NOTE: This is a re-formatting of the forum thread, http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=21479, primarily by Bloody Stupid Johnson (2011-2013).
Here I’m constructing some sort of list/analysis of existing RPG’s innovations, unusual twists, and mechanical “bells and whistles”, some of them fairly obscure, partly to clarify my own thoughts but perhaps of interest to other would-be designers.
Anyone who wishes to discuss anything feel free to do so (honestly I expect little input, since tumbleweeds hate game design). I’m inputting data topic-by-topic for clarity. If you haven't visited for awhile, there's a good chance I've edited in additional notes since then.
Attributes:
An attribute (aka ability score, stat) represents a character's inherent ability at a range of related tasks. Attributes are normally possessed by all characters - at least all player characters - and often all monsters as well. A few games may have "customizable" attributes (i.e. FUDGE had sets flexible from campaign to campaign; or (more rarely) an attribute set that varies from character to character - e.g. where a roll has a default and various attributes being potentially definable for characters (e.g. Over The Edge, Cortex +) (thanks to RobMaudib for noting these). FUDGE also has customizable attributes (but from campaign to campaign, rather than between characters). A system may let a character use a default rating if they have no applicable rating; this works particularly well with attributes rated positive/negative around an average of 0.
Number of attributes used in a system can be anything from 2 to 18 or so. i.e.
2 - Prince Valiant; 3:16 (in both cases the two are essentially 'Fighting Ability' and 'Non-Fighting Ability').
3 - TriStat, The Fantasy Trip (GURPS predecessor)(STR, DEX, INT)
4- GURPS, Amber
6- D&D
8 - Palladium
9- Storyteller, DC Heroes
10- Fuzion, Rolemaster
11- Harnmaster (approx; 13 if you want to count Frame and Morality).
18 - Space Opera
Balance between attributes can be a delicate affair where number of stats are low, though these aren't (IMHO) inherently broken. While having 4 stats that are all used for 1/4 of skills/game functions should work...there are are however examples of systems with low numbers of stats that are quite min/maxable - GURPS for example being originally designed for fantasy, STR is important there for hand-to-hand damage etc, but becomes much less valuable in settings as soon as firearms (or blasters) make an appearance, while DEX remains invaluable. GURPS 4E reduces cost of STR and Health compared to Int/Dex, and uses STR to determine hit points (though perhaps this makes Health the new dump stat..)..Tri-stat reputedly is fairly easily broken as well. Random roll systems are less susceptible to breakage, though more stats makes a series of lucky rolls less likely.
Higher numbers of attributes mean each individual stat is less likely to give overwhelming advantage. However, more stats does usually mean more points, so that it becomes easy to max out one or two attributes with relatively little opportunity cost (by spreading out the effects of dumping across several stats).
Games with low numbers of stats tend to have stats which are 'fuzzy' in terms of interpretation, while more stats means each becomes more specific in what it measures. D&Ds 6 attributes for instance are all quite vague (Dexterity combines hand/eye coordination and agility, Strength includes size and muscle, Wisdom includes willpower and judgment, Charisma can include looks and personality), which has the advantage that a player can choose to interpret a number in a variety of ways to support different character concepts, while Size or Luck or Willpower are harder to interpret creatively, but are clear and measurable.
A quite comprehensive listing of attribute sets for a number of RPGs is available at: http://www.fudgery.net/omnium-gatherum/lag.html
Some of my favourite obscure attributes are Size (most commonly seen in the Runequest/BRP family of systems, very useful for adjudicating a number of edge rules cases like lifting objects and hit points, Speed (frequently handled messily) and Power (as seen in RQ, SenZar and Stormbringer, this stat is handy if games are going to have a lot of soul damage/soul eating going on).
Other innovations, good or bad include:
Generating an attribute score usually falls into two categories: Random Allocation (die roll) and Point Buy.
Point-buy is sometimes only for attributes, while in other systems the same pool may be used to purchase powers, skills, advantages/disadvantages, etc. Random roll is faster, but less “fair” and potentially abusable by cheating etc. The more attributes a game has, the less likely statistically that random-roll will generate a super character and the more involved a point buy system becomes. Where a system is fully random, there is less pressure for attributes to be equal in game importance and houseruling in additional attributes is easier (often seen with Tunnels and Trolls).
Point buy systems quite often add slightly less logical attribute effects to attributes, to balance their relative importance, often particularly noticeable in systems which have evolved from random to point-buy across multiple editions. Some point buy systems (e.g. DC Heroes, HERO) cost different attributes at a higher or lower rate to avoid both balance and realism issues, by adding further accounting to chargen. While a good point buy system makes character generation theoretically fairer, a bad point-buy system may not be terribly fair, with some character concepts at a disadvantage if stats are same cost but different importance (e.g. to a given class) or if breakpoints are easily exploited. Even bad point-buy does let players get the characters they want though, within budget, which purely random rolling doesn't.
Known elaborations:
Rolemaster gives characters a current attribute and a "potential attribute" which is the highest it can be raised to with level advancement. Potential attribute is rolled, with a range that decreases as a score approaches a perfect rating.
In a sense, random games where a player distributes dice between stats, then rolls them, are also a combination of point-buy/random. Some (Method VI 2nd Edition, 8s for all stats plus 7d6) roll and then allocate, while others (Amazing Engine) allocate and then roll. The Amazing Engine variant gives a very wide spread of possible scores since both # dice and the final rolls vary and it is more difficult to implement a cap to scores (you can't say "you can't add more dice if it takes you over X" - they just roll, and may get over X), giving its attributes a very nebulous scale.
Another approach for games with separate stats/modifiers is to buy the modifier, use that to calculate the base stat, then roll the remainder, preventing characters from buying stats to optimal breakpoints only (this was suggested in the recent Rolemaster playtest as a houserule - it has 1-100 stats with a breakpoint every 5).
Point buy may be at a linear cost, 1:1 up to a given threshold and 2:1 or more past that (e.g. Dying Earth), require points equal to current rating, or require use of a table to calculate the scores. A fairly common design flaw of many point-based systems is to shift between using a linear cost in chargen, to a non-linear cost in character advancement, or vice versa, creating trap options. For instance Storyteller goes from linear cost to ‘triangular’ [current stat x 5], while 3.5E D&D goes from requiring [points equal to current modifier, minimum 1] to raise to a fixed +1 per 4 levels. A fighter with Str 17, Charisma 8 who advances to 4th level can add +1 to the Strength (worth 3 points) or +1 to their Cha (worth 1 point). In the opposite case, a storyteller character who wants to raise their attributes with experience should leave some of their stats at one dot to make the process cheaper.
FantasyCraft makes use of this in some fashion by having abilities which are '+1 to whichever is lower of two listed stats, choice if equal' - meaning that a higher value boost can be gotten if a character spends more points in a secondary attribute as well.
This same problem can of course apply to buying skills or other abilities as well. Of the White Wolf games Aberrant is perhaps the worst for multiple resource pools with 'nova points', 'freebie points', 'stat points' and then XP all having different costs.
*some point-buy systems cost different attributes differently based on their importance (HERO).
The statistic scale normally depends on what dice rolling mechanism is used. (Higher scales are generally useful to handle “ability damage” but also means that not every point may give a character a benefit).
Ability damage is normally given out using a linear cost; HERO system handles “Drain” in terms of purchase costs - as the system has stats that vary in purchase price. Depending on the system ability damage may be used to handle physical damage, fatigue, or spell points, or these may involve other subsystems.
Attributes may sometimes use fractional values (i.e. where a single point is meant to represent a major shift, like a doubling in lifting capacity [suggested by Stormbringer - the poster here, not the RPG]. A couple of games also use fractions in special cases such as D&Ds 18-percentile Strength (where the main score has a score from 01 to 00, generated with percentile dice), or HackMaster (which has percentile values for every stat e.g. 13/47 Dexterity, with characters getting minor increases to each percentage as they level. Pyramid 3-34 suggests a variant rule for GURPS to give fractional ST points to small characters (e.g. Str 2.5) to better differentiate between them, as most otherwise have identical Str (about 2). Allowing Str down to 0.5 also lets the system model birds, bats or 3" little people (there are of course other approaches to do this; see the post on Scale).
Random rolls are generally a bell curve roll such as 3d6 (by tradition and to duplicate IRL bell curves i.e. keep extraordinary scores rare). World of Synnibarr and "The Arduin Adventure" use d20 rolls for stat generation, presumably because the designers wanted extraordinary scores to be commonly possessed by PCs (the related "The Compleat Arduin" using smaller linear rolls, such as d10+6, with exact dice/bonus depending on stat and race). Fantasy Imperium uses d100 (rolled under directly for checks); Rolemaster uses d100, but with the derived bonus modifiers following a bell curve.
It is theoretically possible to have a 1-100 system that follows a bell curve; dark legends exist of an RPG which uses the "Danish Lottery Dice" (d34) to generate a bell curve from 1-100 [3d34-2]. See http://forum.rpg.net/archive/index.php/t-60023.html (the thread there suggests the game in question might be Metascape, but this is definitely incorrect).
The boardgame (more or less) Flash Gordon & The Warriors of Mongo - see review here (thanks to Philip for mentioning this game elsewhere), apparently used 3 "averaging dice" to generate stats; these were common in wargames and are six-sided dice labelled (2,3,3,4,4,5).
Random generation is only rarely used by systems with small attribute ranges (like Storyteller's 1-5 scale), since generating the scores would possibly involve less dice (and so be very variable) and also since shifts in the number are more significant. Exceptions do exist like the GDW House System (1-10 range, rolled on 2d6-2, reroll if 0) or Anima; Beyond Fantasy (1-10 range, rolled on 1d10). A low-scale system could still have randomly-allocated points without being too imbalanced (i.e. with six attributes, roll d6 for an attribute point to see where it goes; roll again for each stat point in the spend pool). In general however, it seems that low scales such as 1-5 tend to have PCs often-to-always have some stats around the maximum level, making these sorts of scales more suited to the assumption the PCs are heroic/exceptional.
Point allocation is also less math-intensive with smaller attribute scores - in part games with low stat scales (i.e. 1-5) sometimes seem to have more attributes, perhaps partly due to this and partly due to the need to balance attribute effects by sub-dividing powerful stats.
A possible third alternative to rolling or using points, Marvel Super Heroes has the option of using "character modelling" to design a character. Here the player assigns numbers to the character (that they think the GM will allow!) and the GM vetoes anything too excessive. This is normally, but not always, done based on a given fictional character; its almost an ad hoc point buy system which works by being balanced against normally random character generation (if there was a real point buy system, players would probably have to use that). This variant, will abuseable, is potentially less broken than many actual point-buy systems; it allows a GM to do things like weigh up relative importance of attribute values to particular characters (i.e. why not allow the fighter to have more CHA if they don't get any real benefit from it, instead of making them dump it to get more STR?).
This approach is very similar to how GMs in most games will effectively produce an NPC, assuming they aren't diligent enough to stat out every NPC in their city in advance. Apart from MSH it is not often seen for PCs, though.
The old Conan RPG from TSR (cloned as ZeFRS) has a system where characters don't truly have attributes, but where a character buys skills and their ranks/10 determine a 'default' for other skills in that group.
A few point systems give players bonus points for stuff such as detailing the character's back history (DC Heroes, Risus).
Random-roll systems sometimes give bonuses to characters from previous characters e.g. Synnibarr and Dragonlance add bonuses for "dying heroically".
After character generation, attributes can sometimes be improved with experience (sometimes not). This may be capped in the same way as initial attributes or uncapped.
Point-based systems like GURPS can let them be bought up with points (sometimes at extra cost - 3E GURPS doubles the cost after chargen, while in DC Heroes its at x5); systems where xp is spent rather than tracked are also basically this. Level-based games can have automatic bonuses from level (e.g. +1 every 4 levels in 3E), or this can be an option e.g. Savage Worlds (where a character can pick up a stat increase once/rank, also balanced vs. skill raises or new Edges). In either case the bonus is keyed to level advancement, whereas point/xp spending makes a character choose between a stat increase and an increase to something else. Talislanta let characters spend xp to buy either a level or a stat point (25 xp for either), while SenZar has 'fate point' awards for stat increases separate to XP awards. Another interesting system here is Tunnels and Trolls which has very excessive stat raises; stats start at 3d6 but depending on the attribute an increase at level-up can be from + 1/2 level (IQ,CHR, DEX) to +1x (ST, CON) to +2x level (Luck). Games can also have random checks for improvement (Rolemaster allows checks with increase up to the limit of a roll for potential stat, Stormbringer; Spawn of Fashan reportedly has a table of attribute increase chances by class, with cumulative chance increasing if the check fails, then resetting to base chance when the check succeeds), or a skill can be learned that increases stats (Palladium). Sometimes stats can also be improved via training (Runequest).
Magic that alters stats can sometimes also be found - this may have separate limits e.g. 3E D&D limits inherent bonuses to +5 maximum, while AD&D lets wishes raise scores at 1-point-per-wish to 16, then 10 wishes are needed to raise scores from 16-20, and 20 per point beyond (to a hard limit of 25). Avalon Hill RuneQuest allowed to DEX to be trained to 1.5x its initial value, while for ST/CON the lower of the two could be trained up to match the other score, or both up to SZ if that was higher.
(thanks to Phillip for additional notes on Dragonquest and Conan).
Attribute scores may be used directly in game mechanics or may have secondary “modifiers” which are used by the game mechanics – compare e.g. GURPS (roll under stat on 3d6) or White Wolf (roll dice equal to the stat) and D&D 3E (Strength score of 13 = +1 modifier on Strength rolls on d20) or perhaps even Savage Worlds' named derived attributes [Toughness = 1/2 Vigour die type +2]. There are a few paradigms from which modifiers can derive:
- 1) they can be proportional to the raw attribute; or
- 2) they may be a plus/minus based on the difference from an 'average' attribute, which gets +0. Building modifiers based around '0 for average' minimizes additional math to some extent, and means multiple modifiers can be applied to a single roll more easily, or that checks with no modifier are more or less balanced. Proportion-based '0 is nonexistent' results means that rules like 'does not add Dex modifier to AC when surprised' are consistently bad for all characters without more explanatory rules. Multipliers to the bonus in a plus/minus system affect weighting of the bonus, while in a proportionality system a reduction is always a penalty. A plus/minus system could make attribute specific costs less awkard (if buying STR costs more than buying APP, say).
Certain game functions (weight lifted, damage absorbed) more logically derive from an objective scale where 0 represent nonexistence, while appearance modifiers for instance perhaps suit '0 is average' (i.e. poor looks is a hindrance, high looks is a bonus). If based around +0 for average, the set of numbers giving no modifier is sometimes larger than other bonuses (i.e. 9-12 no modifier, then +1 at 13-15, +2 at 16-18 so that the average range is 4 numbers wide, rather than 3 numbers for each higher bonus level) which might be considered a mathematical flaw. This doesn't always happen e.g. in 3E each 2 points is consistently a 1-pt change in the modifier.
- 3) they increase in slowly-widening ranges, so that spending points on a stat gives less and less real return. (Marvel Super Heroes' ranks - these are used on a table rather than being an additive modifier).
In some games modifiers are used only during character generation (i.e. Dragon Warriors) and so do not take up character sheet real estate, though break points may still exist. Dragon Warriors is also interesting in having basically two varieties of modifiers; though not named explicitly stats can give a larger 'primary' modifier, or a smaller 'secondary' modifier, depending on how strongly they influence a derived attribute. Most derived attributes in it are affected by one primary and one secondary modifier.
Basic Role Playing/RQ uses a system of category modifiers for groups of skills where a stat might add +1% per point above 10 (primary), or +1% per 2 points (secondary); multiple attributes can affect skills since the modifiers are quite small. HarnMaster determines "skill bases" as an average of 3 attributes, then multiplies these by a *2, *3 or more depending on how easy the skill is to use.
Defining multiple modifiers for a single stat can also be used to reduce the number of scores which have no mechanical effect; it would be conceivable to have a 3.5 D&D type system where every stat point is useful due to having two modifiers, one that increases at 'evens' and the other increasing at 'odds'.
At least one game has two levels of derivation – in effect modifiers from modifiers - and so three columns on the character sheet. In Earthdawn a character attribute generates a “step number” and that “step number” generates a number or type of dice to roll e.g. Str 15 = Step 6 = d10 (the intermediate “step number” can be modified by various factors such as skill levels).
Attributes vary in their significance/ weighting on tasks - either alone or in combination with other factors. An attribute may absolutely determine success/failure e.g. +12 score may absolutely fail a contest vs. a +13 (Amber, though circumstancial modifiers are common), have a massive effect on success (Tunnels and Trolls stats often range from 10 to 50+, with a random roll of only about +2d6), be rolled as a dice pool, be rolled under directly on d20 as in AD&D (i.e. +5% per stat point), or apply only a minor modifier or bonus percentiles i.e. +1 per 2 points on d20 (D&D), +1 per 5 points on 3d6 (HERO), etc.
Tasks are also affected by skill (or level) to a varying extent, giving rise to variable weightings for both. The weighting may be heavily toward attribute (Warhammer, skill-less systems), 50/50 i.e. 1/2 stat + 1/2 skill (Storyteller, Cyberpunk), or heavily toward skill (i.e. 3.x, BRP). In other cases, stat may have no direct effect on some rolls but may give a cap on skill rating (e.g. Savage Worlds) or additional points to spend; this is discussed in some more detail under Skills.
(thanks to RobMaudib for additional notes).
In some systems attribute and skills do different things making the relative weight hard to determine. Skills may also vary upward more than attribute, e.g. with level, so that impact of attributes gradually decreases.
Modifiers or tables build in a buffer between the score itself and the modifier in the dice roll, giving more leeway in possible stat range. For example, HERO uses a 3d6-roll-under system for most attribute checks but characters have a very wide range of possible scores since a check is made by rolling under [8+(Stat/5)]; D&D went from 3-18 using roll under to an open scale in 3.x, with adoption of a d20+modifiers system.
Modifiers most often increase linearly (e.g. +2 to a stat = +1 to the modifier) though certain systems (Rolemaster, FATAL) provide bonuses that start to increase faster toward the far ends of the normal range, while AD&D has complex & irregular modifier charts. Some systems cap maximum modifiers i.e. Rifts notes that many bonuses 'max out' at 30 (in the case of PP, strike bonuses stop increases but the characters starts to receive an initiative bonus). GURPS caps 'skill defaults' at 20 regardless of the character's actual stat.
A couple of games include the modifier for a stat of infinity ('Beyond' in Marvel Super Heroes, or '*' in SenZar).
Where a game has fairly limited bonuses on rolls from attribute, it sometimes requires additional bonuses from ad hoc factors to generate logical results. 3.x D&D for example also applies 'size modifiers' to Str rolls to ensure that giants etc. have a reasonable chance of breaking down doors; DMG II for the game has a prodigy NPC template that gives a +2 to one stat, and also adds a +4 on d20 rolls. 3E-derived OGL game FantasyCraft has archetypes like 'Strong' which provide only a +2 to Strength [+1 modifier], but also give a 'double boost' perk (character can spend 2 action dice on Str rolls).
Conversely, games where huge stats provide huge modifiers can have systems to scale back relative modifiers e.g. JAGS, GURPS. See post 68 (Over the Limit).
A system can perhaps run the other way (from modifier to checks ---> score itself) though this isn't often exactly seen in 'attributes' per se (perhaps Fuzion attributes -->derived hits), that would be the relationship of "level ---> hit points." A system can therefore have kludges that apply to score instead of modifier as well i.e. one Dragon magazine of old in the 180s somewhere IIRC had a houserule for 2E AD&D where giants took 1/2 damage from attacks from human-size creature ("ouch! damn bugs"), thus increasing their effective HP score without pumping their HD/saves higher.
Modifiers from attributes are sometimes considered to be independent from the skill/derived attribute they modify, or sometimes no distinction is made between points gained off attribute and other points. 3.x D&D (which opts for the first approach) often uses "skill ranks" (not including modifier) or "base attack bonus" as prerequisites for other abilities. Another instance would be GURPS where skill is bought based off [difference to attribute] rather than final score. Examples of the other approach would be Feng Shui or WEG (d6)Star Wars; in Star Wars a character might have a Strength of 6D, a Swimming skill of 7D, and improvement costs for the ability would be based off the total skill, despite most of it being from attribute.
Modifiers also vary in how pervasive they are through a game system. In some games modifiers may be rarely used and only on a handful of checks (Palladium), in others every task may have one or more modifiers (3E D&D).
Super Attributes
Superhero/mutant games may also allow for "super attributes". These might just just increase a stat, or be a rule letting characters buy up stats to ridiculous levels; however, some games have separate power rating which applies to "super strength" or the like - this makes power cancelling or powerless alter egos easier to adjudicate. In Aberrant in particular, rolls being [stat]+[mega-stat] and doesn't require lookup of a modifiers table or the like, made reductions for dormancy, or being depowered, or on the other hand bonuses from use of abilities like shapeshifting, very easy to apply.
Immortal - the Invisible War lets characters buy attribute points (in the game called "motes of immaculum") free-floating, so they can be reassigned between stats ("halo colours") at will. These are more expensive than regular points, although balanced a little bit by Immortal's difficulty system which normally requires additional stat rolls to accomplish actions - i.e. shooting someone through fog with an injury might require a red check (resolve) for the wound, a blue check (awareness) for the fog, and a yellow check (expertise [Dex]) for the attack itself. Without multiple stats being simultaneously applicable on a task, a free floating +1 might as well be +1 to all stats.
Special Abilities from attributes
Games may also detail special abilities gained from super attributes, e.g. Aberrant added a list of Enhancements with purchase of a mega-attribute allowing selection of one enhancement e.g. Lifter (Mega-Strength), Taint Resistance (mega-intelligence), Regeneration (Mega-Stamina), etc.
Other games have added extraordinary abilities based on very high attribute scores. AD&D included spell resistances and Regeneration for scores of 20 and above; the revision of the Immortals rules for Basic D&D included some special abilities for scores up to 100 such as "reload crossbow by hand at double rate" or "can cock trebuchet by himself or herself". Rolemaster also included the option of special abilities for very high scores (a number of lists being provided in Rolemaster Companion III which included the equivalents of talents, spell-like abilities, additional mechanical bonuses like increased healing rates or reduction of specific penalties; Companion IV expanded the list of strength effects to allow use of larger weapons one-handed etc.). While the abilities were often interesting, these often were things other systems would handle in a less ad hoc fashion though rules based off modifiers - Strength requirements for large weapons or a built-in adjustment to healing rate from Con, for example.
In 3.x D&D "Feats" were used to define exceptional abilities, with very high statistics being required for some feats (i.e. 19+ Dex for "Quicker than the Eye", 13+ Str for bastard sword proficiency, or 17+ Dex for Improved Two Weapon Fighting).
Conversely, games may also add specific disabilities for very low attribute scores. 2E D&D notes that characters with an Int of 3 "cannot speak a language, although they may communicate via grunts and gestures", while Amazing Engine characters with a Fitness of less than 10 or so (on a scale up to 100) cannot run. The objectionable game FATAL gives low Int characters a roll for "retard Strength". Some AD&D GMs may give characters ad hoc special abilities to compensate for low stat rolls - see thread here.
