged into ranged. For example, and ranged into close is again stupid deadly for both friend and foe.
Another idea would be advancing instead of ambushing from range. Make an increasingly difficult check and you might begin your ambush (or part of it) already at melee or close range, then you jump back to allow archers to take a shot and begin with the normal combat sequence.
cont.

Sorry for double post. Phoneposting messed up somehow.

Just read the optimization guides. It'll give you a good idea of how Pathfinder works.
zenithgames.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-comprehensive-pathfinder-guides.html

In a "traditional"* fantasy RPG, how much impact should your race have? How much is too much, or too little? Why?

* fantasy RPGs where there are several distinct races/species i.e. pathfinder, dnd, et cetera

At least a fair deal. Every subsystem has to justify its existence. If you make people pick a race for a minor situational bonus, you're wasting their time a bit. I'd actually start with more impact than D&D 3.5 and 4E do (don't know other D&Ds well enough to comment).

Alternatively - literally no effect. Then the rules are just "You can be an elf," which is no burden. (Sort of the degenerate solution.)

Was thinking the usual squads of murderhobo. I'd have to change the dice mechanic to support huge groups.

One of the key properties I'm going for is to make combat have a bounded duration. Everything eventually devolves into people rolling around on the ground trying to shank each other, specifically because that means sloggy combat is impossible.

A complex collection of maneuvers like you describe would be really cool for a game that tries to deal with mercenary companies though. I also always thought that a mercenary company would be a lot of fun paired with troupe play.

I prefer for a little bit, and for them to not at all affect your statlines. The distinctions should largely serve as highlights of an abilities of a race, not much more.

This little bit allows some mechanical distinction which is interesting and flavorful, but too much and you might start excessively encouraging roles with races which might be "realistic" (well of course dexterous elves [which they all are] favor dexterous roles, etc), which is, frankly, a little tiresome.

Stuff like DnD's adding +s to stats incentivizes people to just play elf rangers if they want to play rangers, or something. Why make people feel like they "should" do that, or they're making a "bad" choice if they don't?

In D&D3.5 you can have a maximum attribute of 20 at character generation. The racial bonus constitutes 2 points or 10% of this.
Or if we look at an average score of 10 we have a shift of 20% in relation to that.
Or looking at effect felt in game 2 score points equal a +1 or +5% success chance.

You have to ask yourself if you are satisfied with that impact.

Powergamers gonna powergame. If they don't go by stat bonus they go by special abilities. You only get rid of this effect if you trivialize difference. I'd advise designing according to background and accept player inclinations.

races are classes

Semantics.

>I'd actually start with more impact than D&D 3.5 and 4E do
Do you mean 'more impact' in 'more stats' or 'many more features' -- by the latter, I mean instead of +2 Strength, it grants +x STR, +x extra points towards X skill, +Y bonus towards Z action, et cetera?

Basically, are stats enough to discern the races?
>The distinctions should largely serve as highlights of an abilities of a race, not much more.

How would you highlight a race's abilities without granting bonus, race-unique abilities (ignoring the possibility of making these nigh-useless) or stats?

They are enough to discern some races and they are discerning enough for some systems. If a statline encompasses every trait an entity can have in your system, sure it is enough because it works on the same granularity as everything else. If your races have largely the same humanoid form and differ mainly in efficiency while being able to do the same task, than that is enough.

I'd say there is a difference between people that see easily-read stats ("oh, it directly helps what I want to do, cool.") which our brain will naturally see as being "better" (even if you're not inclined to pick purely based on mechanical "goodness", you'll see it) which can create that effect, versus mild features and whatnot that are more situational and flavorful, while being less easy to compare, and especially versus dedicated min/maxers.

Thinking about it, maybe the problem here is merely that DnD makes it so most characters only care about 1 or 2 out of their 6 stats, and can mostly disregard the others, which exaggerates this oddness.

Thinking of a few other systems systems (like Savage Worlds, off the top of my head) I don't think have this problem exists (or if it does, to a much lesser degree), simply because the stats are all more or less useful.

It would be race unique abilities, probably. I have no advice on making those though, unfortunately.

>Thinking about it, maybe the problem here is merely that DnD makes it so most characters only care about 1 or 2 out of their 6 stats, and can mostly disregard the others, which exaggerates this oddness.

This is certainly true, but GM style plays into it as well. A chosen weakness should be felt after all.

back again for my perrenial idea request post.

Im making a vaguely polynesian themed RPG with a really restrictive inventory system. I need ideas for items that would fit in the game that require either two hands, a hand and a shoulder, or being slung across the back to be carried. So far what I have is a large warclub, a brace of spears, a large pua (stone wheel thing thats used as currency), modified canoe that can be carried by very strong characters, and a set of carved poles and mats for a lean-to.

anybody got any ideas?