Games sometimes add these disabilities for situations where a stat is temporarily rather than permanently impaired i.e. Tunnels and Trolls 5th ed., where spellcasting burns Strength points, has a STR reduction to 2 indicate possible unconscious and collapse (3 is considered fine since character stats are rolled on 3d6 - "while a character with a Str of 3 may have muscles which resemble water, they are obviously a viable character").
Death To Ability Scores (DTAS). A argument by some gamers (particularly 4E D&D players) is that ability scores (attributes) are problematic for various reasons. For instance (from here):
Do you really like using ability scores? Or are you just used to them? Because it seems as though you only want ability scores to be worth a +1 or +2 bonus at most and reduce them to vestigial bits. Put bluntly, it's not worth keeping the mechanical and meta-fictional baggage of ability scores if they're going to provide only a token bonus.
It's not worth the system mastery trap of needing to pick the sneaky class, the sneaky score, and the sneaky skill to have a sneaky guy worth a damn. It's not worth the twin bugbears of being mechanically punished for having a socially skilled fighter or true Vancian wizard (ie, a well-rounded adventurer like wizards actually are in Jack Vance's Dying Earth books); or being called a munchkin power-gamer because your fighter has to have an 18 STR to not suck but you roleplay your 8 CHA dude as a generally pleasant person. It's not worth watching the light go out of a new player's eyes because they wanted to play a guy based on their favorite fictional character but the realities of ability scores make it impossible.
All of the specific concerns here are fixeable by various means - if they are a problem - but this may be useful to keep in mind. In related design, storygame 'A Wilderness of Mirrors' avoids ability scores partly for that reason (saying super-spies should have all 18s).
Many games have “derived attributes” (aka figured attributes, secondary attributes) which are calculated from the basic attributes in some fashion.
These can include
*ratings which are derived from a single attribute in a complex fashion, and perhaps subject to additional modifiers.
*averages of two attributes (Runequest/BRP Hit Points = average of CON and Sz);
*scores which have a base value derived from an attribute, plus additional points gained from level advancement or class bonuses, and perhaps random rolls (D&D Hit Points; spell points or psionics points in many systems ).
Alpha Omega reportedly has multiple levels of derivation, with normal derived stats (secondary attributes) being used to calculate further derived stats (tertiary attributes).
Derived attributes can have a result similar to “sub attributes” –discretionary points or special modifiers can give a character a derived attribute quite different to the normal base stat for some purpose, such as characters with low CON but lots of hit points. However, a derived attribute is typically calculated to perform a specific purpose – it will have a scale appropriate to that which is probably different to the base stat, and not interchangeable with it for other purposes, whereas a system using subabilities would probably let a character use their subability for a variety of skills and checks.
Some skill-less systems use derived attributes extensively in place of skill checks. A few examples of this (apart from older versions of D&D) are:
-Dragon Warriors; no skills (only classes in the form of “Professions”): the normal attributes are similar to D&Ds; derived attributes are strongly modified by class/level and include Attack, Defence, Evasion, Magical Attack, Magical Defense, Health Points, Stealth and Perception.
-Gamma World 4E (by which I mean the 1992 Nesmith edition, not the latest version); a limited system ofskills for classes is included, but most tasks rely on derived values including attack (“THAC”), mental attack (“MHAC”), Mental Defense (MD), AC, Health, Perception, Stealth, Remain Unseen, Speed (Base +Dex modifier), and Robot Recognition, and Hit Points. Different classes receive improvements at different rates and most characters get discretionary points every 2nd level as well.
-Castles & Crusades uses ability checks for many routine tasks, with skills are replaced by 'primes' - a character choose 2-3 primary stats for which their target numbers are greatly lowered.
Palladium might also be classified as a “derived attribute” system, though a very strange one; it has an extensive skill system but largely runs off derived attributes which are based off the skills, instead of using skill checks directly. Characters can get extra SDC (a form of hit points), bonus attacks per round, saving throw bonuses and attack bonuses, as well as attribute increases, by selecting the right skills.
Fuzion uses a lot of averages and other figured stats, although its mostly skill-driven.
Characters in derived attribute games are more complex (have more numbers) than in pure attribute games, though not so complex as with skill-driven games. Derived attributes often exist to interface with a particular sub-system, and there can be confusion as to whether the derived stat or the raw stat should apply e.g. Gamma World 4E lists lassoing as a use for a Dexterity check, rather than ranged THACO, or there can be uncertainty about whether to use Health vs. Constitution. AD&D likewise can have circumstances that could call for either a Dexterity roll or a saving throw.
Derived-attribute games may list monsters with just the derived stats, though usually raw attributes are often required as well: 0D&D had monsters with only brief statistics (hit dice, move, etc) and no ability scores, while increasing numbers of optional rules through 2nd edition often meant the GM had to determine monster statistics (Strength for grabs, Dex for trip attacks, mental stats for psionics rolls, etc), and increasingly high PC attributes often left monsters behind, until the High Level Campaigns sourcebook by Skip Williams (and then 3E) included monster stat generation rules. B/X basic used Dex rolls for initiative, but neglected to include monster DEX scores.
Conversely, Palladium often gives monster ability scores despite these usually having no mechanical effect beyond what would already be included in the combat bonuses.
A game could theoretically be categorized into one of three groups this way .
*Derived Attribute driven games (derived attributes are used for most checks); as discussed above.
*Skill driven games (i.e. most tasks use skill checks); these tend to have lengthy skill lists - basic tasks like Spotting and Listening may require skills. The major problem designing these though, may be balance between skills and the tendency of players to crank up combat skills in particular.
*Attribute driven games (i.e. most tasks use raw attribute checks)- Tunnels and Trolls, Warhammer Fantasy 1E/2E, Marvel Super Heroes; HERO system, Amazing Engine; Summerland, Apocalypse World. SenZar also used attribute checks for most tasks i.e. skills and saves vs poison and magic etc, although attack and defense are level-based, as are hit points/magic points/attacks per round.
Attribute-driven systems are usually fairly simple, at least as far as players/gameplay is concerned. Monster statistics blocks usually need to include a full set of statistics (the exception here is Tunnels and Trolls, which often only defines only a single 'Monster Rating' for creatures); this is potentially simpler than other approaches which may require listing stats + a large set of skills or derived attributes, although some derived attribute games don't list attributes at all (older versions of D&D). Attribute-driven games have to build in attribute increases to give character improvement.
This categorization between these types is related to the split between class/level and skill-driven systems - but not quite the same. Most derived attribute games seem to be class/level games but level-based games can also be skill-driven with skill scores set by character level (Rolemaster; 3.x D&D for the most part), or even attribute driven (Tunnels and Trolls prior to 7th edition uses levels, but level advancement just lets the character increase their raw attributes - STR, DEX, CON, etc.). In practice most games are an admixture of the three types, but will trend toward one setup primarily. Where a dual setup is evident, a split seems to most often occur between the combat and noncombat (skill) systems.
Systems with detailed advantage/disadvantage or power systems may be able to avoid defining a “race” option in chargen completely (e.g. HERO) – to belong to a given race only requires the player choose appropriate powers or Edges/Hindrances. Other point-based systems (e.g. GURPS) allow races as packages of point-costed abilities, sometimes with slight cost modifications compared to purchasing abilities individually.
Systems which evolved without detailed advantage systems usually provide the option of choosing a race, which then gives various advantages/or hindrances. Some of these games (e.g. Pathfinder in accessory rules), have race-creation systems. Savage Worlds Deluxe has a core system that almost could do away with race and just let characters choose advantages, but doesn't quite work since number of permitted advantages/disadvantages per character is fairly small - the optional race creation system adds a couple of new abilities but mainly increases the budget of merits and flaws.
2nd ed. D&D has a system for race creation based off converting monster manual creatures mainly, assigning them stat modifiers and the like but keeping listed abilities and largely not balancing them particularly.
Race & Class
Basic D&D allows selection of races as classes (primarily for simplicity). This balances racial options at a (deliberate) cost of flexibility; with this setup it is not necessary to worry about how a given race's stat bonuses or abilities will synergize with class features as the PC can't select another class, and racial abilities can probably be more powerful. Basic races can modify attributes to a variable extent the same way classes do, by lowering Str, Wis, or Int in exchange for raising the "prime requisite" of the race, at a 2:1 exchange rate (2 points lost = 1 prime requisite point gained, in whatever the classes' main stat is).
3.x D&D treats unusually powerful races as classes, allowing multi-classing between monster “Hit Dice” and regular class levels; this generally works badly for most multi-class combinations, however.
Dungeon Crawl Classics (DCC) treats races as classes - interestingly, in spite of characters starting at 0-level (so without class abilities). To qualify as demihuman at level 1, a character must roll the race as part of a 'profession' initially e.g. 'dwarven mushroom farmer'.
Palladium treats some races (the more powerful ones) as 'Racial Character Classes', but most are available with any class. Some 'Rifts' classes are a product of augmentation e.g. juicers or crazies, with some class/race combinations not totally prohibited but with augmentation giving a random chance of death or lobotomization.
Race & Attributes
Race can interact with attributes by providing a bonus to a stat (D&D variants), changing # of dice rolled for stats (Palladium), changing the maximum rating allowed for purchase in a stat without any change in cost (SenZar “GenMax”), applying a separate bonus on attribute checks without changing the score (Rolemaster), altering point cost for a given score (LegendQuest), or applying a multiplier to the base attribute (Tunnels and Trolls). Adding flat bonuses to a score with point buy and an increasing cost per point basically provides a discount in cost (in 3.5 D&D point buy an elf and a human can both have 16 Dex, but it costs an elf 6 points and a human 10).
Bonuses can be variable e.g. +d4; even a 'flat' +1 in AD&D can give a very variable effect (none to alot) due to the strange way the bonus table is constructed, with a boost around 10 often having little effect while 18 to 19 Strength gives a huge boost. Bonuses could be conditional rather than automatic - e.g. 40% chance of being a slum dwarf and gaining a +1 to Str" [hypothetical example], or Mutant characters in the Big Bang Comics RPG roll 3d6 for stats like other characters, but doubles/triples add and roll over.
A race might also applying a separate bonus on attribute checks without changing the score (Rolemaster, [& humans extra 'prime' in Castles & Crusades]), or an attribute can be modified non-numerically but by noting that for a certain race it operates in a specific context: 'Appearance' stats may be assumed to be specific to the character's race in some systems, or Strength may be relative to other creatures of similar size/scale (Some Basic races in "Top Ballista" the flying gnome supplement, FUDGE), or "Supernatural Strength" (Palladium). Race can also lead to 'ad hoc' adjustments of task difficulty: 0D&D notes that 'smaller and lighter' characters (e.g. halflings) may be limited to opening open stuck doors on a 1-in-6 chance, rather than the usual 2-in-6; the vagueness gives the GM some leeway to consider the characters Strength on that as well (AD&D by comparison gave halflings a -1 to Strength but no other open doors penalty, overall a much better chance).
Races in some systems can also have "attribute minimums". Some character generation methods can also be off limits to certain races e.g. AD&D Unearthed Arcana Method V generates very high attribute scores (up to best 3 out of 9d6 for some stats) but is limited to human-only.
Races can also indirectly modify statistics, e.g. by having a point cost to purchase leaving fewer points to buy attributes (GURPS); or similarly 1E Shadowrun required a nonhuman character to reduce points in skills, cyberwear etc. by choosing "Metahuman" as 1st pick on the Priority Grid. Conversely, some 3E D&D races (such as undead or constructs) have "nonabilities" which are inapplicable (-) instead of having a score, which can act as dump stats raising scores overall (the elf with a 6 Con gets a Con of - when it becomes a vampire, avoiding the penalties but keeping high scores elsewhere bought with point buy).
To a lesser extent stats can also be modified through different access to classes which add stat bonuses (2nd Ed. Palladium Fantasy). Some systems can encourage PCs with high scores in certain attributes by adding incentives for the player to buy a higher scores (the dwarf gets an extra bonus to saves based on their CON, AD&D, or the Basic dwarf or elf earns bonus XP for a high 'prime requisite'), or removing penalties (the 3.5 half-orc with a 3 Intelligence has PC-minimum Int and so ignores the -2 racial penalty). Racial class limitations in AD&D also slightly discourage demihumans with high scores as many classes with high ability requirements (paladin, 2E specialist wizard, 1E ranger, monk) are human-only.
(Note: In general I feel that "racial modifiers" to scores are perhaps largely unnecessary in point-buy systems - they often just lead to complications in the math involved. If you randomly roll your stats a +2 Con for being a dwarf makes sense, but if you're going to buy them anyway, you could just buy a higher CON to represent your dwarf being sturdy).
Talislanta gives a character exact attributes based on a racial template, with only 1-2 extra points of customization permitted (though multiple templates may exist for one race, which are different classes). In point systems a race may also have a point cost, indirectly reducing attributes (GURPS) or race choice may exist outside the point system (SenZar).
Race Availabilty
Availability of unusual races may be limited by minimum stats, a separate die roll (DragonQuest, World of Synnibarr, The Mutant Epoch), or GM fiat (i.e. only one nonhuman per party).
Other racial abilities:
Races often modify skills (both with direct bonuses or indirectly via attribute modifiers, allowed classes).
Races may have specific weapon options either due to size, or via specific racial abilities (free weapon proficiencies, bonuses to damage with particular weapons), or through attribute modifiers (STR/DEX/etc).
Races can modify advantage purchase costs (e.g. AD&D 2E Skills & Powers trait system; elves can purchase Allure more cheaply, while halflings receive a discount on Glibness).
As well as raw attributes, race can also modify "derived attributes", most frequently hit points (due to size, for example); interesting things here include Amazing Engine's Slathorp (which are amorphous and lack 'body points, having more wound points instead), or the way nonhuman anatomies (wings, extra legs) interact with detailed critical hit tables. Systems may also have racially derived saving throws (Battlelords of the 23rd Century).
These are defined traits which (unlike attributes) not every character has.
They might be binary (you have it or you don't), or come in multiple levels. Sometimes an advantage has an opposite 'disadvantage' - these might be costed the same (+10 for Precise Touch, -10 for Butterfingers) or a cost system might (as in the case of GURPS) reduce the points gained for a disadvantage on the grounds that a character is only likely to take one that doesn't have too much impact on their specialty/concept.
Disadvantages usually have an up-front cost (i.e. extra character points are gained for taking a disadvantage) (e.g. GURPS). Cortex allows an extra Advantage for each Disadvantage taken, but they can't be used just to add to stats/skills. MasterBook divides advantages and disadvantages into multiple levels, with a disadvantage allowing another advantage of the same level but not usually one of a different level, so there is no exact costing.
nWoD Storyteller and FATE instead provide xps or 'Fate points' when a disadvantage comes up in play; in FATE this allows the same traits (Aspects) to function as both advantages and disadvantages - although being freeform (instead of from a defined list) they are limited to only adding a bonus or penalty, instead of having defined effects.
In some simpler systems e.g. (Savage Worlds), the character just selects an additional advantage for each disadvantage (or equivalent other benefit).; in others point costs may be complex e.g. HERO distinguishes between fixed-cost advantages/disadvantages (“adders”) and those that apply proportional cost increases; DC Heroes (3E) does likewise. For proportional costs DC Heroes uses a “factor costs” table, while HERO adds together disadvantage ratings to generate a cost divisor.
3.x D&D has 'feats' which vary in power, but with more powerful feats having higher prerequisites (often other feats); but no disadvantage system.
World of Terath has an interesting disadvantage costing system that involves step dice. Disadvantages are rated from d4 to d20 (rarely d100) rated in severity; a rating in it is assigned (giving bonus points) and in game a roll against the rating with the appropriate die indicates that the disadvantage applies. Hence the more debilitating the disadvantage, the more points are gained from maxing it out. 'Deep Sleeper' is a d10 disadvantage and could earn up to 10 points (the actual # being rolled against to wake up), while illiteracy is only d4 and so worth a maximum of 4 points (roll against actual rating to read something). Some disadvantages also had variable severity and could have various die types.
Other Elaborations
*ROAR (Rick’s Own Adventure Rules; a free rpg, now extinct) does not have a separate purchase of advantages; instead attributes provide pools of “faculty” points if high, or “flaw points” if low, which must be spent on appropriate advantages/disadvantages. A high DEX character might be ambidextrous, while a low CON character might be a haemophiliac or sickly; a low CHA character might have social issues, pox scars, etc.
*Synnibarr 'skill points' (which can actually be used for a variety of things e.g. mutations and bionics) are based off [2x total of initial stats] rather than being a fixed pool separate to stats, or bought from the same pool as stats. Characters can get bonus skill points for choosing defect mutations, and get bonus skill points by levelling.
*SenZar has a point system used to purchase advantages and attributes (from a budget of 100 points), which unlike say GURPS is wholly separate to its experience system. Characters can earn points for good playing, while XP from killing monsters adds to level (which has basically no effect on attributes or advantages). In essence it works as GURPS + D&D running side by side, instead of the usual hybrid where character level gives more points.
Random systems may have random disadvantage determination i.e. HarnMaster characters can gain bonus attribute points by rolling for defects on the Medical Conditions Table, with some races trading out specific results e.g. elves gaining sterility instead of pox scars.
Gamma World (older versions) has mutation tables which includes both positive and “defect” mutations.
Psychological defects may include absolute limitations (“the character can’t do something/must do something”), trait values that are rolled against (i.e. SenZar has “karmic saves” i.e. roll over your arrogance score to avoid being taunted), or may use an attribute check such as a Willpower check to avoid disadvantage effects (this last may be abuseable). Disadvantages with their own trait scores may overlap “Personality traits” systems found in games such as Pendragon. Similarly, Dying Earth builds mental disadvantages into characters automatically by assuming characters are susceptible to most forms of temptation (requiring a roll), unless specific resistances are purchased to traits i.e. "resist Gourmandry" or "resist Pettifoggery".
In a point system, Advantages/Disadvantages may assist a system in reducing its number of attributes and/or keeping its attributes balanced e.g. GURPS treats various levels of “Appearance” and “Will” as advantages, leaving it with only 4 core stats. Unisystem has advantages which often add bonuses directly to stats (despite these being rated only 1-5).
Older game systems can have "disadvantages" and "advantages" that are gained and costed in an ad hoc fashion - without their being a single, unified costing system. For instance, Palladium lets some mutants buy up/down mutant features ("Speech, Looks, Bipedalism none/partial/full) using BIO-E, plus has random background tables, insanity tables, % random psionics, and other specific rules governing edge cases for other classes and races: a mutant could roll 'ambidexterity' as a mutation abnormality, or a phobia of the insanity tables, but they're not generally buyable. Talislanta has no 'advantage/disadvantage' system, but has a huge list of archetypes that are very specific - these may include a number of abilities that would ordinarily be separate options as built-in features.
The scope that advantages and disadvantages covers depends a great deal on how the other main components of a character - attributes, race, class, and skills - are defined. Consider:
*advantages vs. attributes: An advantage in one system might be an attribute in another - for example compare the 'Handsome' advantage in GURPS vs. Physical Beauty in Palladium. FATE variants often only have 'Aspects' and no attributes. Special abilities such as 'ambidexterity' might be advantages in one system (with a stat requirement to purchase), but occur automatically off a high attribute in another system without advantages).
*advantages vs. skills: What is a skill in one system might also be an advantage in another, or vice versa.
WHFR has 'skills' including a number of things that would be specific abilities in other systems. MasterBook lets a character take 'unable to speak campaign area language' as a disadvantage, while another game would define that with a skill, in a more consistent fashion but greatly under-rating the RP impact of the skill choice. Summerland uses 'tags' that can include either advantage/disadvantage or skill type abilities, which then modify the attribute checks used to resolve all game tasks.
*advantages vs. classes: Savage Worlds has 'Professional Edges' which are part of the advantage system but (on top of the skill system) replace classes.
The presence of disadvantages may act as a factor driving consideration of how skills or attributes are scaled. For instance, skill may default to 0% in one system while another has a higher default, with complete inability still possible for characters but modelled as a Disadvantage (e.g. 'All Thumbs' in Savage Worlds for the truly 'Savage' primitive, unable to use mechanical devices).
Disadvantages frequently have some sort of cap on how many points can be taken. GM oversight may also be required; a game may assume that either the GM will monitor abusive combinations in character generation, or that they will adjust game play so that Disadvantages will be engaged in-game no matter how bizarre they are (this last is incompatible with some playstyles, and may require more GM oversight of hindrances taken). Some games cost hindrances based on frequency of occurances (i.e. Fuzion) - this conversely is incompatible with the GM engineering situations to deliberately exploit character weaknesses (the higher bonus points for commonplace hindrances is irrelevant - you may as well have taken the uncommon weakness to Kryptonite for more points if the GM was going to work it in anyhow). Disadvantage lists sometimes include minor things such as 'quirks' which really have no major negative effect, but act to reward character concept with more bonus points.
Characters may or may not allow characters to add advantages or disadvantages after character generation. Most allow disadvantages such as missing hands etc. to be gained from play, with no gain in points; Unisystem allows characters to voluntarily add disadvantages with GM approval for points in addition to this ( e.g. 'gaining levels of deafness due to off-screen practice in heavy metal bands'). If some can be bought off or gained also depends.
Backgrounds
Backgrounds are another facet of the character e.g. in games such as Storyteller, or FantasyCraft also has a detailed system (for renown, lifestyle, contacts, etc). In games such as Storyteller backgrounds are separate to attributes, merits/flaws and advantages/disadvantages, although in other systems they may just be a part of the advantage/disadvantage system. Backgrounds such as resources, mentors, followers, items, reputations, and so on in a separate 'pool' of points is I think a worthwhile concept, if its tracked mechanically, since these points are potentially gained/lost more easily - through campaign events - than are stat points, and perhaps skill points. Compare this to say, GURPS, where reputation changes and so on must be 'bought' with character points. White wolf didn't however handle negative backgrounds (being hunted, having a nemesis, etc.) as part of the background system, they were simply normal 'flaws' (disadvantages).
Apart from these many games simply do not have a background system - the player can write up a background that makes them nobility or wealthy, or even grants them a magical item or similar, and its fine as long as the GM approves it. The GM might also add 'complications' to balance things of their own accord i.e. an ancestral magic item comes with an evil group who want to steal it. The overall effect here can be the same as if points were used (Wanted hindrance used to buy a special magic item) but with less accounting involved. Even in point systems, things such as nemeses and being hunted are perhaps questionable balance-wise - the game is likely going to have some sort of nemesis, so it makes little difference to the character if this is due to their Flaw or just assigned to them/the group by the GM. Sometimes a particular background feature is represented by a system without an overarching system for this e.g. a game might roll/let the player choose the number of Contacts that a character knows initially, or randomly determine Social Status (AD&D); HackMaster has a detailed Honor system (which also modifies attribute improvement rolls).
Some systems also have non-point-based backgrounds which are essentially random roll e.g. Cyberpunk had a series of LifePath tables (IIRC, fairly good). Paul (Jennelle) Jacquays authored a series of 'Central Casting' books which had guidelines for conversion to various systems, which were quite interesting. These could strongly affect the character including random boosts, impairments or extra skills (one of our games we got demigod once...), or results could be odd or contradictory.
Class and/or Skills
The known methods of determining PC capability are:
Classes may have minimum stats to select (sometimes including requirements in e.g. social class, such as in 1st ed. AD&D with Unearthed Arcana), or be limited to certain races. Random rolls can also be used to determine 'class' - Warhammer does this to an extent (although this is less of a problem in WHFR since a character is expected to change profession several times). Synnibarr uses random rolls to determine what classes a character can select initially, but gives a character 3 rolls (rerolling results for which the character can't meet class minimums). Dungeon Crawl Classics generates 'profession' randomly although this really mostly just determined 'skills' and limited access to racial classes; the initial random system paired with random dice roll and anomalies such as Str 3 Blacksmiths, although fixes were proposed such as a set of tables, rolling based off highest score or (a compromise) weighting a roll toward the highest attribute(s) and then branching out to a separate table for each score - see http://www.goodman-games.com/forums/...34279&start=25
Multiclassing is tricky in class-based games. It is sometimes done by splitting XP between two classes (AD&D, Palladium Fantasy), or splitting levels between classes (3E D&D); other systems deliberately added new classes to cover particular combinations, though this eventually generates a lot of classes. Rolemaster (which let characters of any class choose any skills) sometimes just allowed characters who 'multi-classed' to alter development costs of skills to the average of both classes. Multiclass options are sometimes limited by race or ability requirements. It may also have serious limitations due to game balance concerns; in some cases it may be perhaps deliberately not be included as an option (e.g. Rifts, where character abilities are heavily front-loaded compared to levelling benefits).
Interaction between Skill System & Class System:
Classes may be defined by skills e.g. Palladium's - for instance the Soldier OCC has skills including WP sword [which determines strike bonus/parry bonus], climb walls, and hand-to-hand skills, while the thief gets various skills like Prowl - class abilities are determined by what skills a character can select.
In other cases e.g. Rolemaster any class can select any skill, but at varying costs. Another variant of this rather than a purchase cost change is a change in what the skill can do - Earthdawn 1E lets characters buy Talents (class abilities) as Skills, which as all Earthdawn classes have magic makes these the non-magical version and limits them from using 'Discipline Talent Use' part of the talent.
In other systems skills are an add-on, and determine fairly secondary abilities only, such as 2E D&D non-weapon proficiencies. Some of these systems have non-scaling skills (which don't improve with level) - this is rarely seen in games where class abilities are largely skill defined, since that makes levelling up in the class mostly pointless. SenZar does do that, something of a flaw - a character can multiclass into Thief which doubles the XP cost to advance in level, hindering process in hit points and combat abilities in exchange for a Stealth skill which is a raw Dex check, and doesn't improve).
Systems (usually class based games) may have 'optional' skill systems - so that the game can be run with or with skills. The traditional game with this would be 2nd Edition D&D, where a character can be built with NWPs, or use simpler variants (player knowledge or secondary skills, which give them less access to bonus abilities, but also give them general access to skills that would normally cost an NWP such as literacy, languages, and possibly background-derived abilities such as proficient Swimming, if the GM deems them normal for the campaign). On/off skill systems are also a topic of 5E D&D discussion, with about three possible systems that may be of interest discussed here:
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?...D-Next-Q-amp-A
Ah hoc skills: Older games may occasionally have no skill system per se, but still occasionally have skills as unique one-off abilities. For example in Tunnels & Trolls' solo adventures a character meeting the Shoggoth can make an IQ and/or Luck attribute saving roll to be skilled in playing the piccolo (useful against shoggoths), or can be taught improved bow skills at the Archer's Guild in Gull.
Number of skills/skill points a character receives may be determined by
or a combination of these.
Random rolls can also be used in various ways i.e.
Skills may be binary (you have it, or you don't) or be buyable in multiple levels; if so skills may have linear or non-linear costs.
Attributes generally modify skills by either
Fantasy Games Unlimited's range of RPGs (e.g. Daredevil, Aftermath) included a set of modifiers to skills from "Talents", each of which covered a skill categores, as well as attributes. Dice rolls generated base talent ratings from -4 to +4, with a pool of discretionary points also added. Talents could also provide special advantages (but are presumably not usually tested individually, the way attributes are).
Other games may achieve a similar effect through merits/flaws which influence skills, though this is more specific (only a few characters have a given merit, instead of every character having a Talent modifier) and usually less random.
Individual skills may have the same cost, or may have different costs based on the usefulness/specialization of the skill (i.e. Palladium: powerful skills such as Martial Arts may count as 3 or even 6 skill choices; in 2nd edition D&D, non weapon proficiencies cost between one and three “slots” depending on usefulness of the proficiency). Systems where skills have variable costs rarely have an individually purchasable skill levels as the math is more complex (though examples do exist - DC Heroes, HERO).
Some skill systems also include rules for specializations in skills e.g. Shadowrun. Similarly, LegendQuest has multiple skills of varying widths which are potentially stackeable onto the same roll. DC Heroes lists various 'subskills' for each skill; a character can buy just one or two subskills if desired, with a cost discount.
Skill Lists may be described as edge-defined or centre-defined.
(see thread: http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=18250 )
Skills may form tiers where one skill is required to buy another skill. Palladium uses this a fair bit (i.e. Math-basic and Math-advanced are separate skills, instead of Advanced being the same skill at a higher rating). An approach such as this can let characters be built that can achieve specialized tasks easily without being generally competent in other areas i.e. the rocket scientist who has Rocket engineering, vs. the rocket scientist with Mechanical engineering at super-high levels and can also fix anything else ( although with a more detailed skill system required compared to just having 'specialization' rules). Lords of Creation built tiers into skills explicitly, with each rank of a skill group being a new skill - which did mean characters couldn't be good at some skills without learning vaguely related skills.
Skills which 'overlap' sometimes use different task difficulties for the same task. Risus for example describes this as 'subjective difficulty': tasks become harder the further removed they are from a character's "cliche" (the Jungle Lord can swing on vines automatically, the Swashbuckler easily, while other types find this more difficult). A more formal version of this would be skill defaults (below).
Risus also very generously allows characters to substitute "inappropriate" ratings for checks as long as the player can describe it, and rewards this by giving "inappropriate" ratings additional damage in contests - i.e skill misuse is encouraged for the humour value.
Skill defaults and untrained penalties: [attribute+skill] systems generally default to just [attribute] for skill checks. However, a key concern is often to give a character with some training a hefty bonus for knowing a skill vs. the character with no training hence additional penalties may apply. Some examples of default systems:
*In oWoD a character rolls [stat+skill] but the target number may also increase if the character has zero skill, or a check may not be allowed.
*A few systems may have base ratings for all skills e.g. BRP/CoC/RuneQuest - lack of an easy default system in BRP means it needs fairly long list of skills to cover most eventualities; a raw attribute check would have a much higher chance of success than a skill check. Here there are no extra penalties for not having a skill, but 'competency' represents a large investment of skill points for many skills.
*D20 system: this gives characters x4 skill points initially (so a 'starting' skill level is +4). Pathfinder instead gives any trained class skill a +3 extra bonus.
*Default to stat roll. DC Heroes does this; characters either use a bought skill value with no attribute bonus, or default to [attribute score] with a column shift penalty. It has the problem that characters with very high attributes should not buy skills, or only if they buy large amounts of them.
*Palladium (according to one Rifter) suggests d100 under stat instead of the normal percentage which gives very low default chance -unrelated to how difficult the skill normally is to perform, which sets the base percentage.
*Skill-based dice pools with low attribute mod: here the task mechanic is very deterministic based on skill level, inherently making untrained rolls difficult or impossible anyway. For instance, Central Casting suggests a skill system where a character rolls d6s equal to skill level (additive), plus or minus d6 for a high or low attribute.
*Default to 1/2 stat instead of full stat: often used where a skill would ordinarily be a stat check e.g. Amazing Engine.
*ZeFRS (originally in the Conan RPG from TSR) - here there are no attributes but a characters total ranks in groups of related skills ("talent pools") are added together and divided by 10 to give a default talent rank.
*D&D 4th edition has binary skills where a character gets +5 if trained in a skill. Characters can take a 'jack of all trades' feat giving +2 on untrained checks (i.e. half the trained bonus).
*Talislanta rolls d20+stat+skill level, but uses d10 instead of d20 for untrained rolls.
*GURPS has a complex system where each skill lists several other skills that can be substituted at varying penalties - a character might be able to attempt a combat move using Dex-6, Karate-3 or Quarterstaff -2, or something.
*Shadowrun 1E likewise has a complex flowchart indicating how many "steps" any skill is from any other skill or attribute (=what penalty), which fulfills the same function as GURPS defaults.
*Savage Worlds uses a default roll of d4-2, and the -2 also applies to the Wild Die (normally a d6 reroll with no other adjustment).
LegendQuest has a fixed penalty (-15% for untrained use), but with the interesting idea of 'cross-matching' untrained penalties i.e. attempting to use archery from horseback without Ride applies the Ride penalty to bow use.
Skill modifiers: unlike say attributes which often have a stat and then a modifier, skills are normally scaled to be used directly. One exception to this however is Rolemaster, where a character buys skill ranks and the rank then provides a modifier to checks. The modifier is +5% per rank up to 10, +2% for ranks 11-20, and +1% for ranks 21+. This diminishing return tends to encourage characters to branch out after maxing their key occupational skills; at the high end, attributes provide critical differences since that can add an extra +25% or so irregardless of rank.
Generally, the same effect could be duplicated (with less use of character sheet space) by increasing the cost of ranks instead of modifying their bonus, although that would give different results on any other rank-based effects (# free levels in 'related' skills?).
The diminishing returns occasionally generated undesirable results for melee skills (with difference from level for combat abilities of non-spell-user characters becoming too small).
Special: a couple of systems have no specifically defined mechanic for skill use. A primary example would be Secondary Skills (from the 1E AD&D DMG, but most often recognized from 2nd Edition D&D) which describes vaguely what a character is capable of but leaves the exact mechanic to us (ability check, GM-defined percentage, saving throw, etc.) at GM discretion. Similarly Superbabes defines how to resolve some specific cases (usually with d20 roll under ability checks) but has no defined method for using skills overall.
Reputedly, Traveller also originally used different resolution systems for each skill.
Further note on linear/non-linear costs: a non-linear cost system in a sense helps balance by adding an incentive to raise lower rating skills - if your Waraxe Megadeath Killing skill is already huge, you might be able to add multiple points of a Craft or Profession skill in place instead of an extra +1 to it, for the same cost. This works as a corrective factor, making it less critical that all skills are equally important/valuable (compared this with, say, d20 System skills). Non-linear costing can be implemented either directly via having costs increase with each skill point, or can be a result of the core dice mechanic itself (e.g. Hero System 3d6 roll under).
Modelling Skill Difficulty: How difficulty of skill use is modelled also varies between game systems; the two possibilities being that difficulty modifiers are 'built in' to the skill score itself, or are expected to be situationally applied. Roll-under systems like RQ set varying base percentages for skills - that is, the base value for a 'routine' skill use factors in that some skills are normally more difficult. Similarly, Synnibarr sets a characters Piloting skill for trained characters at a base of about 100% (before any additional difficulty penalties) so that characters can drive to work without crashing.
On the other hand, D&D sets all skills at the same 1-point-per-skill-point value, and difficulties are instead rated for many tasks, or set by the GM, as target numbers. Consequently while all skills look like they have the same cost superficially, buying 'competency' in some skills where base difficulties are quite high (e.g. Use Magic Device) is much more expensive.
Extended Checks: A few systems (Alternity, 4E D&D, Shadowrun, White Wolf) have skill mechanics for complex or extended skill checks - see more in future sections dealing with e.g. Crafting. These tend to work most easily with dice pools. An extended system tends to be used in RPGs for representing lengthy actions, although they are better really for cases where a single die roll is too polar, where multiple characters can help/cooperate, or possibly when useful for building dramatic tension.
Skill-less systems (see also post #21, derived attributes): older versions of Tunnels and Trolls have no skill system; rarely in play a character may get to roll to see if they have a particular skill (e.g. an IQ roll to see if the character can play a piccolo when fighting a Shoggoth). It does have a language system. oD&D/ early 1st edition AD&D has no skill system, with class determining most of what a character can do and player skill often used to resolve other actions (i.e. describe to the GM how you would do something and they determine the result). Gamma World (4E) gives skill points to spread among 'class skills' but handles most tasks with derived attributes, except for a % by class to know reading/writing, and swimming.
Skill-list systems can also require GM arbitration of tasks based on character background to determine what a PC can do.
Skills without checks: 'The Future Belongs To Us' apparently uses a skill system where skill rating (up to 1000 for some skills) is used to determine what tasks a character can do automatically. This (reportedly) does not tie in much to the general check mechanic of d20 + 'proficiency' score. Many systems do something similar on occasion (i.e. oWoD storyteller doesn't let characters with Drive * use manual transmission vehicles), though systems where the mechanic itself defines what is possible/impossible is more elegant (as with Take 10; cf. post 29, on cutting down rolling).
Complementary Skills: Fuzion lets a character roll one skill in order to get a +2 to another skill roll (e.g. using a successful Fashion roll to get a +2 on a follow-up roll to Seduce). This rule can be used to generate e.g. attack bonuses for successful stealth rolls and the like. 3E D&D has skill 'synergy' where a roll isn't made but 5 ranks adds a +2 bonus to 'related' skill checks.
Skill improvement resources in many systems are linked to other character improvements e.g. based off level, or points may be spent on either skills or other improvements.
*RQ/HarnMaster usage-based improvement- significant skill use gives a character a “tick”; they roll over the skill (i.e. the skill check must be failed) to get additional skill points; this slows down increases in skill values as the score increases (conversely to this, Synnibarr gives improvement for a skill only if it is used successfully and subtracts if a character fails checks, meaning high skills get higher and low skills get lower (!)). This system doesn't handle gaining advantages/disadvantages etc. as RQ doesn't traditionally have a major advantage/disadvantage system; some attributes in RQ may be boosted with training.
Risus likewise has usage-based improvement - a "cliche" rating improves if all its dice are rolled and come up an even number, so again higher scores are less likely to improve.
*time-based e.g. the ALIENS Adventure Game (Leading Edge Games) gives a skill roll to improve after each year of game time. StarCluster adds a skill improvement each year at the cost of an attribute decrease (Immortal characters in Outremor get neither, but can shift a skill point around).
*Training/money may be used to purchase skills, rather than experience points (RQ again; SenZar; Languages in AD&D (if not using NWPs) or in Dragon Warriors.
*theoretically, the GM may award ad-hoc increases. Similarly to this, Amber uses points, but with the GM tracking advancement of the player without their knowledge of the PCs exact capabilities.
A sort of example of this- although not a skill improvement per se - may be fairly obscure freerpg FuRPiG, where the GM is allowed to give permanent "Bonus Hit Points" to characters who "have been particularly valiant in battle" and "continue to fight against extreme odds right up to Death's door". In similar vein, some Tunnels and Trolls adventures would grant stat raises for with little or no explanation ("you spend several hours conversing with Lorac...add 3 to your IQ for absorbing some of the much and varied knowledge of this man"). In many systems ad-hoc GM adjudication handles fuzzier cases outside the main rules e.g. reputation and the like - though GURPS would probably charge characters points for adding the "Welcomed as a hero in Turdhaven" Advantage after saving the town, of course.
*XP: Characters may be awarded XP, which are spent to either increase the characters’ Level, or to buy up specific skills. (Talislanta allows XP to be spent either on putting up Level – which increases all a characters career-related skills - or buying up specific skills individually; among other things this meant the GM can stat up a generic NPC of a high level quickly, while still giving PCs using the same system the flexibility to add skills beyond their character class).
In a level-based game, there might be have abilities based off exact XP total as well i.e. in Basic D&D demihumans eventually would cease levelling/getting hit dice, but still would gain combat abilities at specific xp totals. Savage Worlds gives "advances" (a new skill, pair of skill increases, Edge, or stat bump) every 5 xp and a full Rank increase every 20 xp (which mainly gives them access to new and better powers or Edges).
Skill-based systems that use XP (but not levels) may still have other limits to how far skills can be improved. Limits can be attribute based (Savage Worlds); FATE has a 'skill pyramid' whereby a character can only have so many skills of a certain rank without having more skills at a lower rank.
XP or equivalent rewards may be awarded for various actions including defeating monsters, delivering the final blow on a monster (MERP), bravery, surviving, clever ideas, avoiding unnecessary violence (Palladium), roleplaying a character well, self-sacrifice, rolling critical successes, rolling any saving roll with an amount based on dice roll/level of roll (Tunnels and Trolls), travelling a certain distance (MERP), just attending sessions (Storyteller), keeping diaries or writing backgrounds for characters, helping other players (particularly newbies), making the GM laugh, making magical items or furthering their god's ethos, performing other class-related actions (2E D&D), finding treasure (Basic D&D), or squandering all of your treasure between sessions (Barbarians of Lemuria). Extra bonuses are sometimes awarded to lower-level characters (3E D&D) or characters with high ability scores (in a class prime requisite e.g. AD&D, or in an otherwise largely useless stat, e.g. Charisma in D&D clone 'Dangers & Dweomers'); penalties may be applied to characters of certain races or race/class combinations.
AD&D multiclass characters had separate XP pools for each class; a system could also theoretically have multiple XP pools for different things (roleplaying vs. combat).
Systems may be paranoid about xp awards leading to discrepancies in character power; Savage Worlds hands out xp at basically a set rate of 2/session, with good playing being instead rewarded with 'bennies' (luck rerolls). 3.x D&D hands out extra XP to low-level characters to allow them to catch up. This is particularly a concern where xp progresses at a linear rate. AD&D instead has xp requirements that double from level to level so that low-level characters in high level parties will advance faster - if they survive. Palladium gives only minimal power increases from levelling, and has very slow advancement. Superbabes starts characters at 0 xp, with only 1 xp to 2nd level - characters level up at the end of their first session automatically if they did anything, then progress fairly slowly.
XP may be directly spendable to give boosts to rolls or rerolls (cf. 'safety valve' discussion later).
Level-based systems where maximum skill value depends on character level create a ceiling to character abilities which controls unbalanced skills i.e. weapon or magic skills very well. In contrast, systems where characters are free to distribute points as they wish are much more min/maxable. Level-based skills systems struggle somewhat with languages (usually these operate outside the skill system, as otherwise a skill level equivalent to "fluency" might not be available to a starting characters!)
Usually in a level-based game, higher level is better. There are a couple of games where lower level/rank represents more ability (Weapons of the Gods, Lejendary Adventures; Generation in Vampire). This unfortunately makes character progression more awkward (a minus gives plusses to other factors) and puts an upper limit on ability.
A couple of other level-based systems that work in unusual ways:
*Tunnels & Trolls 7th Ed. generates level from attribute scores connected to their class i.e. a wizard could use their INT or mana/power attribute (/10) to calculate their level. Level affects magical ability and also increases other talents. Characters spend XP to raise attributes directly (current score x 100). Note the system is quite different to earlier versions of T&T, where level gains improved attributes instead.
*Slightly similar in Lords of Creation, XP was spent to add dice to ability scores, with total ability scores determining "Personal Force" which then gave level, number of skill points and powers.
*Elder scrolls (the computer game) has direct skill improvement through training, books and skill use. Each class has a set of skills which must be raised to increase level, putting up stats/HP/mana. Characters can put up other skills (e.g. a wizard putting up fighting and armour skills) but don't get levels for that. In a sense the effect of this parallels the Talislanta system.
Most of the character building process - attributes, skills/classes, etc. - seems to have relatively little effect on choice of core mechanic (d100, dice pool, etc), and vice versa - games are fairly similar and follow similar ranges of choices. In very rare cases, an unusual core mechanic might force a strange adaptation e.g. Marvel Super Heroes' universal table system has rolls based off a single attribute only (not stat+skill, etc), and hence has a Fighting attribute; DC Heroes' system needs acting, effect and resistance numbers from attributes and so has lots of similar-sounding attributes (e.g. Mind which gives a target number to avoid mental damage, plus WILL to absorb it).
With regard to skill and level systems, note that:
I know of no true level-based dice pool games (aside from T&T with its multidie additive combat system), although Storyteller type games do have a level-equivalent primary stat such as Generation for vampires, Arete for mages, rank for werewolves, Quantum for Aberrants, etc.
D10-based or systems using step-dice are also not usually level-based due to high granularity- the exception being Earthdawn (step-dice with rank determining sets of dice rolled) and DCC (which uses d14 -d30 as well as level bonuses). d10 provides almost enough granularity for level bonuses, except that skill bonuses off level would tend to be outweighed by attribute mods without limiting attribute scale to a very small range.
The concepts of 'levels' and 'classes' usually go together too, although that's not strictly necessary, so the above types of game rarely have 'classes' either - more likely to be 'archetypes' or free skill selection. Most 'derived attribute' games are level-based too, so these types of games are more likely to be skill-driven. Fuzion is sort-of an exception in having lots of 'derived' attributes that are averages, although its non-level-based and uses d10s (if not using the 3d6 variant).
Other notes:
Point-buy systems get increasingly unwieldy as stat scale goes up to larger numbers (for use with 3d6, d20 or d100), although to be honest this has never really stopped anyone.
Advantages/disadvantages tend to have more of an effect in dice pool games or games that are more granular - comparatively additive systems give out smaller bonuses (Compare White Wolf advantages or Savage Worlds' Edges against lots of the d20 system feats, which frequently give out very small bonuses). Racial stat bonuses are also more pronounced (e.g. Shadowrun 1E).
Usage-based improvement isn't usually seen for highly granular stats (step-die, d10, or dice pool) although a system could award 'xp' towards an increase from successful use. Random improvements are most common with d100 systems.
Highly 'abstract' statistics (D&Ds six attribute system) perhaps don't work as well with detailed skill systems -the skill modifiers limit how the player can interpret a low/high attribute (e.g. 2E might let a character explain their low DEX as due to being half-blind and so a lousy shot, but DEX in 3E doesn't modify Spot by default).
Core mechanic can affect skill list specifically e.g. skills can be forcibly created to fill gaps if rolls must be [stat+skill] and never stat alone (ORE), or if a raw stat check is much more likely to succeed than a skill check (BRP).
Core mechanics with limited scaling potentially limit multiclassing (if benefits from levelling are low, then gaining a new package of abilities instead is more unbalanced).
A d100 system is finely detailed, meaning there are no break points/dead spots for attributes – every point is important, limiting min/maxing. Using a percentage can make it easier to consider multiple factors with different weightings i.e. one stat could give +2% per point while another gives +1%; as well as success chances, very exact %s may be useful for critical hits or fumbles, etc.
It is slightly slower for multiple rolls (as dice must be paired up as 10s/1s). (Potentially, a d100 additive system can be sped up slightly by rolling d10+modifiers, with a fail-by-1 triggering a reroll against the ones place.)
d100s may be used as roll-under or additively; see relevant sections for further notes...(post 12 directly below & post 14).