What are the quintessential spells for dungeon crawling games?

totem
a piglet
shark jaw
a net with weights
chieftains chair
didgeridoo
drum

For my money unique race abilities are best kept passive so that they don't butt into the creative space of class abilities. I also prefer them to be powerful but highly specific, of course your ability to make such passive abilities is going to depend on how many moving parts your system has to play with.

So I want a mechanic to represent obscuring your opponents vision by holding your shield out far in front of you.

d20 system. Any ideas as to how would you represent this?

Looks like a Defensive Feint to me. Roll a Quick Contest of Shield skill vs. their highest weapon skill, or DX if better. Margin of Victory is applied as a penalty to their next attack roll against you.

Pardon my Fate-ism here, but this sounds like a "Full Defense" action

Meaning, you gain AC-or-whatever bonus instead of attacking that round/action.
Not very different from hefting up a tower shield in some systems but does the narrative job of saying that the "active defender" is obscured

Huh, hadn't occurred to me as defensive. I basically figured the defensive bonus was factored into ordinary shield use. Rather, I was actually thinking offensive- the idea being that your opponent can't from where your next attack will come from.

Problem is it didn't strike me as strictly a feint either. Feints are resolved as a bluff, and rely on the opponent seeing your maneuver in order to trick them. In this case the opponent can't see anything at all, so its hardly a deception- so much as a blind. But it's not so bad as them actually being blind, since they know where you are and have some indication of your hostile intent.

Same thing, then, but in reverse. Margin of Victory is applied as a penalty to their next active defense against your attack, or as a penalty to AC in a d20 system most likely.

It's definitely a Feint in my books. Feints can be more than just lying or tricking, they can be hindering your opponent's ability to effectively respond to your attack. Call it a Setup Attack if you'd like, where it's still an attack (bash the guy's face with a shield), but the defense penalties won't apply until your next attack/turn.

Yes, a penalty to enemy AC is what I was thinking. It's that margin of success that bothers me. No matter what comparison of skills I use, the margin is much too large. I wouldn't want the penalty to exceed 4, I think, nor do I want it to completely negate evasion defense (aka "flat footed" though I rather detest that term). I considered a flat penalty to AC, but that just seems lazy and is the default I'd rather avoid.

I was partly hoping if a third option could be found.

Well, the MoV mechanic comes from GURPS, so it definitely isn't suited for a d20's swing. I can't think of anything else besides the incredibly unsatisfactory flat penalty. Have you considered using 2d10 instead, or otherwise generating a non-flat curve for your system?

I'm rather fond of the 5% probability increments, and rather than giving a natural 20 auto-success I just let it explode, which has surprisingly easy math to work with while still putting unattainable success well out of reach by the power of improbability. Suffice it to say I'm pretty attached to it and have it entrenched in the balance of my system by now.

The flat penalty is unsatisfying. Especially since I used flat penalties to AC to simulate dual wielding ( the other blade is for trapping and threatening, not DPS- the speed at which you attack comes from the rotation of your torso, not flailing your arms about). Furthermore, dual wielding with a shield is perfectly viable provided you are using a center-grip shield capable of punching- but this blinding technique is something else entirely and I feel it should be represented with something else.

Good luck, then. I hope you can figure out something you're happy with. If I were going for a system that allowed that sort of realistic detail, I'd use dice that better represented reality.

What about halving evasion defense, or something similar? The worse of halved evasion or -2, something like that. Or perhaps a threshold for a quick contest, where regular success is -2, and success by some greater number gives -4? Placeholder numbers because I don't know your system math.

Should animals you can have with you be given personalities and quirks on an individual level so players can form relationships with them?

A mule that hates short people, a dog that distrusts the elderly, favorite foods, skills, etc. Basically a Pokemon for you to train and care for. I have a system for this and want to know how far folks would like it to go.

Absolutely, it takes almost no effort to do, can add to later plot points (wait, my mule isn't trying to step on my food and eat the hobbit's hair? It must be replaced by a shapeshifter!), adds character, builds connection to the party, it's just great.

I'm only familiar with a few systems, but I haven't seen animals treated as much more than cars you drive or spells you cast. Do you know of any that add individualism?

Add it yourself you ninny. There is no need to add mechanical complexity to something like that, just say how the donkey in your party is a goof ball, no need to make it complicated. People will get attached to it.

Excuse me? I'm specifically comparing it to Pokemon, not some fluff for a laugh. I don't want it to be limited to funny quirks. It will be a resource for training animals of many types, rewarding attentive trainers because it essentially replaces the Beastmaster skillset with an actual system that has logic.

I already have the basic rules for animals, this is deeper system that needs to have mechanics. Are you saying you wouldn't want that?