With values being expressed as a percentage, players can immediately see their base odds of success in a way they are not able to with, say, dice pools, and new players can usually grasp immediately that say, 85% library use is good. (Though not all systems using a d100 are necessarily this transparent - tables like in Marvel Super Heroes can make the %s less apparent).
d100 systems occasionally generate additional information using the '1s place' of the d100.
d100 systems sometimes have attributes that are directly set up to be used as percentages rather than being skill-based (Amazing Engine, Warhammer 2nd ed), or they may have ability scores rated on a lower scale such as the 3-18 of Runequest/Harnmaster. These last tend to use a formula of [attribute score x a difficulty multiplier] to determine a base percentage chance for attribute checks; HarnMaster sometimes just uses a 3d6 roll for ability checks instead.
DragonQuest (at least the 2nd edition of it) has a statistic scale that's slightly higher (going up to 25 for a normal character and includes fractional multipliers e.g. x2.5. To prevent characters going past 100% too readily, an additional rule gives a minimum chance of failure equal to (30-stat) i.e. a character with a 25 Strength would still have a minimum 5% chance of failure on a Strength check, meaning a roll of 96-100 fails even though the character would have a base 100% chance of success at e.g. [Str x 4].
d100 systems tend toward expansive skill systems with lots of tightly defined skills. My theory here is that either a) these systems tend to be built by designers focussed on gritty realism down to the 1% level, or b) these games need to export stuff that would ordinarily involve an ability check off to the skill system (like Listen in BRP) since leaving it as an ability check would make the % much higher than other skills.
Another interesting variant is from J Arcane's Drums of War: this rolls 2d10 additively, then uses the same numbers to generate a percentage for the purpose of determining if a critical occurs (i.e. 9 + 7 would be a 16 to hit, or 97 for criticalling).
This probably belongs earlier in the essay, however a single die roll generates a flat curve, whereas a multiple dice roll generates a bell curve (e.g. 3d6). The single roll has the advantage of having odds that are easily calculated and understood (i.e. on d20, a +1 always increases a characters chance of success by +5%); the bell-curve on the other hand generates results that are more predictable - a dice roll will typically be an average result (i.e. 9-12 on 3d6 is much more likely than getting a 3 or an 18).
While the d100 generates a flat/predictable linear curve, the fine detail allows for considerable control, e.g with 'special successes' and the like set to a fixed (small) percentage (1/10th of regular skill, for instance). Or tables can be used. Such methods can transform the linear roll indirectly to get 'diminishing returns', i.e. a non-flat result pattern.
Some interesting discussion on the effects of how modifiers affect probabilities in true bell-curve systems (like GURPS) is here: http://forums.sjgames.com/showpost.p...60&postcount=7
Additive systems are excellent for opposed tasks and provide intuitive results; higher numbers are better. Multiple dice can be rolled at once more easily than with dice pools (to allow the GM to, for example, roll several attacks at a PC simultaneously, or several saving rolls) but perhaps slightly less readily than roll-under systems. Level of achievement is more prone to inflation (usually, amount by which a roll succeeds gives effects of success). Unless using a d100 additive system (trickier math for many), probabilities are less transparent than d100 but better than dice pool systems. Some additive systems suffer from out-of-control bonus stacking.
Elaborations:
Additive systems can provide success levels as a proportion of success chance by having a natural die roll that is ‘confirmed’ by a successful check. For example a longsword in 3E D&D used by someone with a 60% chance to hit (e.g. +4 to hit vs. AC 13), has a 6% chance of criticalling; a natural roll of 19-20 triggers a possible crit (10% chance ) times a 60% chance of hitting (confirmation roll) = 6%.
Variability: How variable the outcome of an opposed roll is, in an additive system, can be reduced by allowing all participants multiple rolls, taking the highest result. This skews up the average toward the maximum; the likelihood of the character with the highest bonus winning increases. This could be used for tasks where results are more cut-and-dried than normal (an opposed Strength check for an arm-wrestling contest, for instance).
This same method can be used in roll-under systems that use margin of success.
Whereas in roll-under systems the total chance can be multiplied (e.g. halved), an additive system instead makes it possible to multiply either the bonus to the roll, or the base target number (this is very rarely seen). Halving the target number is equivalent to averaging the percentage chance of success with 100% for a character with bonus +0 (Emerald). Halving the bonus on a DC 20 roll (for d20) is equivalent to halving success chance.
Here I include systems such as West End Games Star Wars and (for combat) Tunnels and Trolls. A pool of dice are rolled and totalled. A problem with this system is that a character’s result varies enormously depending on # of dice in a characters pool – making some tasks very easy or impossible for some characters. To ameliorate this, Star Wars uses a safety value in that characters can spend Character Points/Force Points to add extra dice when needed. Star Wars also adds a “wild die”; one of the dice has a different colour, on this dice 6s are added and re-rolled, while a 1 takes away the highest roll and may result in complication/fumble.
Some T&T characters may have powers that let them 'roll doubles' in combat again (Berserkers).
Star Wars/D6 system also added more granularity to its dice pools by having intermediate levels of +1 and +2 (i.e. attributes went d6,d6+1,d6+2,2d,2d+1,2d+2, 3d, etc...(similar to GURPS damage values by STR except that these also had a -1 step i.e. d6,d6+1,d6+2, 2d-1, 2d).
Legend of the Five Rings (and I think 7th Sea?) lets characters roll dice equal to [attribute+skill] and keep dice equal to [attribute].
EABA rolls, and counts highest 3 in the dice pool.
The Framewerk system (Cthulhutech) has a more complex system where a character rolls several dice and may take the highest single die or a sum of a couple of dice, depending. A criticism of the system may be be that which the system is almost as complex as say Cortex+, it does not do anything a [d10+modifiers] system wouldn't do, except for making the probabilities weird and nontransparent - compared to Cortex's (e.g. Marvel Heroic's) various applications built into the system which assign effect, generate complications, recharge pools and so forth.
A detailed breakdown of the Framewerk system's probability issues can be found here:
http://taharqa.org/?p=249
Later editions of T&T (7th ed.) include a success counting mechanism as part of combat as well (where 6s count as points of automatic ‘spite damage’, and may trigger monster special attacks e.g. enough 6s from the Medusa turns one PC to stone).
In these games, a die roll is made under a character's statistic for them to succeed. This is mathematically almost equivalent to using addition (except on opposed checks where either side may fail their roll completely, making a margin of success comparison unnecessary; see post #117)
Roll-under may be slightly easier than additive (the player is comparing numbers rather than adding them), particular where rolling a lot of dice at once, although any benefit is lost as soon as margin of successes have to be calculated - something some players will start to do automatically, just in case. Opposed rolls tend to be particularly awkward in roll-under systems; the default mechanism being that both opponents have to calculate how far they rolled under their success number (e.g. GURPS), but this gets annoying for some players, particularly where d100s get involved.
Roll-under systems are excellent for applying proportional modifications to chances of success - creating tasks with 1/2 normal chance of success, for instance. This works more poorly in additive systems because the opposing target number generally varies; for instance in a d20+modifier system, halving the bonus only decreases chance of success by half if the opposing target number is exactly 21.
In other games, opposed rolls may be handled by cross-referencing scores and the attacker rolling under the result (e.g. RuneQuest's "Resistance Table"), or by using an additive mechanic just for opposed rolls. LegendQuest and Synnibarr both use skill rating + an extra modifier (+d10 or +d20); For LQ this is done instead of the normal d100 roll (in some cases); Synnibarr makes the additive comparison only if both opponents first roll under their skill.
Initiative rules are particularly problematic in roll-under, since these involve a comparison between whatever number of characters (or groups) are involved in the conflict, rather than just seeing who wins out of two opponents. Attack rules are interesting; some games will handle 'defense' as an adjustment to the attacker's roll (adding more calculations to the roll, obviously, and perhaps losing some of the advantage of roll-under), while other systems give defenders a block percentage to roll against; which however means a characters' % to hit is basically the maximum possible chance to hit irrespective of how bad an opponent may be at combat.
Variants include
These are games where dice shift types e.g. from d4 to d6 to d8 as characters get better.
D&D uses this for damage rolls; it is seen as a core mechanic in for example Earthdawn, Savage Worlds, and Cortex.
Savage Worlds uses a single dice for characters, plus “Wild Cards” roll an additional d6 at the same time and take the highest result, with maximum results adding and rolling again. Having only a few steps means stats are fairly granular; roll ups make results unpredictable. Mathematically some tasks are easier with a smaller dice (using a d4 vs. TN 5 is around 2% more favourable than using a d6), but it allows rolling for large numbers of opponents at once quite easily. Odds of a ‘fumble’ decrease as character skill increases (instead of being a fixed 5% for a d20 system lacking a ‘fumble confirmation roll’) but odds of ‘exploding’ dice (rolling up on maximum) decreases as skill goes up. Difficulty modifiers normally apply as a + or - to the final roll, which can be very significant/harsh.
Cortex uses the sum of two dice; one for attribute and one for skill. Compared to SW, multiple rolls are slower since dice must be paired up; final results follow a V-curve or truncated bell curve distribution. Unlike Savage Worlds it can incorporate d2s (since maximum rolls don't explode); it normally handles difficulty as a step up/down to the dice type.
Earthdawn uses multiple dice of various kinds additively (what is rolled being set by a ‘step number’), with individual dice able to ‘explode’ (roll up maximums).
The (2012) Marvel Heroic Roleplaying Game is a step-die dice pool where several dice of various sizes are rolled together (from different traits); 2 are chosen and added together to determine if the character succeeds, and another die used as an "effect" die to determine how well the task succeeds.
Deadlands apparently used a combination of step-die and dice pool: a character's attribute determined their base die (d4,d6,d8, etc) while skill determined how many dice were rolled. The single highest roll is compared to the task difficulty; any maximum rolls (i.e. 4 on d4) roll again and add to that die result.
Satirical system SLUG allows the GM to determine which dice are used and the target number, making it wholly ruling-driven.
Another interesting way to combine step-die/dice pool (not seen in any extant system I know of) might be to use it to represent skill 'width'. A character might buy a number of dice, with that number being say d4 if the skill is extremely general, d6 for a more specific skill, and d8 or d10 for a highly focussed specialty skill. This would balance buying skills of varying width without complex point accounting, and enables easy 'stacking' of general and specialized skills (just roll a dice pool of mixed type).
General Notes: Step die systems give a great deal of variation in ability, but regardless of rating a high result is not guaranteed. These systems are fairly granular unless multiple dice are used. Unlike most single-die systems, the main way to keep opponent abilities secret is to roll behind a screen, since otherwise the dice being rolled gives away what the check is for (the same problem occurs for DMs trying to make secret rolls in AD&D, where different subsystems use different dice, but its not quite as bad).
Varying Dice Type as a supplemental mechanism:
Shifts in dice type are sometimes used with other dice mechanics in exceptional circumstances or edge cases e.g.
*Talislanta is normally d20+modifiers on a table, but untrained rolls are d10+modifiers.
*SenZar uses a roll of d20 equal or over a target number of [21-attribute], but scores of 20 higher instead let a character roll a d100 vs. target 05% , giving much larger margins of success for opposed rolls (and making difficulty adjustments less of an inconvenience to these characters).
*Cadillacs & Dinosaurs replaces its general d10 roll under character stat with [roll of d6+damage taken] vs. stat for determining some wound effects; interesting in that they've reduced the base amount of randomness in the check to allow for extra randomness coming from elsewhere (overflowing off other rolls). This feature is probably due to that subsystem being inherited separately from Twilight 2000 (pre- the core mechanic?), rather than being a conscious design decision.
*The Soothsayer RPG gives stats roll-over target numbers that are usually on d10 (a stat of 3 is 10 on d10 to succeed, 4 is 9+, 5 is 8+ etc); however a score of 2 instead requires a 12 on d12, while a 1 succeeds only on 20 on d20.
*IIRC, 1E AD&D shifted from rolling d6 for open doors to d8 at giant-level Strength, which was a continuation of higher than the table initially went. This was replaced with a consistent d20-based subsystem in 2nd ed.
*Dungeon Crawl Classics uses an OGL-derived d20+modifiers system at base, but with Zocchi dice, and significant penalties (or extra attacks gained from level, TWF, etc) can use smaller dice such as d16 or d14, while bonuses can shift rolls to d24 or d30. Effects such as criticals are handled somewhat awkwardly due to this i.e. a combat penalty can increase chances of a critical by requiring a 16 on d16, instead of 20 on d20 (although as critical effects are generated by rolling on a separate table, which has 'no extra effect' as an option, they could have patched this by handing out a separate penalty to the crit roll). DCC is in some ways the opposite of Savage Worlds - it has dice type shifts for penalties and plusses for character skill/stat advancement, instead of different dice from the fundamental skill/stat and flat bonuses/penalties for circumstances.
*Very granular rolls such as 2d6 can be replaced with e.g. d100 tables of results to produce results changed more subtly than is possible with just modifiers to the roll (as every +1 is a significant shift here). That can be used e.g. for 2-12 attribute generation with specific races etc.
This category includes Marvel Super Heroes and a number of old TSR games (Gamma World 3rd ed., the Conan game And ZeFYRS), plus Indiana Jones, Top Secret, and DC Heroes.
Tables let large ranges of values be assigned a chance of success (as in MSH, where scores range from a feeble 2 to cosmic ratings of up to 5000), and/or let a designer add various result levels with exact control over likelihood of them occurring (in MSH, likelihood of “Yellow”, “Green” or “Red” results, for instance). As such this gives ideal control over both success chance and achievement level, though the game may slow down while checking a table. A table may cross-reference either difficulty and statistic, or statistic and result level; doing both requires a series of tables (e.g. ‘slices’ of a table that actually extends into three dimensions).
James Bond's system was similar to MSH (though preceding it), with a score out of 30 assigned and multiplied by a difficulty factor to get a target % . A roll determines a quality number (1-4) which then modified effect e.g. damage.
A table system can have bonuses that work in multiple ways. A bonus can:
-increase the statistic being used to make the check
-increase the dice roll
-directly increase the result level (often called a "column shift" or similar).
Depending on table construction, increasing roll and directly altering result level can give very different results; this has no directly useful result I can think of, but is a fairly unique feature of these games. Perhaps comparable to with how in dice-pool games, shifting # successes required, # dice and target number all do different things.
Column shifts can sometimes be used to gear down or reduce modifiers, as an alternative to a flat + to a roll. For instance in 0D&D having a dwarf 'save as 2 levels higher' gives a boost probably less than a +2 bonus (which could also potentially scale differently between different classes).
Elliot Wilen wrote: Not to discourage, in fact I hope this would encourage and help structure your efforts, but you could do worse than to look at John Kirk's collection of RPG Design Patterns from http://legendaryquest.netfirms.com/ (Note: there's a wiki and a PDF download. I'm only familiar with the latter.) It's somewhat influenced by and reverential towards Forge theory and games, but fortunately not in a way that impedes clarity.I've read it, actually (probably why I described Star Wars as using a "safety value" mechanic ;) )though I am unfamiliar with a number of the systems he references, and leery of his conclusions in places (like his discussion on how to "simplify" damage on pdf page 47, by applying to-hit overflow onto damage - since IMHO this adds a subtraction step to every hit roll). I do like the idea of design anti-patterns in an RPG context - pity that wasn't explored in more depth.I'm planning on a different focus - looking more at the specific innovations of "fantasy heartbreakers"; hopefully by working through subsystem-by-subsystem I'll get a better view of context than if I were working it through pattern by pattern (divorced of context) even though some patterns may repeat themselves across different systems. Thanks though, and I will promise to keep it in mind where relevant.
This section refers primarily to games which roll a number of dice and then count "successes" by finding rolls over a given target number (There are also 'die pool' systems which either take the highest roll out of a set of dice, or which are additive i.e. which just add together all the dice rolled; see below for more on these).
Shadowrun (1989) and Prince Valiant (1989; actually coin based, using total of stat+skill to determine pool) were two of the first of these, although Space 1889 also used dice pools for certain tasks (combat used target numbers, though the pool of d6s was typically used additively). Shadowrun 1E used either attribute or skill to give number of dice (for untrained skill use or use of the wrong skill, penalties were determined using a relationship flowchart), while Prince Valiant and Storyteller use [stat+skill], giving slightly larger pools.
Die pool systems are particularly good for determining how well a character succeeds, but less good at determining if a character succeeds – probabilities are less transparent and in practice designers tend to allocate # successes required for tasks in a fairly ad hoc fashion. ‘botch’ chances using 1s tend to do odd things.
Some systems independently vary both target number and # dice (oWoD – particularly Werewolf- and Shadowrun 1e/2e). This unpredictably/erratically increases the number of dice needed to get a given # successes and is an approach that should probably be used rarely. Shadowrun uses d6s and allows target numbers (TNs) over 6 (6s add and roll over).
This had a slight irregularity in that TN 7 was no more difficult than TN 6 (since there was a minimum of +1 when the d6 rerolls); shift from TN 7 to TN 8 also had much lower effect on probability of success than (say) 4 to 5, or 5 to 6. The hillbilly mecha game "Junk" was similar but rather than roll-and-add, instead required a minimum score on the reroll dice, based on the final TN e.g. TN 7 = needs a 3+ on the reroll success; equivalent to rerolling and adding using [d6-1].
Dice roll systems integrate particularly well, with even damage etc. following the same universal system. Attack roll successes may add to Damage successes giving DEX a percentage flow-through into damage (usually less than Strength since successes are normally converted into extra dice, and have to be rolled again), without the math being excessively clunky.
Dice pool games are virtually never level-based: dice pools are fairly granular due to maximum pool size rapidly becoming unwieldy, making it difficult to have a reasonable number of levels. Dice pools also make "soak" rolls easy to implement, so such games are less likely to have open-ended hit point totals. Storyteller does give each of the character types a sort of 'key attribute' which is core to them and somewhat like 'level' - Generation in Vampire, Arete in Mage, Rank in Werewolf - but only somewhat.
Other dice pool elaborations:
*Shadowrun 4E has rules for 'glitches' - if a character succeeds but more than half their dice pool consists of 1s, they still succeed but with some drawback. This result might be comparable to 'marginal success' (roll exactly what you need and no higher) in a d20+mods, or d20 roll under system, except that chance of a glitch occurring decreases with greater skill in SR4.
*The Ubiquity system (Hollow Earth Expedition) has a dice pool system where results are 0 or 1 (unlike say storyteller, 1s or 10s aren't ever specifically counted - only successes or failures). 'Ubiquity dice' let large dice pools be compressed into fewer dice e.g. a d8 labelled 0,1,1,1,1,2,2,3 (IIRC) duplicates the roll of 3 normal dice.
One Roll Engine: Another sub-variety of dice pool system is the “match counting” system as used in the One Roll Engine (REIGN, Godlike, etc) ("Weapons of the Gods" is also similar). To succeed in ORE a character needs 2 or more dice to face up the same number. This provides two readouts a “width” (how many successes) and a “height” (what the number is); The system is particularly good for doing Hit Location (i.e. a character a rolls 3,3,4,4,4,7 might opt to target a character in their “4” location for 3 successes of damage, or in their “3” location for 2 successes of damage. The system handles differing task difficulty only with some trouble - success or failure primarily depends on character talent rather than task difficulty - cannot have “fumbles” in combat (since 1s are “left foot” shots); and at least in Godlike, the additional data available is in practice rarely used for most non-combat rolls. In combat it has the slight problem that base damage and initiative are both based off roll "width" (i.e. shots that will kill someone automatically go first).
Rolls are fairly prone to failure, although the game suggests characters only need roll for tricky situations.
(EDITED TO ADD 6/2/2012)
Take-Highest Dice Pools:
...and I've completely missed systems where characters roll a number of dice, and take the highest (instead of counting them or adding them together! Thanks RobMaudib for pointing this out.
Known examples include:
Silhouette (Dream pod 9): as described by RobM here, skill level determines # dice, with highest roll taken and +1 added for each additional "6" rolled; attribute then adds to this.
Last Unicorn Games Icon system (e.g. Star Trek RPG) did the opposite, where attribute determines # of dice and skill gave a flat add; it also included a "drama die: that could fumble/add 6.
Blue Planet also gave characters "Aptitudes" (rated from 1 die to 3 dice), with stat & skill both adding to the highest roll.
As can be seen, this sort of system is good for giving different effects to attributes and skills.
Soothsayer (an obscure Australian RPG) uses take-highest dice pool for armour absorbtion, where highest value is used, with +1 for each additional roll of the same number. This was interesting in that a roll of say 4,3,3,3 (=6)gives a higher result than 5,3,3,3 (=5). (It was also interesting in that the armour roll operates differently to the damage roll).
Sorcerer (from what I hear) operates by having both sides of a conflict roll dice, with highest results on both sides cancelling out until an uncancelled roll remains.
(Altus sees to do this as well, with # dice and dice type generated from a table, based on relevant skill level).
"Take highest" systems are fairly constrained in how many dice they can roll - chance of success rapidly approaches 100% and extra dice give little benefit (although kludges like "each 6 adds 1 to total" help). If there is no additional modifier to the dice result, chances of ties increase between opponents with large dice pools (the highest number is the most common "roll", if pool is 2+ dice). Effect of larger dice pools is moderated somewhat by taking e.g. the second highest roll, instead of the highest.
(EDIT To Add 14/4/2012)
Resource-based Dice Pools
Some games also use dice pools as a resource of potential dice. Examples include Dying Earth and Dogs In the Vineyard; both handle checks as extended, opposed affairs; a conflict is continuing with the opponent putting out dice from their pool until they pool is exhausted or they cede the conflict. Dying Earth burns rolls usually one at a time, while DiTV lets characters use more than one and has multiple options (e.g. "raise" and "see", reversing the blow).
Final (mathematical) note on probabilities: success-counting die pool systems have 'diminishing returns' in the increase in base odds as the dice pool increases, for 1-2 successes or so. e.g. if rolling d6s TN 4, going from 1 dice to 2 increases odds of getting 1 success by 25% (50% to 75%), from 2 to 3 by 12.5%, and from 3 to 4 by 6.25%. Hence each added dice has less effect on the final probability, despite the total number of expected successes increasing linearly. For minimum 2 or 3 successes etc. the same effect occurs beyond a certain point only - at the lower end chance of success with a small dice pool will be very low.
By contrast in a single-dice-roll game, an increase in skill level will generates a proportional increase in success chance.
Dice pools as a supplementary mechanism
Extra dice are often added via rerolls (see 'Safety Valves'). D&D 5E uses a system of 'advantage/disadvantage' which lets a character roll twice and take best or worst, according to Mearls reducing the number of possible fiddly modifiers (though potentially adding large numbers of extra rolls if you're surprised by something with lots of attacks).
Savage Worlds PCs ('wild cards') get an extra d6 to roll at the same time as their skill or stat die, but don't always get to roll this e.g. with full auto multiple shots only one wild die is rolled.
Lots of dice can also be rolled in extended checks such as Alternity or 4E D&D 'skill challenges'; sometimes multiple checks/dice pools could be used in less formal ways for specific subsystems - Palladium's has a rule for 'roll 2 out 3 successful coma/death rolls to recover', the GDW House System (Twilight 2000 2nd Ed, Cadillacs & Dinosaurs) uses a multiple D6 count successes dice pool for automatic weapons fire to determine number of hits, instead of a skill check (normally roll under with d10).
beejazz wrote: For attributes, what about fixed arrays like 3.5s standard and elite arrays?Yes good. I'd consider these a way to speed up 'point spend' purchase systems; though it is possibly to generate a set of arrays and randomly roll which array you get, to randomly generate attributes that are still balanced by total points.
Some other exotic varieties or variants...
"Roll your modifier" systems - these are additive systems where the normal dice result is typically 0, so that a character can roll above or below their default rating. The interesting aspect of these is that a total die roll is theoretically on the same scale as an attribute score. 'attacking' and 'defending' values follow the same scales and can be used in unusual circumstances readily.
The downside is that again, multiple rolls are difficult to make individually since dice must be paired/grouped; most of these generally assumes a group of mooks use a single die roll. Examples include:
*Fudge (uses 4 'Fudge dice' labelled 0,1,-1 twice) - later variants such as Fate typically use [d6-d6],
*Feng Shui (which uses d6-d6 with 6s exploding - meaning a 1 or 2 point modifier has a hugely significant effect on the probability of a task succeeding, but with explosions still occurring quite frequently that result in massive dice rolls).
*Two Fisted Tales (d10-d10)
*ShatterZone/Masterbook: this uses a roll of 2d10 and table lookup to determine the modifier, rather than a positive and negative die.
*Jasyn Jones' TORG variant (Storm Knights) (in development) apparently uses a 'hot' and 'cold' die - instead of subtracting one die from the other, the smallest of the two rolls is used with the 'hot' being positive and 'cold' negative (an identical distribution to subtracting). Babylon 5 also had the hot/cold concept, but (judging from rpgnet review) apparently used the higher of both rolls instead.
*Qin it is said uses a black (yang) d10 and a white (yin) d10. One adds and one subtracts; if both are equal and non zero a task automatically passes due to "yin and yang being in harmony" while if both are 0 the task fails due to the character being "out of touch with their chi". Which is higher may have other effects depending on the task.
In some of these e.g. FUDGE which is normally 4 Fudge Dice, it is possibly to easily modify the variation of a roll without changing the average result e.g. players may select how many dice they roll. [credit to Chaosvoyager for this, from rpgnet thread]. Another implementation might be to replace a standard [d6-d6] with a [d8-d8] or [d4-d4], depending on the situation.
Note that rolling [d6-d6] against a difficulty of opponent target number, for example, does not basically differ from rolling 2d6 against a difficulty number of [opponent target number +7] - the distribution is identical. "Roll up" or "roll down" mechanics usually do differ though; Feng Shui's "6 on either die rolls up" (i.e. 1 in 6 chance for each of this occurring) is very different to rolling down on 2 and up on 12 (each of which occur on a 1-in-36 chance).
Potentially in a dice-dice system, one of the paired dice could be considered to be the opponent's dice and one the active characters, with operations applied to just one dice in the pair as a consequence - for instance no negative die if a roll is wholly unresisted, or with opponents able to reroll the 'negative' die only.
OTHER WEIRD SYSTEMS:
Resource Pool Systems: (Gumshoe, Dying Earth); these systems give characters a number of rolls to perform a task based on their skill/attribute - in Dying Earth a task requires a d6 roll on the resolution table, with the result applying unless the opponent likewise spends a point from their pool to resist.
Full Light, Full Steam (available in the Haiti disaster relief download IIRC); an odd system this relies on rolling 4d6 and ordering them lowest to highest. Attribute and Skill are each rated 1-4, and let the character pick the appropriate die (1 means take lowest dice, 2 is take the second lowest, 3 is the second highest, 4 is the highest; the two dice are then added together). As well as being slow, the system has a built in maximum for skills/attributes (4) and is quite granular.
Diceless systems: use straight comparison to see who wins, plus either a fair degree of either GM arbitration (Amber) or use of specific details and modifiers needed. In some systems resource pools may be used to "buy" results, but with fixed results rather than dice being added.
"D10-X" - a roll-under variant seen in Cyborg Commando; two d10s are rolled and multiplied together. This has a slight failure chance even at very high attribute scores; an 'average' roll is 25 or less, but even a character with a 99 will fail occasionally). Probability distribution of the dice roll will be weird, but this system potentially allows unusual attribute scales (i.e. average 25; max. 100).
Another game using something similar is Jeff Moore's freerpg "5x5". This uses 2d6 multiplied together; however 6s are "trumps" and automatically succeed, instead of being the worst roll possible. It has the perverse additional elaboration that characters with no skill have a -5 rating, and have to try to roll 6 to win; they however only get one d6. Rolling only one die would in theory be good for most characters, but obviously won't help roll under a negative score.
Multiplicative rolling (BASH, Maid); a dice roll is multiplied by an attribute score. The upside of this, is that it gives a success chance based on a consistent ratio of any two scores. For example, a giant with a Strength of 200 wrestling a giant with a Strength of 220, has the same odds in a arm-wrestle as would a human of Strength 10 wrestling a human with Strength 11.
Note that another way to get this effect, is just to have an exponential strength scale (DC Heroes for example has Strength doubling each point, so that Str 4 is twice as strong as Strength 3; D&D 3.x, +10 Strength usually quadruples lifting capacity) and use an additive system.
Floating step dice (Conflicts in Sorcery & Super Science): see http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=19822
In this step-die variant, a character's actual dice roll is based off the total of [their stat+opponent's stat], with their score adding to the roll . A roll greater than or over the dice maximum is a success. Again this system generates proportional success based on a ratio between opponents in a conflict.
Grid Rolling: a table variant sometimes used to generate treasure - not seen as a core mechanic AFAIK- a grid is made with one dice reading "across" and the other reading "down" to select a table entry.
EDIT: Old TSR wild west game Boot Hill uses this mechanic for wound rolling: ond d100 generates location, and a second d100 roll reading across gives severity e.g. head shots are more likely to be major/fatal. It is also used sometimes in Tunnels and Trolls for random treasure or monster generation - in this case usually using d6 and d6, it allows for tables with numerous, equally likely results without the user needing any polyhedral dice.
"Beat the Difference" - seen in the old "Time Lord" RPG. In this game, attribute was subtracted from difficulty to get a number. Then 2d6 are rolled and the difference between them is determined i.e. 1 & 2 gives a difference of 1, or 6 & 1 would give a difference of 5. If the difference on the dice is greater than the other difference, the tasks succeeds.
Aside from dice, cards are seen in some games e.g.
Steffan O'Sullivan wrote:
Fudge was originally proposed with a card-based action resolution system, and I tried to make that work for a few months before scrapping it. The deciding factor, oddly enough, was shuffling. I playtested so many variants of card-based mechanisms that I came to realize that frequent shuffling was a pain compared to rolling dice over and over, and so finally scrapped the idea of using cards.
Compared to a table all results are equally probable (unless multiple cards are available), and the same card can't be drawn twice (or at least odds will decrease, if there are multiple copies in the deck) unless the deck is reshuffled. A card system is also customizable by adding/subtracting cards as appropriate i.e. if a card draw is used for hit determination, the GM can add more Leg cards to the location deck when the PCs are fighting a multi-legged monster.
With a large enough deck, a set of cards can have any distribution desired with a single draw, rather than a linear distribution of results. For example, Pyramid 3-34 suggests using a 216 card deck to replace GURPS' normal 3d6 roll with a card draw- possibly handy for combats with lots of rolls, though it actually also suggests sorting cards into piles to encourage card-counting of what rolls are left (!) - adding a metagame tactical level to the game and certainly slowing things down.
Cards will often provide results that are more difficult to modify than a die roll. If the card generates a number or [number+suite] then a bonus can be added to the final number, but it is more common for an ability to be "pick two cards" or similar.
Aside from cards, the game "Dread: The Impossible Dream" reputedly uses a Jenga tower, with difficult tasks requiring a pull from the tower.
Dominoes are another possibility (I believe at least one freerpg uses these; I don't remember the name.)
Coin-resolution systems are also occasionally seen (for instance, the Skyfall! series of gamebooks; Prince Valiant; Underworld).
Coins can be used as a simple "dice pool" (i.e. Prince Valiant where coins flipped =stat+skill; Gareth Michael Skarka's "Underworld"), or just used additively (i.e. base stat + number of heads rolled).
For the most part flipping a coin isn't particularly different to rolling a d2, though the joke game Combat Monster uses coin denomination as well (the players roll change with a total value equal to their attribute, counting the cash value of coins that come up heads; this lets it have a "dice pool" type system using arbitrarily large attribute scores - although the exact change chosen by the player would theoretically alter their chance of success at a given task difficulty). Skyfall adds heads and subtracts tails for some rolls (others are just e.g. +heads) making some rolls similar to FATE or Feng Shui's centered-on-zero approach (what I called a "roll your modifier" system above).
(thanks again to RobMaudib for Prince Valiant/Underworld/CF notes).
Prerolling: Its sometimes suggested for games with a lot of rolls that dice be "pre-rolled" and recorded, then to go down the list. Not something I'm terribly fond of, although its been argued that it avoids the interruption of the scene by the dice/break in immersion. Note this doesn't tend to work well with a step die system, since a different chart would need to be consulted for each die type (d6,d8, d20, etc), or for a dice pool system where number of dice varies each time.
"Stupid effing die. I haven't made a skill check yet tonight. Can I use my luck to retest?"
"No Tim, Tanya has "very lucky"; you have "strange luck". There is a difference. She gets the two free retests. You are about to get hosed."
-Midian Dark Fantasy
Here I'm moving on from the general basics of dice mechanics to related implementation details.
'Luck points' of course given a player control over outcomes for their PC. Depending on the game these might be fluffed as 'luck points', 'willpower points' or 'action points' (the PC tries extra hard), represent an application of applicable experience (Over the Edge) or be left as some sort of abstact 'story point'. Fluffing may affects whether points are vaguely conceivable as being spent in character (i.e. are an 'associated' mechanic) or not; what they can be spent to do, affects levels of believability of this.
Depending on system, points spend may be gone for good, or refresh can be based on certain conditions, or luck points can recover on a per-day, per-game-session, or per adventure schedule. Points might also be bought with XP even if XP isn't directly used as the luck points (Unisystem, Mutazoids 2nd ed.), or recovered through some other factor. If points are spent permanently then the total is usually not directly connected to any attribute (except perhaps initially). They might be equal to leftover points from character design (SenZar, DC Heroes), rolled randomly (Warhammer 1E/2E), or be a set starting total.
A luck point might add an extra 'success' (common in dice pool systems where, otherwise, difficult tasks are impossible for weaker characters); an extra dice (in dice pool systems); a bonus to a roll (sometimes rolled); an automatically maximized dice roll; or a reroll which can be either mandatory ("the player must take the result regardless, as luck can be either good or bad"- 3E Luck domain) or 'choose the highest'.
Full rerolls are more common in games where rolls are of single dice with very variable results (i.e. 1d20).
Rerolls are particularly useful, strategically, for minimizing critical failures and the like - since a critical failure is an uncommon event, a re-roll will almost certainly negate one easily (even if it isn't sufficient to get a success). Some systems take this into account and either ban rerolls of critical failures (an optional rule in Savage Worlds), or add extra cost to re-rolling particularly poor results (Dying Earth).
Luck may be an intrinsic attribute, or a special advantage possessed by only a few characters - more or less depending on whether the tone of a game setting is cinematic or realistic.
Dangerous games which do not use a luck point system are more likely to allow PC raise dead/resurrection (e.g. D&D). Or just encourage GM fudging outside the system : (
In systems that are more tightly integrated/highly evolved, the luck point metagame currency may be the same power points used in the spellcasting system as power/mana.
Luck may operate to reduce incoming damage and so increase character survival, allow rerolls of whatever checks the player may choose (whether life-threatening or not), or both.
For some systems, luck points may be a necessary 'kludge' to getting the right results: Savage Worlds' bennies help mitigate what could otherwise be a very deadly system due to frequent open-ended damage rolls, while in DC Heroes 1E Batman would automatically kill/knock out the Joker with one punch, unless the latter spent points to boost his defense.
Examples:
*DC Heroes ("hero points"); these are integrated with the advancement currency of the game i.e. they also work as 'xp'. The system here was intended to make sure heroes did not advance with experience (as genre emulation); the perhaps unfortunate effect of this is that a character in an 'unbalanced' party struggling to survive burns hero points, while the unbalanced party members can save resources to advance further - a 'rich get richer and the poor get poorer' scenario (compare to D&D, where weaker [lower-level] characters usually advance faster, and Talislanta, where levels are a fixed 25 xp and everyone advances at the same rate). Points here have various uses including: pumping attribute values (max. of double), building gadgets, resisting successful social attacks and powering certain metagame abilities such as Omni-Connection. Points are spent frequently and there are opposed bidding rules.
Marvel Super Heroes (Karma) has a similar setup; GURPs also has an optional rule whereby character points can be spent to boost rolls.
*Storyteller (Willpower): willpower here is an attribute, recovered through acting in accordance with a characters' Nature. It provides a single automatic success, added to the dice pool - in original Vampire this made it particularly useful on high-difficulty rolls (e.g. difficulty 10, which was as likely to succeed as botch regardless of dice pool).
A dice pool system could also have luck give (less reliable) extra dice, of course [Arkham Horror - though technically a boardgame] lets characters spend 'clue tokens' to roll extra dice.
*TORG (possibilities): while this give PCs ability to manipulate reality, they are interesting in that they are used in-character by PCs ("Storm Knights"), who have a limited ability to manipulate reality and understand that they have a limited supply of "possibility energy".
*FATE (Fate points) gives characters points for having a negative complication of a character's Aspect come into play (Aspects working as both advantages and disadvantages).
*Warhammer (also Fate points) - let characters survive a lethal circumstance, but once used are gone for good.
*Fighting Fantasy gives PCs a Luck score with a successful roll giving a bonus and a failed roll often a penalty. Each time it is used the score takes a point of temporary damage.
*HOL (Human Occupied Landfill) gives the players as a group a reserve of "Grace of God" points - how many is determined by rolling d6. A player who attempts to use a GOG point when the pool is exhausted gets the "Wrath of God" point instead.
*The 'Superbabes' RPG lets PCs take "Bimbo Points" to succeed on rolls or break the rules. At the start of the adventure, a roll less than a PCs current Bimbo Point total entitles the GM to a roll on the "Bimbo Events" table, which includes such entries as "cult wishes to sacrifice the character", "character gains 10 pounds" and "costume destroyed in battle". The roll of a bimbo event resets their points back to zero.
*Weapons of the Gods lets characters store up a limited number of die rolls for later ("the river"). This is complicated slightly by it using a One-Roll-Engine-esque match-counting system; higher rolls are slightly better but various rolls in storage let a character bolster more rolls (improving a roll of 2-2 requires another 2, while 7-7-7 needs another 7).
*Marvel Super Heroes lets the PC/NPC completely 'call' the result of a die roll in advance by spending Karma. They declare the final result before rolling, which might be only a success ("Green Result") or might be a higher Yellow or Red result. The dice are then rolled and the difference between the roll and the minimum necessary is the Karma cost, with a minimum cost of 10 if the character would've made it without the attempt (e.g. with an Incredible score, a character would need 91+ on d100 to get a Red result; if they actually rolled only a 67, the cost is [91-67], or 24 Karma points.
*SenZar lets a character spend a Fate Point to act as if they rolled a perfect "20" on a d20 roll.
*Shadowrun 4E lets characters spend "Edge" either before or after a roll to get bonus dice (equal to their Edge score), and 6s give an extra roll. If a character declares their use of Edge before the first roll is made, the secondary benefit (6s give an extra die) applies to the entire dice pool, while if declared afterward it applies only to the bonus Edge dice.
*Earthdawn 1E gives characters different "Karma action dice" based on race; a Obsidiman who spends a Karma gets only +d4 to their total; a human or ork gets +d8 while a tiny windling would get +d10; an additional game balancing mechanism (and a way to differentiate levels of luckiness that doesn't exist if luck only grants rerolls -at least if the new roll is by default at the original odds). Note that spending Karma here is unreliable due to the bonus being rolled. In 1E at least, Karma points seem to be limited to use on only a few possible actions. Some magical rituals may also cost Karma.
*The Sovereign Stone fantasy RPG (the precursor of the Cortex system) let characters "exert", taking Stun damage, to roll an extra dice along with the normal 2 dice, prior to the roll being made. Characters could also use "last ditch exertion" after the dice were rolling, with 1 point of damage adding +1 to the roll (more expensive, given that 1 pt would have bought a d4).
This method could potentially lead to alot of metagame tactical evaluation as to whether PCs will suffer more damage from failing the roll or exerting themselves, as well as making healing magic a free source of 'luck points'. As it ties together an abstraction (dice rolls) with something concrete (damage) it can also lead to bizarre results and justifications - e.g. characters taking damage from upping their dice rolls to find information at the library....
*The Dying Earth (and relatedly, Gumshoe) systems have no single "luck point" score, but all of a characters skills individually function as pools of rerolls or bonuses, with some odd effects.
*Risus again has no "luck point" score, but the function of a safety valve is achieved by "pumping". Each character score can add a number of bonus dice for a turn, after which the score is reduced by that much. In Risus' quite abstract system, a character may then be able to carry on without a huge disadvantage by switching to another, vaguely related skill - The viking [4]/swashbuckler [3] who "berserks" for an extra 3 dice in combat drops to Viking [1], but can keep fighting on without much penalty using their Swashbuckler rating.
*Underground (a disturbing relative of DC Heroes) is unusual for awarding luck points for high die rolls (any natural rolls of 24+ on 2d10, doubles roll up) as well as good play.
*Mutants & Masterminds/True20 has 'conviction'points allowing reroll of any d20 roll. Perhaps most commonly though these will be used to modify Toughness saves on d20, reducing the effects of damage on the character, since it uses these in place of 'hit points'.
*4th edition Dungeons & Dragons has "Action Points" which are somewhat different to the other varieties listed, granting an additional action when spent. This is perhaps about as good as a reroll in many cases - although if a character has used up a particular 'power' it isn't available for the second attempt, or on the plus side potentially having 2 successful actions in a round. A character can also use an action point to recover from (rather than prevent) damage by using a 'second wind' & spending a healing surge, and a number of effects can add a bonus to these actions (i.e. paragon abilities or the human 'Action Surge' feat). Action points are gained each second encounter and reset to 1 after resting, buffering characters against the '5 minute workday'.
Note some RPGs have Luck attributes that are not spent, but instead only used as an attribute to be rolled against (e.g. Tunnels and Trolls); this is analogous to a 'saving throw' and is not a "safety valve" per se.
Some systems also take 'luck points' further, allowing PCs to co-opt GMing or provide control over some aspect of game reality e.g. with GM approval a character can spend hero points to definitely find a beaker of acid nearby, while fighting in the mad scientists' laboratory). These include some Fate variants and DC Heroes.
The Luck Point Economy: On the other side of the screen, luck points for NPCs may be controlled by a parallel system to what PCs have, or a different system (e.g. the GM may have a single reserve of points for all NPCs, or no points). Both PCs and NPCs are going to be tied into using the same system if "luck points" are based off a basic character attribute.
Where GMs have large supplies of 'luck points', GM fudging of dice rolls is effectively built into the system legally; it also may be problematic that PCs use the same reserve for the whole adventure, while fresh NPCs may appear in each encounter.
Further examples:
*DC heroes gives the GM a potentially unlimited supply of hero points; NPCs follow the same rules as the heroes and can have whatever the GM deems appropriate. Bidding wars are possible between PCs and bad guys.
*Savage Worlds gives the GM a limited supply of 'bennies'; 2 plus 2 for each 'wild card' NPC (archvillains and the like).
*SenZar lets the GM give exceptional NPCs only 'Fate Points'; if the players win, they get the bad guy's Fate Points.
*MSH gives bad guys a fixed karma supply equal to the sum of a character's mental attributes when they enter play; however bad guys have different spending rules (and refresh rules) to good guys, limiting their use except in dramatic escapes or story-furthering events.
*Fighting Fantasy gives PCs a Luck score. NPCs were not usually given a Luck, making it unclear how they interact with effects that require a test on it (AFF 2E eventually clarifies they use Skill, for involuntary checks only).
General Notes
The thread here has some more discussion about 'hero points' that may be of interest: http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=13530
Likewise this one brings up an idea that GM control of luck point flow is an issue, and that a resource giving a bonus reflects willpower (extra effort) better, while a reroll more resembles luck (metagame). http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=26416
Non-Point-Based Resources: TORG/MasterBook's 'Drama Deck' gives cards that give some metagame effect on game results.
Non-Resource-Based "Safety Valves": systems can also allow for characters to reduce their chances of failure by metagame means not involving point spending, or in-game means. For example:
So you succeed at forging a sword, casting a spell (if that needs a check), or whatever else you were doing. The next question beyond if a character succeeds, is how well they did (effect). How this is handled depends largely on what the core mechanic is (d20, dice pool, percentile, etc). Depending on system this might be largely a matter of GM fiat, or precisely detailed. For systems which do have defined effect, the final result might be a number (damage; distance jumped;spell duration) or be some sort of special, specific effect (Slam!; Stun!).
Systems for effect determination vary in how much coupling there is between dice roll for success and for effect - whether difficulty is the same as degree of success. Most d20 mechanics are tightly coupled, with high roll or skill giving a large margin of success, but damage roll is largely unrelated to how good the hit roll is (uncoupled). In between these, a system like oWoD is loosely coupled - an increase in difficulty may or may not mean less effect (a single high roll gives basic success on a difficult task, but rolling above the minimum doesn't boost effect further, so some detail from the roll is lost).
Mechanisms for effect determination include:
Fixed effect: whatever you rolled is irrelevant; you get a value based on the appropriate statistic or skill; being a 5th level thief gives you +3d6 sneak attack, being a 4th level wizard gives you a Rope Trick that lasts for 4 hours, or a telekinesis spell has Strength equal to the caster’s intelligence. Where ‘effect’ is needed but no dice are rolled, this is probably going to be the default system, though occasionally a game will allow for diceless resolution with 'margin of success' by letting a character synthetically generate a 'die roll' - e.g. 3E D&D's 'Take 10' rule.
Natural dice roll: particular numbers on the dice give more effect i.e. “pin on a natural 18-20” or “critical on a natural 20” (Palladium). This is a typically a fairly intuitive system (i.e. high roll = good) which however keeps exceptional results rare, regardless of a characters bonuses or total success chance. This setup gives a named/specific effect (much like named table results; see below) -unlike the table, you get one or at most two specific results (e.g. for critical/fumble).
The odds of a particular natural dice roll occuring may also vary slightly with character ability e.g. in a step die system, or for odds of doubles in a roll-under percentage system (1/10 of skill), or if rerolls are permitted. Some systems e.g. FantasyCraft, or D&D 3E critical hits, have more detailed subsystems for applying various modifiers to the ranges, independent of the modifier on the roll itself.
A natural dice roll to trigger a specific result could potentially be set to a number other than the top one or two dice values, which might be most useful if rolling multiple dice - for instance using 2d10, a critical roll of 20 would occur 1% of the time, while a roll of 16 exactly (no higher or lower) is 5% likely - I know of no systems that use that however.