Just some idea that I shat out.
You have a set of 4 disciplines. Defence, balistics and mele are self exlainatory, berserker and finese(for lack of a better name) are buffed up versions of mele and balistics.
Each discipline has a set of linked actions. You hit someone with mele actions, you shot someone with balistic action, etc.
Now look at pic related. Each time you perform an action, you go one space further in it's discipline column, if you use action from diffrent discipline everything is restarted.
Actions A,B,C,D are special actions, escalation is super special action that lets you perform truly epic feats.
> let's you switch to adjecent column, >> let's you switch to adjecent column or the column next to it. ^ let's you go one row down.
3 rows before escalation lock you in a specific discipline.

You certainly did shit it out. How about some examples for old Mr. Pullman?

Terry likes called shots. Called shots are linked to Finese.
He uses called shot 5 times inbetween texting with his gf while waiting for his turn. Now he's locked in Finese discilne.
It just so happens that NPC that he was shoting focuses on him. Terry can't defend himself.
Terry has two options:
1,use > to switch to Balistics column, then use ^ in balistics column and then restart the entire thing.
2,use called shot to shot 2 more times and then use escalation in hopes of killing the NPC.

Am I supposed to know what called shots are or what system this is building off of?

Personnally I have all three in the same since it's an antiquity setting. But all my skills are broad with ''Etiquette'' to define their use in specific areas of expertise. Because in the end, chances are that the guy knowning how to brew potion with herbs know how to find said herbs, or he would be out of job pretty quickly. And chances are he knows how to use those herbs to benefit people (Medecine), even if it's a particular type of benefit.

>I supposed to know what called shots are
Jesus.

what the fuck are you shitting on him for? the way you're explaining it makes almost no sense and the diagram you provided makes even less

i'm trying to piece it together and all i can see is that if you use an ability twice in a row you can't swap, you can only swap columns at low tiers, but theres something about an escalation and basically what the fuck are you talking about?

Hey guys need some comment. I ran my test game with my system and I am pretty satisfied. The only thing is my basic skill check system.

I am using this : skill lvl = dice pool (d6). each rolled 4+ = success. Then you compare to a table related to the DC: if you have -2 or less compared to the DC, it's ''you fail and something else ... '', if you have -1 or 0, it's either ''you fail but something vaguely positive'' or if your skill is high enough (I decide) ''you pass but something vaguely negative'', if you have +1 or +2, it's a straight pass, and if you have +3 or more it's a critical pass (''you pass and something positive'').

The actual table worked well and I liked it. The problem is that the whole thing takes too much time. My first test was that everything was too difficult so I added on my last playtest (with a group) a ''6 = 2 success''. But now between calculating, checking tables, comparing, etc. it takes a lot of time. Especially when guys will have higher skill (rolling 8+ dice).

Is there a way of having a difficulty check that integrate a success table ? What I don't want is a ''3d6 over/under, pass or fail''. Not that I don't like 3d6 (on the contrary), but I really would like to have something that gives me the chance of having a success table where you can have different kind of outcome and not just ''pass or fail''. Thanks.

I'm not entirely certain I understand the issue. If I'm reading this correctly players roll dice aiming higher than the DC of whatever and where their roll actually falls relative to the DC determines the outcome in a more granular fashion than simple pass/fail. But you're finding adding dice values and comparing to DC too slow? It is the problem that you have specific success tables for every possible action and DC that you have to refer to every time rather than giving generic outcome guidelines for the GM to fill in?

I write poorly so let me rephrase.

What I find tedious is the dice-pool. I think it fits better the granular-result table, but it's taking too many dice and too much time. If I could find a way of having granular-result with (say) 3d6 roll, it would be awesome. Everybody would always roll the same thing in all circumstances and it would go faster.

Does anyone have something really simple and easily modifiable that would be short enough for some drunk people who have never played an RPG to read? I tried making my own system but whenever I fixed a balance issue, five more issues were created.

i want to make a very simple system based on WoD but instead of using D10 a D6 like this:
i can't into probabilities for shit

1 : failure and remove one success
2-5: success
6: success and roll again (one time only)

QUESTION: what's the exact chance of success per dice rolled?

thanks in advance

Just have a general resolution table mapped to whatever dice you are using.

anydice.com/

go to function library
fiddle

Makes sense, but how does it take into account the difficulty of the task itself ?

For example, some guy wants to lockpick something easy, he has 5 in lockpick. He rolls 3d6 and gets 1+5+8=14. +5 = 19.

What's the difference between a difficult lock and an easy one if, according to a fixed table, 11 to 19 = full success everytime ?

Would you use difficulty as a modifier ? Like a difficulty 3 lock = -3 to global result ?

i'm not the person i'm replying to but it sounds like a sound mechanic to me--each point of difficulty corresponds to a point of skill needed to accomplish it, more or less

>Would you use difficulty as a modifier?
Yes

Risus or Lasers & Feelings

Thanks anons for the suggestions. I will try it.

Any game using something like this so I can get a better grasp of the type of difficulty and such ?

talislanta.com/?p=194