Margin of success: a fairly straightforward system, in the simplest version of this the character’s dice roll only determines how well they do i.e. rolling over the target number by 5 is half as good as rolling over by 10. This is likewise fairly intuitive; it directly rewards large bonuses to checks. Minor subtraction required.
Effect has a linear return if the dice roll is linear (such as d20), while for bell curve rolls (e.g. 3d6 such as GURPS) diminishing returns is built into the margin of success - beating a TN by 6 is much less common than beating it by 4, for instance. Rolling-up can give blowouts in margin of success. (frequently without modifying chance of success, if max die roll would have succeeded anyway).
Systems may alter margins of success as well as bonuses; for example the Charletan in the 2E Complete Bard has a Charlatanly skill whose 'margin of failure' widens as their Charisma increases; if a Pick Pockets roll fails by more than [Charisma] a critical failure occurs.
SenZar has an odd group success system where multiple characters roll, and all separately determine margin of success and add this together to determine final margin; it also has some holes in the margin of success interpretation system in that a stat of '*' (i.e. unlimited or $TEXAS in the attribute) automatically wins opposed rolls with lower ratings without needing a roll but doesn't give a clear margin of success for system uses (such as a VoidSpawn's WILL roll to negate incoming damage, where margin of success determines maximum damage absorbed).
Base effect, plus a bonus determined by how much your total roll (dice + bonuses) exceeds the target number (for example hitting by 3 might add +3 to damage). Minor subtraction required. This is basically a hybrid of a ‘fixed’ system and the ‘margin of success’ system. It gives numerical results i.e. "damage points" or "result points". This system lets a character have an effect modifier that applies to tasks independently of the success roll e.g. a bonus to damage from Strength. The most comprehensive and interesting system of this type is probably DC Heroes (perhaps particularly 2nd or 3rd editions. This set separate Acting Value, Opposing Value, Effect Values and Resistance values for all rolls - damage for instead would hit based off DEX/opponent DEX, then damage would be found by comparing attacker STR and target BODY, plus column shifts from the hit roll. Parallel systems also existed for e.g. social interaction (which involves comparing Influence, Aura and Spirit) and all other tasks, though many used doubling up of the same attribute or power, or used points where they were likely to be unnecessary complication on rolls that should be simple pass/fail. DC Heroes also had the concept of ‘Pushing’, where an effect works at the base value automatically, but requires a dice roll to strain that limit e.g. lift more than usual.
Independently rolled effect: the most common case of this is damage e.g. in games where hitting with your longsword deals d8 damage this is an effect largely separate to what your attack roll was, barring criticals (More on damage later). This system is readily shoe-hornable onto whatever other system is in place; it provides slightly less logical results (a huge skill check can earn minimal success) but does not excessively reward high bonuses i.e. it is ‘balanced’, and there is little extra math involved.
A roll can also be “semi independent” - for d100 systems that have special results based on the 1s die (see above), this is almost a form of built in separate roll” –since the 1s place is often largely irrelevant (one-eleventh of the total dice roll on average). In a couple of systems dice are read additively but with one of the dice determining special effects e.g. in Valherjar (another Haiti disaster relief download RPG), a roll is [stat+3d6] but one of the dice is a special colour and determining effect.
The Marvel Heroic game (2012) uses a pool of dice, where 2 are selected and added to determine success, and a third selected as the "effect" die. Characters may therefore sometimes lower their success roll to allocate a higher die to effect.
Multiple rolls: here after succeeding the initial check, the character has to make additional checks to determine exactly how well they do/or make further progress. This might appear naturally enough in play when a GM doesn’t have a system to handle effect readily. An example of this method might be running speed in 2nd ed. D&D; a character can roll a Strength check with a penalty to reach 5x normal speed, then if that fails Str checks with successively lower penalties to try for 4x speed, and finally 3x speed; 2x is automatic).
A rarely seen version of this that crossbreeds it with margin of success systems is to 'reroll remainder' - count the amount the roll is over the target, and then reroll against it. For example in a roll under system a character might need a 15 or less to succeed; rolling a 12 they get a reroll against 3 or less (as 15-12 = 3) for some extra benefit.
Going for broke: the character can get an effect bonus by taking a penalty on their dice roll (usually an add-on to another system). Examples include 3.x D&D Power Attack (i.e. take a -5 to hit, get a +5 or +10 to damage; Synchronicity (a free rpg) does the same with swashbuckling manuevers (swinging on ropes at -5 adds +5 to damage); DC Heroes has a an option called "Going for Broke" that applies to most actions.
This mechanic gives characters a chance to pull off something very risky, but very rewarding. This mechanic does help gameplay, by slowing down the rate at which dice rolls become irrelevant to characters with huge bonuses.
A system may include the idea with very detailed cases e.g. a character might take an attack penalty to attempt a ‘head shot’ which would do additional damage as per the ‘head shot’ rules.
The main thing to watch is that if a character gets bonuses to effect already from the dice roll for rolling high, the effect bonus has to exceed the effect points they lose from taking the penalty. DC Heroes has a good setup for this (the effect bonus is precalculated to more than offset the penalty).
An example of what not to do is Fading Suns 1e; it uses a d20 roll under Blackjack system, where a character can voluntarily choose to add a bonus/penalty to their dice roll ("Accenting"). While this probably seemed like a good idea superficially, calculating this out shows that there is no increase in average effect - the maximum result is unchanged - just a loss in chance of success. That is a character with skill 12 generates results from 1-12 with a roll of 12, while at modifier +5 the character generates results of 6-12 at natural rolls of 1-7 but fails on a natural roll of 8+. Negative accenting in FS i.e. taking a penalty to the roll which increases success chance but decreases average victory points, fails to work for the opposite reason; it only adds to chance of success.
Success counting: as seen in dice pool systems (e.g. the vampire attempting to pick up in a bar rolls Appearance +Seduction and get 3 successes, so he finds a target with an Appearance of 3). Success counting systems, as with margin of success type systems and indeed most of the systems, typically give simple, numeric outputs –with a couple of exceptions e.g.
Lau Wang is sneaking into the temple of the blood god in order to find the scripture of the armour of ancients, using his MA of 6 and the specialty stunt: stealth. He may wish to get in as quickly as possible, while avoiding death traps. This is an important crisis, requiring 2 goals. He decides on 3 dice for caution (blue), 1 dice for speed (green) and 2 dice for offsetting the death traps (grey). He scores 3 goals, 2 in caution (he doesn't get caught) and one in offsetting (he avoids the scything trap but not the secret poison spray - damn!). Because the green dice did not score a goal, he did not get out especially quickly. Now he has to contend with the imperial guard.
Named result levels (off a table); as seen in various universal tables these are usually non-numeric i.e. a “Great success” (Lost Souls), or a “Green” result (MSH), or a “special success” (RQ). They require referencing more rules to work out exactly what a named result does, but for clearly defined situations give perhaps more interesting results (a result might be a Slam or a Kill, instead of a +3 on damage). The most advanced system for this may be Rolemaster, which uses incredibly detailed tables giving exact descriptions of what happens for more or less any situation/dice roll. Tables can of course also just be used to get a numerical value for success in some way.
Resource Driven Effect: e.g. in 4E D&D , the main thing determining how much damage an attack deals is what power (from a variety of one-shot power selections) is being used. The complex 3.x variant FantasyCraft has a resource-driven setup throughout, where a high or low roll is potentially a 'critical' but must be 'activated' or 'triggered' by spending an Action Die/Dice. Likewise a fumble requires a low roll, and the GM or opponent to spend dice. Various character abilities interact with the mechanic; one thing of note is that NPCs can't score critical hits on PCs unless they burn the points to do so. In a resource driven system, characters can have modifiers to resource cost i.e. reduced cost if the character can have a particular ability, or a character might an ability that lets them recharge a power. High results generally appear under the control of the player - making it less exciting and more metagame in nature, but also more tactical than most other options ('Going for Broke' is also somewhat player controlled, but not as predictably). Note that although a 'safety valve' system also makes high rolls more controllable by players and so adds a resource dimension to another sort of effect determination, high rolls would still periodically occur on their own due to chance.
All the above are essentially rules-dictated; a wholly different 'effect' determining system often found in 'narrative' games is the negotiated resolution, where stakes are set by agreement between the player and GM.
Thoughts in closing: most systems run OK without a detailed, consistent effect-determination system, given a GM with at least a modicum of imagination.
On the one hand, systems with no coherent single effect-determination system (most of them) have evolved various different approaches to handle this - a d10 roll here; a level-based damage progression there; yet elsewhere, a direct Jump-check-DC-to-distance-jumped conversion chart. On the other hand, a built-in system for effect can be a solution in search of a problem, with unnecessarily complex subsystems built off the basic system when really, simple pass/fail checks are all that is necessary.
In a wholly integrated system, be careful that unifying major systems doesn't break them. The most important form of "effect" is the damage aspect, and while its a bonus to have other subsystems run consistently with this, make sure that sub-rules intended to facilitate other actions like running or determining spell durations don't somehow mess up the damage system.
The effect mechanism used does determine how information flows through the system, and a good effect system can cover a number of things that would otherwise require additional complicating rules. For example, if amount of attack over target defense affects damage, then a good attack roll includes 'critical' effects by default, and catching an opponent with their pants down and so zero defense automatically increases damage without need for 'sneak attack' rules.
Note: see also post 136 for details on critical hit systems specifically.
When designing a system, when to roll dice is an important question - as it is something frequently overused. Dice rolls take time and require additional invocation of rules to resolve, and additionally generate chances of PCs failing, that may not always be appropriate. Though some players just like rolling dice. While this is partly a matter of taste, IMHO a dice roll should be a moment of drama or tension.
Dice aren't the only possible source of tension and diceless systems do exist; Amber in particular accesses fear of the unknown in players by keeping difficulty of tasks, and even a player's own character capabilities, obscure to them, rather than having uncertain dice outcomes.
Burning Wheel uses rolls, but generally forbids re-rolling unless a situation significantly changes; e.g. several connected acts of sneaking requires only one sneaking roll. The justification for this is again mathematically reasonable ; that repeated rolls will eventually be the undoing of a character.
Similarly, people who have played sneaky rogues in 3.x should know the value of Always Taking 10 on their Hide/Move Silently, for the same reasons - sooner or later the character sneaking through a house and rolling Move Silently all the time will roll a "1" and get caught). Dungeons and Dragons 3.x calls for checks reasonably frequently, but lets characters sidestep many roles by 'taking 10'; when not threatened or distracted a character can act as if they rolled a 10 on their d20. The positive aspect of this is that what constitutes an 'automatic' task is definable within the DC system (if my bonus is +10, I can auto-succeed on tasks with a DC of 20 or lower) rather than being set by GM fiat, as in most other systems.
The downside is that this system eliminates a number of dangerous task to cut down on die rolls - jumping chasms, climbing walls or the like can also be "take-10'd", so to be effective a terrain hazard generated by the GM must have a success chance of less than 50/50, rather than just "don't roll a 1" risky.
(A possible alternative, which cuts down fiat but would not generate this effect, is to provide bonuses on the dice roll for easy tasks, and not call for a roll when failure chance drops to 0%).
Related to Take-10, the 'Take-20' mechanic lets characters under no time pressure act as if they rolled a 20 - reasonable given situations where there is no chance of failure or time limit and multiple retries are allowed, since it avoids players rolling endlessly until they get a 20 anyway.
Similar to Take-10, 'D6 Space' (and possibly other d6 system sourcebooks) suggests instead of rolling several d6s for rolls (particularly unimportant rolls), the gamer should just multiply the # of dice by 3 or 4. It uses x3 for rolls which 'ought to fail' ("cannon fodder damage resistance checks") and x4 for actions that ought to succeed ("something the player characters are doing").
Unisystem takes a mechanically similar approach but applies 'take average roll' to NPCs only - NPCs has scores for 'Muscle', 'Combat' and 'Brains' which are base stat +6 (average for d10). Muscle being prefigured still allows randomization via the player's roll. For Combat dice are still rolled, but the average combat number is used instead to determine 'success level' i.e. damage modifier for attacks, without table checking.
Though not innovative in terms of cutting down dice rolls, Unknown Armies is interesting in how it runs with the implications of the 'die rolls as dramatic" idea in setting its percentages for success: it assumes rolls will only be required in difficult situations so percentage chance of say, fixing your car, is precalculated to minimize modifying by assuming you're under (for example) time pressure from zombie attack, rather than having (as it says) the default % be the expected rating for a 'lazy Sunday'. This is probably a good idea in the context of its roll-under d% system, as psychologically there is a tendency for GMs to use the unmodified rating in roll-under (cf. John Kim's essay at Darkshire on roll-under systems).
Whispering Vault (and I believe ICONS) have rolling only for the players, not the GM. (thanks Rob). Likewise with Apocalypse World.
Earthdawn has a strain mechanic where using certain Talents causes the user to take damage. 3E Earthdawn sometimes uses this to discourage some skill re-rolling i.e. Search checks actually cause the user damage. "As it is, an Adept and move silently indefinitely without problem, whereas it is totally possible for that same Adept to weary himself into unconsciousness by looking for something." (quote from here).
It may also be worth looking at some particularly egregious instances of excessive dice rolling in games:
*active (defender-side) rather than passive (attacker-side) rolling for perception. A roll for a form of Perception - to search for traps, or spot opponents - can in a dungeon generate large numbers of rolls - potentially one per 10-ft square or one per room whether or not an opponent is there. The converse situation where a trap or attacker rolls to surprise a character vs. the character's relevant defense is made only when a trap or threat actually exists, cutting down potential rolling opportunities.
*Randomized movement; some games way roll for random movement - which can be problem if taken to extremes.
(This is discussed further in the "Movement" section for combat).
Excessive dice rolling in a system can occur for various reasons:
*when a situation originally dangerous/dramatic situation turns out, through rules drift across editions or just a misapprehension on the part of the designer as to how their game would actually be played, to be something routine and dull. For example, Cure Light Wounds in AD&D (heal d8+0 hit points, a rare effect healing a significant chunk of a targets HP) became 3E's Cure Light Wounds Wand, requiring the roll of dozens (or more) of dice between combats to determine charge depletion. Note a number of spell-point systems (T&T, SenZar) avoid similar situations by having simple 1:1 ratios of spell points-spent-to-HP-healed.
*when a system allows players to skip over rolls, but still gives them an incentive to roll in routine circumstances, to get higher results or extra bonuses. For example, oWoD Storyteller or Shadowrun 4E both allow "auto success" if a character has a sufficiently large dice pool (either where number of dice >difficulty rating, or at a rate of 1 success per 4 dice, respectively) but a player may frequently still wish to roll to get more successes - particularly in Storyteller, where chance of failure is probably quite low.
To address this, a designer may be able to readjust the cost/benefit ratio of this to deter extra rolling by ensuring such "voluntary rolls" retain significant failure chances, or even critical failure results (if they're a jerk).
*when additional rolls are call for just because a task takes a long time in-game to accomplish (extended checks in some systems). Often it may be more appropriate to roll to see how long it takes to perform a task, rather than rolling success checks over and over until a target # of successes is reached.
Additional Note: choosing when to roll, or not roll, can be important due to secondary rules that are invoked.
For example, if a flat roll is used for Defense, this will not be affected by other to-hit penalties. Systems where attack rolls are used to parry however, normally add an exception to applying off-hand penalties to shield parry rolls (e.g. GURPS, IIRC).
Extra Note: for events which have a low probability of occurring, rolls for these can sometimes be streamlined out of a system by having the roll only occur in specific circumstances (i.e. only critical hits require a hit location roll), or having something occur as a byproduct of critical success/critical failure on another roll (a 1 on your armour bypass roll results in a weapon breakage check [not from a published game; this is a Dragon Warriors house rule I've considered using]). When doing this the designer should be careful that doing so doesn't skew the likelihood of the result; e.g. in the above armour bypass example the designer would have to be careful that a larger armour bypass die for swords would result in them breaking less frequently than maces, unless the second roll to confirm the breakage was adjusted to compensate for this.
Similarly to this, 4E D&D streamlines out extra saving throws against effects by having one 'attack' cover both normal and 'rider' effects - e.g. an attack that hits might generate both damage and a stun. This avoids the extra dice roll, but requires a 'conflation' of defense factors - a [damage+move] effect is against the resistance score for being moved, so that defense against damage isn't considered. It also means a situation of damage, but no move, isn't possible.
Occasionally an alternate system is used to shortcut what would otherwise require lots of normal rolls - for example, having a 'mass combat' subsystem instead of rolling attack rolls for a large number of participants.
Dragon...#113? has another approach; it has binomial probability tables set up using d100, which gives percentage chances of a given number of successes/failures for up to 20 d20 rolls at a given TN. That means that 20 d20 rolls can be replaced with a single d100 table check.
A final note: some games are built up with lots of excessive dice rolling on the idea that its 'fun' to roll lots of dice. They can burn in hell - deliberately overengineering a complex system is insane. Situations will arise where even a simple system results in lots of rolling (like large combats), without going out of your way to add mess - and you should aim to use dice and mechanics where necessary to represent something rather than for the hell of it. Multiple dice on the same roll also give more predictable results and so can make doing checks more dull.
One of the quirks of OD&D which I've always loved is the proliferation of mini-systems within the basic rules. In modern game design parlance this is a thing of horror, much like the walking dead and upside-down crosses. Mini-systems?!? Lock the doors and get the shotgun, somebody's gotta die!! But personally I love it: it's the "spirit of adventure" in a rules system, where the creators are trying out new things, playing with options, and picking the right rules for a situation rather than maintaining consistency with a "system" at all costs. With that preface, I want to keep the class dice as a fun mini-system that makes certain classes distinct. The concept really works well with fighters, and works pretty well with thieves. I don't want to force it onto other classes where it doesn't naturally fit. And I'd rather have a distinctive feel (and a distinctive mechanic) for each class. - Joseph Goodman on subsystems , from the Dungeon Crawl Classics messageboard.
(I wish I had a balancing quote from someone that loved unified systems...:()
Many older RPGs use a variety of die rolling systems – starting with D&D – even though the idea of having more or less one, central core game mechanic dates back at least as far as RuneQuest (1978). Even the second RPG published, Tunnels and Trolls (1975), uses only about three different die rolling methods (for melee combat, missile fire, and saving rolls respectively; missile combat would later integrate into the saving roll system). A majority of systems took their lead from D&D however, and used different mechanics for different tasks. These systems vary between the somewhat baroque (where skill checks, ability checks, and hit rolls for example may use different mechanics) to the completely disjointed; for example a number of games split off from D&D even before ideas such as “ability checks” were in vogue, meaning a variety of very specific percentages and game functions had to be evolved. In such games value (STR, HP, etc.) are under less pressure from conflicting mechanics, with each value having a scale designed in keep with its specific assigned function, sometimes with later kludges to add on effects such as skill adjustments or the like.
e.g.
*Palladium has situational mechanics including percentages e.g.“ % to charm/impress”, while other actions are purely GM fiat or use different systems e.g. Arm Wrestling [Mystic China] uses a d20 with a special Strength modifier (+1 per 3 PS above 16). Lacking an ability check system removed a constraint on the scale of attributes, letting them range from 3-24 (higher for physical stats) - possibly helping it to later function as a supers game (?).
*Synnibarr likewise has various ability derived percentages (for shock, finding traps, determining psionics, etc) and actually evolved different maxima for each ability score; while all are initially rolled with d20 (with initial values contributing equally to 'skill points', used to buy skills, mutations and bionics), additional bonuses can get characters up to Con 20, Wis 25, Int 30, Dexterity or Agility 35, or Strength 1000. An emergent effect of this is that a high class minimum for Strength -which uses the initial score- balances/punishes a class noticeably, as the points could have made a much larger difference on another stat.
Synnibarr displays a breathtaking disarray even within the combat subsystem. It uses an additive d100 roll for shot rolls (roll d100 + 'shot bonus' based off Dex and level), while Dodge is a normal roll-under percentage (agility x 2%) instead of being directly opposed. While weird, playing it we found this does speed up the additive attack roll slightly; usually it is enough to know that you rolled "a lot" without actually calculating an exact number.
*D&Ds 3-18 ability scale turned out to be coincidentally well adapted to d20 roll under; 2nd edition AD&D frequently uses this, but in conjunction with legacy mechanics from 1E such as "% to learn spell", "% system shock" and "wisdom % spell failure". 3.0 D&D instead transitioned to [d20+modifiers] as a system, enabling a much higher range in ability scores (e.g. Titans went from Strength 25 to Strength 37) and again making it potentially more functional for superhero games, but also increasing the ability scores’ importance to characters by making modifiers apply to many previously unmodified checks, ranging from Listen checks to breath weapon save DCs. It also renders odd-numbered ability scores pointless except as feat prerequisites, in spite of which the point-buy system generally charges more for each of those ability points than for the (actually useful) point below.
*Warhammer Fantasy 1st ed (whose mechanics were derived from the skirmish game) has stats which sometimes rated up to 10 (Strength, Toughness) and sometimes up to 100 (Weapon Skill, Ballistic Skill), and so while it does have ability checks, it uses a d10 for some checks and d100 for others. The 2nd edition streamlines this quite deftly by having all scores range to 100 and using the 10s place as a modifier when needed (e.g. for damage).
*Dragon Warriors, while its clearly D&D inspired (possibly Holmes, given its initiative system), shows extensive divergence from it, where the miscellany of rolls and checks are replaced individually, one-by-one, with different but no more unified systems. It is good in that individual systems are quite simple - actually, working with a simplicity that could be difficult in a unified system. For instance, a Weaken spell adds a -2 attack, -1 damage penalty but doesn't note the effects on other applications of Strength. The ability doesn't require notes on a beasts' existing Strength scores or table recalculation (indeed its inconsistent with any Strength score, as no Strength score gives a damage penalty) but the downside is that its effect on the fiction and on lifting, carrying, etc. is also unclear. Most other spells are likewise simply worded but may require considerable GM extrapolation from the listed effects, or at the very least searching for prior cases and general rules that might be applied.
More recent systems strongly favour unified, cohesive core mechanics. A unified mechanic does offer a quite a few benefits i.e.
Nonetheless, modern games still quite often contain exceptions in how they operate since not all situations are identical, and some core mechanics struggle to cope in certain circumstances e.g.
Other games have a single system but have attempted to code in multiple options as a core mechanic (Interesting to me since I've noticed how specific many ideas/innovations are to only one or or a couple of the possible systems; cramming lots of them into a single RPG would probably need some method of combining mechanisms...).
Some core mechanics are slightly more intrinsically versatile than others; for instance if a designer wants Initiative to use a d10 roll and spellcasting to use a d6 roll, a "step die" system like Earthdawn's could let them do within the bounds of the system by declaring that Initiative defaults to "Step 5" for most or all characters and Spellcasting to "Step 3", or by creating new attributes specifically for those tasks. (Savage Worlds also declares its wild dice on/off in certain cases, such as damage rolls)
Talislanta uses d10+modifiers for unskilled rolls and d20+modifiers for trained rolls; a system could build off this to have all raw attribute checks use d10s rather than d20s (as no skill applies) in order to weight upward the influence of attribute checks on rolls.
Even where only a particular dice is used, it may be ideal to change details of the rules connected with a roll to control uncertainty around a roll, level-scalingness, etc. For example in simple additive systems, heavier controls against gaining modifiers on tasks which are supposed to be more uncertain in outcome are reasonable; a word of warning here however is that if opposed rolls are possible between scores, a "fair" comparison between opponents requires similar scales of modifiers.
Adoption of “+level” to all dice rolls (such as in 4E D&D) lead to a "level treadmill" within the gameworld; leaving certain abilities unscaling (such as ability checks to break down doors, influence NPCs, or not fall over) produces less pressure on the GM to retrofit all the doors in the dungeon to adamantine and grease up the floors for the high level PCs.
Moving along into combat...which probably means I've skipped a few things, but its an easy few topics and I'm lazy...
Normally a round is only a few seconds, from 3 seconds (Cyberpunk) to 6 seconds (3.x D&D) to 15 seconds (Palladium). AD&D uses minute-long rounds but with most sword swings abstracted away as being blocked, except during surprise rounds where a character can instead perform a full round worth of attacks each segment. Tunnels and Trolls has 2-minute-long combat rounds, which are quite abstract. I think – but not quite sure – that Amber runs combat largely through GM fiat or has subjectively defined rounds which could potentially be much longer.
Length of rounds does affect design choices as regards fatigue (which becomes more of a concern where rounds are longer) and movement (longer rounds tend to allow more movement and so requires less rules controlling this). Longer rounds usually permit more actions in each.
Usually an initiative system tells a character what they can do during a round. A couple of games (Fighting Fantasy, Tunnels and Trolls) have rounds where everything is simultaneous – both sides roll an attack total and the loser takes damage (though in T&T spells and then missile attacks are resolved before all melee; timing for other events in the round is not normally defined, and need only be calculated in special cases).
In One-Roll-Engine games such as Godlike, initiative is determined as part of the combat roll so while all players roll individually at the same time, combat rolls do take effect in a sequence. Pendragon is similar - highest successful skill roll goes first.
Most other games have characters acting in sequence, handled in various ways (either counting up or counting down):
*Dexterity Countdown: Holmes D&D, Dragon Warriors, and SenZar use a Dexterity Countdown system where characters go from highest to lowest Dex. This does require all monsters have a defined Dexterity score (they don't get one in Dragon Warriors either...presumably this is meant to be rolled on 3d6). While fast, it is predictable and IMHO somewhat unsatisfying.
Unlike randomized initiative systems, a countdown system usually can't have penalties for going later (e.g. 'flatfootedness' in 3E, or being unable to perform interrupt actions as in JAGS) since the determinacy of the fixed order makes this somewhat unfair.
*Round Robin – more a boardgame feature, but it is possible for players to resolve actions clockwise or counter-clockwise around the table. Doesn’t work for virtual environments,and may be unfair. Treating the GM as a player here means all the monsters go at once. Might be combined with Dex Countdown if the players are willing to be seated in order of Dexterity.
*a simple die roll (Initiative Roll) –usually an additive roll, more or less regardless of what the games’ core mechanic is. Interesting elaborations here:
-Rolemaster lets characters get a bonus to initiative by getting a penalty to their action.
-3E/4E D&D uses the same initiative roll every round, meaning that durations measured in rounds can be tracked as expiring on the character’s next turn.
-Savage Worlds uses standard playing cards to determine initiative, with some draws (Jokers) granting a character additional bonuses. Doing this denies "wild card" PCs their normal bonuses against NPCs - they don't receive the extra Wild Die - as well as making initiative non-stat-based (certain Edges only give a character extra draws or redraws, making them more likely to go first and increasing their chance of getting a Joker).
-Warhammer 3E encourages teamwork by allowing PCs to exchange initiative rolls.
-Marvel Super Heroes and 2nd Ed. AD&D (unless using optional rules) have side-based initiative rather than individual initiative, with players generally free to determine their precise order amongst themselves; similar to the ‘exchanging rolls’ option except that monsters can’t spoil their plans.
-the 'Advantage system' (actually just a houserule by Raven McCracken for whatever system), rolls one initiative die for each attack a character has, with each attack acting on the appropriate initiative. Not too dissimilarly, LegendQuest lets two-weapon fighting characters roll Initiative for each weapon separately.
*Phases – a more elaborate version of Countdown allowing for multiple actions, seen in e.g. HERO. Here the round has 12 (1 second long) segments; a character with SPD 1 acts in segment 7, a character with SPD 2 in segments 6 and 12, a character with SPD 3 in 4, 8 and 12, and so on. In HERO, Initiative rolls still order actions within a phase; phases likely require some additional method for handling exact timing.
Another example would be SenZar; this has phases 1-10, with characters acting in Speed order ("Dex Countdown" method) within each Phase. Unlike HERO a character with multiple actions in SenZar has actions in the first phases of the round; e.g. a character with 3 attacks goes in Phase1, Phase2 and Phase3. This can also be seen to be quite similar to Palladium's system (where all 1st attacks go, then all 2nd attacks, and so on) except without an initiative roll).
*Strike ranks – older Runequest typically determined who went first based on reach, with weapons able to act again after a certain number of “strike ranks”. Rounds may still be kept, however; see next pattern.
*Continuous Initiative- a few systems (e.g. Exalted) do not divide combat into rounds. Instead actions continuously count up. In this system any action will take a certain number of 'ticks' or 'segments' - similar to strike ranks. This lets faster weapons/actions go more often; also there are no weird "metagame" effects from round structure - compare to how in a round system with initiative rolled each round, how a spell or effect with duration that lasts "until the end of the round" or "until your next turn" goes away sooner (or sooner on average) if triggered toward the end of the round. Time between actions might be fixed or might be rolled (e.g. in the Omnifray system when a character rolls d12+reaction time to see how many 0.1 second increments before they next act).
*If-Action systems- once seen in a friends homebrew system, every character rolls and only the one character with the best roll receives an action. Losers get a bonus each round they lose, until they finally get a turn. Painful as this generates initiative rolls equal to the number of combatants per action, instead of one initiative roll per action (most systems), one per combatant (the 3E system) or no rolls at all (Dex countdown or round robin systems).
*Tagging- Marvel Heroic Roleplaying (MHR) selects one participant as having the initiative; they then select the next person (either ally or enemy) and so on until all participants have been activated. This is a strange mechanism unlike anything seen in nature; like much of MHR it generates complex metagame tactics whereby characters may try to breakup opponent tactics based on specific strike orders, or may activate the enemies before allies to prevent an enemy going last and seizing the advantage for next round.
*Bidding-potentially characters could bid some resource to decide who goes first (not sure if any RPG systems do this; happens in some boardgames, I think.).
*player declaration (BASH ??) - the character declaring an aggressive action automatically goes first.
Rounds can be split up more complexly, such as by having separate Move phases before or after regular combat rounds (Battletech ? ). AD&D 2nd Ed’s Combat and Tactics breaks combat into Very Fast, Fast, Average, Slow and Very Slow phases, with the phase a character goes on determined mostly by their Size; this is very granular and as implemented quite messily , but does let actions like movement delay characters without too much hassle. Rolemaster Standard System has Snap, Normal and Deliberate action phases, each resolved in initiative order.
Some games (Riddle of Steel, 2nd ed. D&D with some optional rules) may have different initiative/combat procedures for duelling as opposed to general melee.
Systems have varying action declaration rules which affect how combat plays out; a character might declare actions before initiative is rolled (meaning the wrong initiative can ruin their plan), or declare on their turn. Where actions are declared before initiative is rolled, an order of declaration is sometimes also enforced – as in oWoD Storyteller where characters declare in reverse initiative order. This last method is a fairly exacting system perhaps suited to high PvP games.
Games vary in whether they permit simultaneous actions, or whether these are forbidden (with ties broken by reroll, reroll of another statistic, or stat comparison). Games may also have a tacit understanding of initiative as a convenient 'fiction' for player-resolution rather than having in-game parallels, so that there may be an initiative order for dice rolling but with (e.g.) all actions being completed before results such as damage are applied. Another example of this may be in 2E initiative - feysquare.com (now down?) at one point had an interesting quote from Steve Winter on how one PC casting a fireball could be thwarted by another PC charging, due to assumption that the spell would take time to cast in 'game reality' despite group-based initiatives making a whole groups actions theoretically simultaneous.
Some initiative systems may consider what a character is doing to be the primary factor determining order of actions. In extreme cases the action may determine who goes first (AD&D in many cases, phase systems like how T&T handles spells/then missile fire/then melee resolution system).
In other systems characters may be able to do virtually any action, with no modifier for action type - D20 system for instance does this with the equalization meaning that the separate declaration of actions before rolling in 2E could be phased out (see Rich Baker's comments in the 3.5 Rules Compendium, pg 71). This is usually more likely to be the case with simple action systems; e.g. Dragon Warriors- in this a handful of actions take multiple rounds, and the Dexterity comparison determining who goes when is not usually modified although there is a variety of mummy that goes last automatically when spellcasting due to having to cast spells with a ritual dance). Many systems may be somewhere in the middle, with action modifying the initiative result in some way. Individual weapon choice can even modify initiative - 2nd edition D&D using individual initiative adds weapon 'speed factor' to initiative results making larger weapons slower, which is interestingly the exact opposite of what Runequest did i.e. giving a bonus to who goes first based on weapon reach.
Initiative and # action systems in RPGs are also closely intertwined. Normally the number of actions depends on the initiative system, but systems which go the other way do exist. The simplest would be the 'advantage system' above, but AD&D 1E (not 2E) is interesting in that it works out numbers of actions very precisely and then uses a potentially complex priority system to work out who goes when.
(summarized in the ADDICT file found here - http://www.dragonsfoot.org/fe/ )
Other Elaborations: an odd initiative idea where initiative is spent as 'fatigue' to absorb damage can be found here:
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?...nitiative-Idea
Some things that in general have been used to modify Initiative: Dexterity and/or Speed attribute, weapon size (bonus for reach or penalty for size), creature size, number of actions, armour (penalty), action type, environmental penalties (underwater, etc), spells (haste/slow), character level or weapon skill modifier, surprise or weapon draw penalty, fatigue and/or injury penalty
Systems may drop the usual initiative system for a sub-system in unusual cases e.g. 3E D&D Oriental Adventures has samurai roll Iajutsu Focus skill in duels to determine who strikes first, with the winner gaining several bonus dice damage [to duplicate lethal samurai duels despite D&Ds HP system]. The skill does not help in normal combats, however.
How much a character can do in a round is another question, though one often tied to the Initiative system. This is something that requires particular caution for a designer, as it is very easy to design a system that is either too slow due to too many actions and action types, or where the Speed attribute/number of attacks per round is very unbalanced.
Types of setups known include:
*one main action per round on a characters initiative. Movement may be an action, or limited movement may be allowed in addition, or movement can delay a character’s initiative. The simplest and most balanced system.
Here extra actions is a rare (and powerful) ability, sometimes needing extra checks and balances; AD&D weapon specialization gives 3/2 attacks per round (a second attack every second round), or multiple attacks can be made at a penalty (3rd edition D&D), while Dragon Warriors 'Master Bowman' gives a 50% chance of a character getting a second attack. Leonard Lakofka (Leomund) notes in Gygax Magazine #1 that he used to house-rule the 3/2 attacks per round into a % chance of an extra attack each round based on level, which would remove the level-based breakpoint and the metagaminess of every second round getting an extra attack (on the subject of extra attack systems, he also randomly rolled manticores # attacks randomly; d6+2 tail spikes/round instead of a fixed 6).
The roll for extra attacks could also be part of another roll; i.e. 2nd Ed. D&D has an optional critical system where a critical (natural 20) gives a second free attack, instead of double damage. This ideas also leads toward the next option -
*One action by default, but with a high Initiative roll granting bonus attacks - as seen in 1st edition Shadowrun. Fairly elegant, but not necessarily balanced. If used with ‘side-based’ initiative, a single high roll can grant several monsters bonus attacks and so smoke the PCs. Might be used to treat Two Weapon Fighting as a bonus to Initiative (considered but not used as an option in Midian Dark Fantasy).
*One action; a character can opt to take multiple actions, but if so both actions take a penalty (e.g. Talislanta, Storyteller, Savage Worlds). In Marvel Super Heroes similarly the character can make a Fighting FEAT check to make multiple actions, but can make only one attack (at a penalty) if they fail the roll.
In some games, this option applies with some actions only; D&D allows multiple actions at a penalty for Two Weapon Fighting, for instance.
One elaboration is to adjust the multi-action penalty based on what weapon a character is using i.e. a short sword (speed 3) might allow two attacks both at -3, while a two-handed sword (speed 7) might take a -7 penalty if used to make two attacks. Another variant may be the Superbabes system for "Do It Twice" - here a character can make twice as many actions if they successfully make a Dex ("moves") roll with d20 under the stat. Failing the roll does not cost the character an action, but attempting the roll costs 3 fatigue points (power points), in addition to the costs of the other actions.
In games like this there is (indirectly) synergy between Luck points and multitasking; a character is more likely to pull off two actions when they use luck. (Compare with games such as 4E D&D, where 'action points' are a daily resource granting extra actions directly).
*set number of multiple actions based off something e.g. Agility (Synnibarr) or in Alternity off average of Con+Will (? - a bizarre attempt at balancing the usefulness of stats). Where based off a stat, a designer has to be careful as this introduces a massive breakpoint between “1 action per round” and “2 actions per round”, and a slightly less serious one between 2 actions and 3. Multiple actions are sometimes based off level or a separately bought up stat (e.g. SPEED in Hero) instead.
Multiple actions sometimes occur all at once, or can be handled with phases (HERO) or initiative passes (Palladium) where everyone cycles through attack #1 in initiative order, then attack #2, etc.
*Strike ranks - see above. Strike rank systems can run into problems with low-speed weapons getting too many attacks if not balanced carefully (a drop of speed from 4 to 3 in a 12-segment round moves a character from 3 attacks to 4 attacks, while going from 3 to 2 moves a character from 4 attacks/rd to 6 attacks/rd.
One patch is to have modifiers apply to base number of attacks rather than speed and use [segments in round/number of attacks] to work out a characters speed, instead of modifying the strike rank of weapons directly.
*Actions bought with initiative e.g. Feng Shui - actions cost a number of initiative points to complete – characters count down from their initiative e.g. an attack taking 3 initiative might start on 10 and actually complete on 7 (or be executed immediately, but with the next attack not allowed until 7). This is similar to Strike ranks, except counting down instead of up. Feng Shui type games tend to give fast characters higher initiative points and so more actions, whereas strike rank systems tend to reduce the time required to make actions and have a round with a fixed number of segments.
*Action Points – various of Leading Edge Games’ RPGs use this; An interesting version of this is also seen in the freerpg JAGS. In JAGS number of action points are determined by “Reaction” ( DEX). The length of an action determines how many action points a task is (i.e. Full Round = 10, Medium = 7, Short =3). Unless an attacker wins initiative by a significant margin, they can be interrupted with a shorter action i.e. a “Charge” is a Long action (8 points) and so can be interrupted with a normal Attack (Medium action, 5 points). This folds something similar to 3E/4E D&Ds “attacks of opportunity” into the normal action system. A downside is that a player needs to know action costs of various actions on their turn and weigh up the relative costs; it also makes Dex/Reaction very valuable. Action points are good for handling detailed movement allowances (i.e. "crawling = 2 APs per 10ft" and so on).
Rolemaster (RMSS) gives characters an activity % (a character gets "100% activity" each round), with various actions using up variable %s of activity. (actions are separately defined as snap, normal or deliberate for initiative purposes).
*Dice actions + automatic actions. DC Heroes allows characters one of each. This is fairly good since action types are defined by the system (if you roll dice for it, its a dice action). Lifting an object would be an automatic actions (weight = STR), as would running (distance = DEX) unless the character wants to lift something super-heavy or run particular fast which requires the character to make a Pushing attempt.
This approach also combines interestingly with the ability to take multiple actions at a penalty (Masterbook). Running + Shooting is possible, but automatically gives a multi-tasking penalty to shooting rolls.; lifting a too-heavy weapon automatically penalizes attack rolls.
*MERP % Activity- MERP 'moving manuevers' use a dice roll on a chart to determine % activity that a roll uses. A low roll may mean the manuever is successful, with moderate rolls meaning an action takes a full round (100% activity) and high rolls meaning the manuever consumes less time, with remaining % activity being spendable to perform other actions.
Number of permitted actions may change under some circumstances. D&D treats "surprise" as special; 3.x allows only a standard action (i.e. no movement except by replacing the normal action) in a surprise round; 1E AD&D is the opposite and allows a character to make a set of melee attacks each segment on a surprised foe.
AD&D also allows extra actions against certain opponents i.e. a fighter can make attacks equal to their level against 1-1 HD creatures or 0-level humans (a legacy of the Chainmail combat system?). This is something other games handle more deftly; DC Heroes for example lets a character make a "Multiattack" by taking a hit/damage penalty, applying the attack result against mobs of foes simultaneously (larger the mob, the greater the penalty).
Palladium reduces number of actions for characters who are spellcasting, compared to normal melee actions - which synergises in an interesting (if unclear) way with their Dodge system to make it harder for a wizard to dodge or parry midspell - they are less likely to have extra actions to spend to do this, assuming the action has to come out of a lower number of actions per round. (Rifts also has different ROF for weapons like bows compared to melee attacks, which is mostly just confusing since using a bow presumably shouldn't alter how many Dodges a character can make a round).
The allowed number of actions per round plays a part in determining what combat actions are defined in the system. A game which allows only a single action per round may have to define additional basic action types to cover what would be combinations of multiple actions in other systems - perhaps compare "Two Weapon Fighting" as normal multitasking of two attacks, vs. 4E D&D "Twin Strike" as a defined power, or Charge as a defined action in say 3E D&D, vs combinations of Run+Wild Attack in Savage Worlds.
A game can also have fairly abstract 'actions' - where something that might be a separate action in another system is merely a result of extra success. For example, a very high attack roll might kill multiple opponents (Anglerre 'overflow' w/ cleave ability), or perhaps weirder uses of bonus combat successes in Heroic Golden Turbulence.
Splits between attack/defense are sometimes modelled at the level of actions (a character can either spend an action to attack, or on Dodging; Palladium), sometimes through selection of combat manuevers (a Wild Attack gives a bonus to attack and penalty to defense; Savage Worlds), or through point allocation (a LegendQuest character can apply Skill Levels toward attacking or toward Parrying [a particular opponent], once per round - part of a general idea that a skill level can be used 1/round that also shows up in spell Control Levels and the horsemanship rules)
“Finally, and brace yourself, everything and everyone has 20 hit points. Yes, a Confederation of Worlds light infantry commando who has spent the last twelve years choking down steroid pills the size of softballs who could walk naked across the Satan’s Armpit dessert (still in shape for cocktails later) has as many hit points as Don Knotts in “The Incredible Mr Limpet”. But to make you feet (or perhaps even feel) better, we’ll call them something else...hmm...how about Damage Levels? Yeah! Now that sounds important!” – HOL.
“So what does it do?”
“All persons and objects within its path are de-miniminized to the 4th level.”
“You mean...?”
“That's right. Replaced in the 4th dimension irretrievably.”
“But that’s monstrous!”
“Yes it is. Isn’t it?”
-Barbarella and Durand Durand discuss the Positronic Ray, Barbarella.
He rolled the percentile dice again. The numbers blazed up at him. Eighty One. High damage, even for an immortal.
-Bimbos of the Death Sun
My apologies since this post is quite complex and I'm taking no prisoners. If there's anything that someone wants more elaboration on, please ask...
The other side of the HP system is the damage system. Damage in most systems is an example of an effect system; it is usually he most involved effect system in an RPG because precision is required – the stakes are by default character life or death, leading to inclusion of detailed modifiers for things such as weapon modifiers (1), attacker Strength (2), and sometimes hit location (3). Damage usually includes a random variable (4) and may include a skill/to-hit bonus.
(1) Weapons: In HP-based systems – even those that use soaking - weapons are often assigned different amounts of damage (exceptions including OD&D and Fighting Fantasy; potentially HERO which is more complex but where, IIRC, a weapon’s specifics can be designed by the player able to pony up enough points). Some systems give weapons multiple possible damage ranges e.g. Harnmaster separately defines Edge, Point and so on values for weapons (a detail most games are happy to ignore or abstract into the damage roll – like maybe a 1 on your longsword damage means you hilt-punched the orc in the nose); Palladium’s Ninjas & Superspies includes various unarmed damage ranges for one-finger-strike, punch, kick and so on, though fails to offer much incentive to use lower-rated attacks.
All weapons being equal does give a player more freedom to customize to fit their concept, without ending up using something that’s sucky because the game designer failed to properly understand how a khopesh is meant to be used (the stupid shape is to go around an enemies shield, not so you can make free trip attacks; thanks, whoever wrote Sandstorm...), but this removes a layer of the crunchy/tactical elements of character design; it is generally better to design weapons to be equal rather than identical; a task often approached by adding different armour penetrations, special abilities, special drawbacks or attribute requirements to weapons, something designers manage with varying degrees of success from designers. Of course, it can also be argued that some weapons (e.g. whips or lucerne hammers) should be uncommon choices because they aren't that good.
(2) Hit Location: some systems will modify damage for vital locations struck (e.g. head = double damage), while others assume this sort of thing to be part of the damage roll; for others damage points aren’t changed by location but the effects of X amount of damage might be different i.e. different limbs may be disabled, or a character may have less HPs in some areas (such as the head e.g. in Twilight 2000, Runequest).
One example of what not to do with hit location would be the mind-boggling Swords’ Path: Glory (discussed here: http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=21194 ); it uses hit location tables that cross-reference a rolled Impact and armour type to determine exact flesh depth penetrated and hence whether bones are broken, arteries slashed or so on. Unlike Rolemaster this was almost wholly a raw HP system – the hit location was randomly determined and final output of the table is simple a number of damage points and a shock roll % rather than a specific injury, making the outcome not much different to just rolling a damage die (compare the principle of Black Box design http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/226856-simulationists-black-boxes-d-d-4th-edition.html ). Also, SPG was meant to be plugged into a system where HPs inflated rapidly with level, despite its HPs being completely physical rather than representing “luck” or “rolling with blows” , and didn’t allow for any way to select hit locations or otherwise improve damage from character skills/higher attack rolls, making it in many respects then, less realistic than say Storyteller.
Hitting a specific hit location may only be available as a result of a "called shot" in some games (2nd Ed. D&D), or might be generated with a random roll. Hit location is generated as part of another roll in a couple of systems, rather than a separate roll - i.e. Warhammer (by reversing the tens and ones of the d100) and for One Roll Engine using the number in the success count (if you rolled 7,6,6,6,5,4,4,1 you got either three successes (damage) against location 6, or two successes (damage) against location 4). Potentially this second method could be used with a damage roll in some games, if damage is generated additively from a set of dice, without having to use OREs core mechanic for all actions.
If randomly generated, hit location may be generated for just some results (e.g. hits that are criticals, or that do more than a certain amount of damage) or for all results. The rolled outcome might be modified in some circumstances e.g. in ORE, it is possibly to 'block' a hit to the head in melee by taking a hit to the arm instead, fairly realistically. HarnMaster arranges locations on a table lowest-to highest (with odds/evens determining left/right) so that a bonus or penalty can be added to the location roll for 'aiming high' or 'aiming low', without fully specifying where a blow is aimed.
Synnibarr has a rule where hit locations for shots are rolled but dealt to a % of hit points, which would work except that cybernetics add huge hit point bonuses to the general hit point pool (i.e. a character can be shot in the leg, and not disintegrate solely due to having an incredibly tough robotic arm).
(3) Strength modifier: the other common modifier applied to damage is for Strength (exceptions include HarnMaster, Rolemaster, and Legends of Anglerre; 4th ed. D&D where various modifiers might apply; and Fighting Fantasy which doesn’t have an equivalent score. Tunnels and Trolls just gives more 'adds' for STR, so it improves to-hit and then indirectly damage based off difference between attacker and defender. Shadowrun 1E uses Str to modify target number of defender's soak roll).
This tends to make Strength a fairly important statistic for damage in most games. Modifier is normally just an addition to damage, though Synnibarr gives characters a damage multiplier and Savage Worlds increases the step die. GURPS calculates a character’s # d6s rolled for damage depending on Strength and whether the weapon is “Thrust” or “Swung”. The Forgotten Futures RPG was interesting in that Str only increased probability of more damage rather than adding more damage automatically since it increased odds of a higher result (different damage descriptions are given for a roll under ½ Str value, a roll under full Str value, and rolling over).
Systems may “mirror” the role of Con in determining hit points and role of Strength in determining damage; one might add and the other subtract damage equally (Warhammer). Or to try to build a system where a character can normally take 3 hits before dying, a character might add [1xStr mod] to damage and [3xCon mod] to HPs.
Breaking this parallel leads to a noticeable balance issue in 3.x D&D, where a low Con cripples even a high level character (20th level = 20x Con modifier to HP). This sort of one-sidedness also occurs in “Aggravated Damage” (Storyteller), where the attacker still gets Str but the defender doesn’t get a soak roll.
*(4) the random variable; most systems use random roll of some kind for damage; exceptions include games where to-hit roll modifies damage instead e.g. Talislanta (see below), Dragon Warriors (damage set by weapon, no modifiers), and Tunnels and Trolls (damage = difference between attackers and defenders’ rolls; an odd system in that extra weapon damage dice also add to a character’s chance to hit).
Rolemaster uses the attack roll on a table to determine hits of damage (no separate damage roll). High rolls generate criticals off a different table; the attack roll (modifier by attack and defense skills) determines what sort of critical is generated (A to E or so), with a new roll then being made on the critical table.
*(5) the to-hit or skill bonus; Shadowrun 1E has fixed damage, modified by attack successes; in it weapons have varying "Staging" which is how many successes move a weapon up a damage code -light to medium, medium to serious, etc. Weapons with low Staging are more beneficial for highly skilled characters, however Staging is also the # of soak (Body) or Dodge successes by the defender that will drop the attack back a code so these weapons are less effective on high-Body targets, or high Quickness ones. A later edition of Talislanta has fixed damage by weapon, with 1/2 damage (partial success), x1 (normal) or x2 (critical). Storyteller (oWoD) adds successes to-hit to the damage dice pool.
The to-hit add to damage can be thought of as one way to represent character skill. D&D doesn't add a bonus from the to-hit roll (except via criticals) but skills may apply a bonus to damage directly i.e. extra 'sneak attack' dice, BECMI weapon mastery, weapon specialization, or monk +1/2 level to damage in 1E.
Note: post #28, above, has more about 'effect' in general- flow of data from margin of success to result and so on.
Damage-based rolls: A very few systems have worked out how to take a damage value, and use that to determine a success chance/probability of related events. For example, in Marvel Super Heroes an energy blast doing 30 points of damage would be a Remarkable amount of damage, and that value could determine the likelihood of the blast setting a building on fire (i.e. using the Action table, 30 damage would give a normal success on a 36+ on d100..). Other systems have attempted to set damage-based DCs (consider 3E D&Ds “concentration checks” for spellcasters taking damage, Coup de Grace saving throws, or a high level rogues’ Defensive Roll ability) but this generally works poorly since damage is not scaled appropriately to give a d20-based DC.
Essentially systems run from a Success Roll (die roll for success/failure)-àEffect; taking an Effect output and converting it back to a success chance is working backwards, and so is difficult. MSH works for it since attacks deal fixed damage; Mutants and Masterminds should allow damage-based checks as well, since its damage rolls are just DCs for checks. Savage Worlds almost but not quite manages it, since its damage roll is on a slightly different scale to other checks - the sum of 2 dice, instead of best of 2 dice. A dice pool system could in theory handle a conversion back from Damage to Success roll, if the damage dice pool and normal task die pools had similar numbers of dice.
Legends of Anglerre (FATE) has a thing with damage where the overkill on creatures ("overflow") is directly applied to other creatures (if there's a stunt like Cleave) or converted into additional effects (movement, etc.). LoA is perhaps especially good at handling this since it lacks a second roll for damage or other damage modifiers i.e. for weapon type (explaining how using a greatsword increases movement would be difficult!); amount by which an attack roll succeeds becomes damage directly. In other games, T&T has no term for "overflow" but likewise lacks a separate damage roll and so readily e.g. lets damage be split between multiple targets.
Other elaborations relating to damage: older systems in particularly may sometimes model blood loss as ongoing damage from injury, which accumulates until a wound is properly treated (e.g. LegendQuest). Because of extra book keeping this is rarely seen nowadays. In more recent games the Roma Imperious system had interesting blood loss rules, further complicated in its case by HP being divided up by hit location, meaning blood loss was also from particular locations, rather than being systemic. D&D 3E retains bleeding for dying characters only, who lose 1 HP per round until they stabilize.
Some sample damage calculations:
0D&D: 1d6 damage, regardless of weapon. Greyhawk supplement adds alternate weapon damage and Strength modifiers/exceptional Strength for fighting men.
D&D 2E/3E: 1d4 to d12 +Strength modifier e.g. d8+Str mod for longsword. Potential critical for double damage on 19-20 (3E) or on 20 (2E). Strength modifiers start at 12+ in 3E and 16+ in 2E.
D&D 4E: variable # of weapon dice (by power) + key ability modifier + any additional special effects. Max damage on critical, +d6 per weapon plus.
GURPS: variable number of D6s based on STR and whether weapon is swung or thrust.
Runequest/BRP: base by weapon e.g. d6 or d8 +damage bonus from [total STR+SZ] on table, with normal ratings giving +0 extra damage.
Storyteller: [Str+2] dice, counted at difficulty 6. Bonus damage dice from success on attack roll [Dex+Melee]; subtract target soak [Stamina].
Rolemaster: damage by attack roll on chart; possible critical rolls on high attack.
Army of Darkness (Unisystem variant): STR x weapon multiplier i.e. [Str+1] x3 for sword. Add attack success level (determined by table, generally +1 damage per 2-3 over minimum success value of 9+). Core unisystem uses varying dice types.
Dragon Warriors: fixed base damage (1-6 depending on weapon).
Marvel Super Heroes: damage = STR or weapon material strength, or power rating. Damage fixed, but special success on the attack roll may add a Slam, Stun or Kill result.
DC Heroes: fixed base found by comparing STR/target BODY on a table (0 if evenly matched), plus bonus damage from high attack roll.
Savage Worlds: Str dice + weapon damage dice (i.e. Str +d8 for sword). +d6 if hit roll succeeds by 4+; maximum rolls reroll and add. Shaken if roll exceeds toughness, +1 wound per 4 over.
Warhammer 2E: d10+Strength+weapon modifier, 10s explode; subtract target Toughness.
Cadillacs & Dinosaurs: firearms deal a number of d6s; monsters typically have a number of d6s (basically arbitrary; most are not rated with Strength). Melee/thrown weapons d6+Str score or half Str score.
Tunnels and Trolls: weapon dice (d6s) + combat adds (+1 per point above 12 in ST, DEX, or Luck) - [same total for opponent] = damage (before reducing for armour).
One Roll Engine: damage = number of matches on attack roll (to location determined by the actual number) + weapon bonus damage.
Fighting Fantasy: 2 damage regardless of weapon. (Test for Luck for 4, or 1 if this fails).
http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/...ssentinel2.jpg
Systems for handling armour:
Armour as Target Number (to-hit number) – D&D, Palladium Fantasy – here an attack roll to hit must be over an armour-based target rating to hit. Palladium also lets characters roll a “Parry” and use the highest of that and the armour rating, while D&D stacks any “parry bonuses” onto the base to-hit required. The Palladium approach makes armour less useful at higher levels but also removes a synergy between DEX and armour in D&D, that actually makes high DEX + high armour more powerful if you can manage to get both together (through mithril or Graceful armour etc). Palladium armour is also limited in how much damage it can absorb before being destroyed.
Armour as target number tends to scale badly for SF games as it makes guys in super-armour incredibly hard to hit – often even with futuristic weapons since these do tons of damage but don’t often get hit bonuses, but doesn’t offset damage if they do get zapped...i.e. combat becomes miss, miss, miss, miss, miss, vapourize). Note that if a system gives a character bonus damage for a good attack roll, a raised armour TN will reduce bonus damage, also.
Armour in D&D adding to AC also led to Strength rather than Dex adding to hit rolls. This occasionally generates additional messing around i.e. being “entangled” separately penalizes to-hit and Dexterity), and maladapts it for supers games (Strength becomes very powerful, but enormous Strength is a superhero genre convention; also two super-speedsters would be unable to hit each other, while a super-strong brick easily hits a speedster).
Armour as damage absorption – probably the most common system in RPGs, here armour gives a penalty to damage; either a straight subtraction, or rolled (e.g. extra “soak dice”, counting successes in some Storyteller games). In theory armour in a dice pool game could also modify the number on number on a die needed for it to count as a “success”, reducing damage by a proportion, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen this. The main drawback of this method is that small weapons may have trouble getting through armour. Variants include:
*absorption can be rolled in other fashions e.g. armour may subtract e.g. 1d6 from damage (or a related step die [Alternity]); Lord Vreegs' Celtricia game gives armour a base protection, divided by [average of 2d6], meaning armour is on rare occasions seriously perforated. Rolled absorption mitigates the problem of smaller weapons having trouble penetrating, at least slightly, at a cost of more rolling.
EDIT: Rolled absorption may also allow multiple layers of armour to be accounted for separately - each layer gets a roll and the best is taken - without this excessively increasing armour defense value.
*GURPS (IIRC) gives armour both a to-hit and an absorbtion, a combination of this and the above method.
*Synnibarr gives armour a damage divisor (from one to four “tenths” i.e. from /10 to /10,000) but is also destroyed if it takes too much damage (an ablative system, see below).
*Table-based. Rolemaster (and Sword's Path Glory) cross-reference armour on the damage tables when calculating damage. This is basically a form of absorbtion, although the table allows greater control of the final results - i.e. less likelihood of all damage being negated. In Rolemaster, critical hit severity [A to E] is also reduced.
Armour as extra HPs (ablative); Palladium’s high technology games - Rifts and Robotech –do this since attacks can’t get through armour until its been reduced to slag. For Palladium this was a fairly good expansion of the base system since it built off an aspect of the armour rules in its earlier games (the armour’s damage capacity) and also avoided the usual trap of Armour as Target Number systems where armour classes go off the scale. For a normal Fantasy RPG system, this approach would perhaps be unrealistic.
Separate Armour Bypass roll – rarely seen (since it adds an extra die roll). Dragon Warriors has this; a successful hit roll is followed by a roll of another die vs. an Armour Factor. For example plate = AR 5; a sword would roll d6 and have to beat the AF i.e a 6 equals damage. This can be used to give weapons varying armour penetration. In DW, it does tend to add “whiff factor” (excessive miss rate), and unlike D&D type systems, higher level/combat skill gives no direct bonus at getting through armour.
This sort of mechanic is good for representing e.g. multiheaded weapons (triple-flails or African throwing knives); each blade or head can roll a separate die. Max rolls/1s could also be used to represent e.g. weapon breakage or impalement.
Villains & Vigilantes uses a d100 bypass roll; if the roll fails the damage is absorbed by the armour, reducing its %.
JAGS gives armour an ‘armour save’ on 4 Jags dice (d6s with 6s counting as 0s) to convert Penetration (PEN) damage into Impact damage, though not to stop damage entirely. PEN damage >4 is doubled as it reaches a character’s vitals.
CHILL integrates 'armour bypass' into the damage roll directly - damage is rolled, with a roll less than armour on a location bouncing off, while higher rolls instead deal full damage. This systems limits the full benefits of a bypass system i.e. weapons can't be low-damage but high-penetration, but is relatively simple. Perhaps some weapons could potentially be kludged to have a separate 'effective damage' for bypass purposes.
An Armour save/bypass roll could also be used that just gives a reduction of damage, rather than negating it; this may be a good way to represent "partial armour" without hit location (credit to David Johanson for this).
Other Elaborations: HarnMaster attempts to model characters wearing multiple layers of different armours, but with this tending to generate, IIRC, excessive defences – such as system probably requires diminishing-returns to be built into the benefit from the total armour points.
A few systems have also attempted to use “piecemeal” armour – per location (for post apocalyptic games in particular it may be fun to get that road warrior feel by strapping some old tires onto your body for extra defense). The 2nd edition AD&D Fighters Handbook again did this, but with a cumbersome system of adding fractional AC bonuses for mixing and matching armour types; it works better in systems with hit location rolls.
Most armour systems give characters penalties for wearing armour; if different armour by location is used penalties should perhaps be calculated off different locations i.e. head (helm)- perception checks, body – swim/climb (most suit weight being there), arms – manual dexterity, legs – speed.
Aberrant has armour piercing attacks (reduces Soak by 2/attack success) as well as aggravated damage (ignores soak entirely, but had reduced damage base); conversely armour can have the Impervious advantage, making it more expensive (=probably lower armour value overall) but letting it ignore these effects.
How armour ratings are scaled is an interesting question that varies, typically depending on the damage scale (if absorbtive) or the to-hit scale (for AC systems like D&D's). Most games have relatively fixed damage which also sets the scale for armour (set to not make it too powerful); open-ended damage systems struggle with armour scaling to an extent i.e. in Tunnels and Trolls armour can stop excessively large amounts of damage since damage is based off the diffence between both sides' combat totals and could be any number.
SHIELDS
Shields typically operate as a bonus to parry or as armour, depending on system. Conan D20 divides AC into Parry AC and Dodge AC, with the bonus for a shield being +4 Parry/+1 Dodge (helping vs. ranged attacks). Savage Worlds gives shields a Parry bonus, but they instead act as armour vs. ranged attacks (as these ignore the character's Parry rating).
Dragon Warriors gives a shield an extra roll (a 1-in-d6 roll to negate a successful blow); this gets kludgy for magic shields as it does not scale up for those, which instead add a Defense bonus. [a penalty to the attacker's roll]. 3E lets tower shields (but not other shields) plug into the 'cover' rules if the character sits wholly behind the shield.
A couple of systems limit how often a character can use a shield (each round). In GURPS Man-to-Man, shield 'passive defense' is the readying time of the shield. Likewise for Sword's Path Glory: it varied readying times for shields, with a reduced parry based on how many initiative impulses have passed since the shield was last used (calculated as a multiplier to the base parry %).
More abstractly, 2E D&D limits how often a shield bonus can be applied for small shields (all shields add +1, but a buckler can only be used once/round).
Systems which represent facing typically limit shield bonuses to front/side attacks; 2E D&D has an option to strap a shield on a character's back, but this applies a penalty on to-hit rolls.
Some systems may model shield degradation e.g. giving shields their own limited 'hit points' (Runequest IIRC). In this case a shield may be useful to prevent a weapon taking damage from parrying.
One houserule on the internet for earlier D&Ds, 'shields shall be splintered', lets a player opt to let a shield absorb an enemy blow that should have hit, breaking it..
Legendary Lives has an odd system for determining shield-defense where a characters [DEX+shield size] determines its parry bonus in each hit location separately. This staggers increases across multiple categories (a point of DEX always adds to defense somewhere, without giving a huge bonus) and perhaps realistically gives a lower shield bonus to the weapon arm and legs.
http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/...7/image022.jpg
Image: Island of the Sirens map for the D&D Minis wargame; triangles represent hampered terrain.
Systems vary considerably in how detailed movement considerations are; discussion of existing systems in this section needs to be considered with the realisation that different groups played games with different emphasis on it –most versions of D&D can be played with or without miniatures/counters, at least if the GM is willing to handwave the occasional fireball area and decide which PC a monster attacks randomly.
Where miniatures are used, distances may be measured, or a grid may be used – in hexes as in GURPS or in squares as in D&D. (In theory, a surface could also be marked with equilateral triangles). Squares are less precise for diagonal movement but may allow placement of larger figures better (a Large figure fits weirdly on 3 adjacent hexes). Larger figures such as horses cause issues since where they take up irregular areas (3.0 D&Ds 2-square-long horses) detailed rules for facing/turning are also needed. GURPS has some very intriguingly weird Large creatures e.g. GURPS Lensmen has player character races including “1 hex humanoids”, “3-hex” Rigellians, 10-hex-long Velentians (arms in hexes 2,4,6; 1 hex reach; 40 hex wingspan), 7-hex-long Delgonians (arms in hex 2, legs in hexes 3 and 5), and elephantine “4-hex” Dhilians.
Movement in some miniatures systems grants the defender an additional attack (HarnMaster, D&D), while in others (DragonQuest, Warhammer Quest) the defender instead must pass a roll to disengage.
Miniatures show statically a melee situation that is actually dynamic and constantly shifting; combats in systems using them to excess tend to be very stationary and punish movement harshly . Attempting to add swashbuckling movement back in to a minis system results in a more comple sets of “interrupts” and special powers or skills, with (in my opinion) a final result that combat is still less fluid than if miniatures were not used at all. They also consume setup time and effort. On the plus side miniatures do help adjudicate ranges or inclusion of PCs within areas more fairly, can add a tactical dimension, and can reduce GM book keeping if used right e.g. in a mass combat they can be useful for tracking better how many opponents are left and which are wounded, and act as visual props that add interest to a game.
Miniatures are less required in games which are abstracted (such as Tunnels and Trolls). They are also more problematic when dealing with chases, vehicles or big monsters (3.x/4E rules for “move action” rules do pursuit poorly – e.g. with turn-based movement and pursuer’s attacks reducing their movement ). Marvel Super Heroes got around this sort of thing by using hexes, but having “areas” which were a massive 40ft across. Somewhat related to this, The Gaming Den (tgdmb.com) has in its archives some discussion around the idea of abstract-sized areas that upsize with party level.
EDIT: 3-D movement: 3D movement (space, air or underwater combat) makes miniatures particularly problematic. Theoretically 3 objects in a space define a plane, and can be represented on a 2-D surface e.g. for space combat where a defined "falling direction" isn't necessary. More than 3 objects get tricky. Aerial combat also tends to involve continuing motion at varying speeds, which miniatures do badly.
Movement rates in systems may be racially based (i.e. dwarves get move 9" in AD&D), or based off an attribute i.e. Speed in Tunnels and Trolls, or DEX in many systems. Marvel Super Heroes has movement based off Endurance, somewhat mysteriously.
In a number of systems, characters have randomized movement each turn. Examples include:
*Savage Worlds, where Running lets a character move [Pace+d6] tabletop inches (Normal non-running movement does not require a roll).
*Masters of the Universe, where characters can move d6.
*DC Heroes has fixed base movement based (=DEX), although movement can be Pushed with expenditure of hero points and a roll.
*The HeroQuest boardgame (d6 squares).
*Rolemaster, where moving required an agility check on a table.
Rolemaster/MERP movement was fairly time consuming, with standard movement requiring a [d100+modifiers] roll on the Moving Manuevers table to determine how much of the turn is consumed by movement. Also, God help you if horses, stairs, or jumping is involved - any attempt to go up stairs during an adventure can theoretically end in a broken neck).
Original RM (1st/2nd ed) had a flaw in movement rates, where moving at x3 or more base speed increased manuever difficulties. This increased the likihood of rolling a result that reduced movement to 80% or less, so that trying to move faster would slow down a character. The tables were further tinkered with in (I think) Companion V.
Proponents of rolled movement tend to like it because of possible variation introduced to combat - by making movement less predictable, precalculation of options by players is made less clear. It also makes the combat movement work for basic chases without too much extra effort. On the downside, its an extra roll; and many of the systems above generate amounts of movement that are extremely variable.
In some systems depending on how initiative factors into movement, some of the same effect as random movement might be introduced by the initiative roll (e.g. with per-segment movement and the like).
Reach
Reach is easy to handle in square/hex mapped games as being able to hit targets further than the adjacent square - at least, the huge 'reach' of very big creatures or polearms can be handled, although differences at human level are going to be handled less well.
Some games may have more detailed reach e.g. Age of Heroes has weapon length rules with shorter weapons must make an attack to successfully close in.
RobMuadib wrote:
FEEL OF COMBAT
Oh yeah another thing that bears mentioning with the more abstract systems with increasing hit points is how normal threats (i.e. falling) become trivial (the old saw about high level fighters being able to jump off a cliff and get up and fight with no ill effects.) So you have to add kludges like the massive damage rules etc.
Another thing is the overall speed and feel of combat. Does it resolve quickly, or does it end up like D&D combat with everyone hacking on each other for several rounds, etc. You should design it for the effect you want out of combat. Do you end up with lots of corpses in a gritty system, do people cut and run after getting wounded. Does everyone just get knocked out and roughed up like in Super Heroic systems. Each type of system works better for some things than others.
The more heroic the game system, the less lasting effects of damage there should be, and the more of a beating character's can take. While gritty systems can end up with lots of dead character's, often to the extent that combat is effectively MORE deadly than real life, lots of people die every time there is combat, instead of people getting wounded, fleeing combat and dying without medical attention. Indeed, because most game systems don't include any morale systems, lots of fight are to the death, while in real life, people cut and run if possible.
Another thing is on Impairment, in real life, people can be wounded and not really notice any significant effects of the wound due to adrenaline, unless a bone is broken, the body part is mangled outright. In some famous cases of suspects on PCP, they can take over a dozen gunshots to the torso and not even be slowed down. (In reality people only drop immediately if they take major damage to the CNS (Brain, spine, neck), or the heart is directly damaged) People can be shot without realizing it. While at the same time they can drop for purely psychological reasons, or die of shock from a shot to the foot.
Most often impairment is used in RPG's so people can be beat down and rendered ineffective, the death spiral, instead of just eventually dying. Incapacitation is used to make for an effective end to combat, without necessarily people dying, especially in Heroic/Super Heroic realities. Needless to say there is HUGE amount of variation in combat systems.
Below is an extensive (though not totally comprehensive, I fear) list of combat special attacks/actions from various systems. The list relates to “martial” abilities only – I have not attempted to consider spell or super power options.
In most games, a character can freely choose a special attack, at least from those abilities they know. A couple of systems have other limiters; 4E D&D gives characters a limited list of powers which are generally 1/encounter, while Dragon Age has characters roll an attack roll first, with a high roll giving more “points” to spend on stunts. TORG I believe favoured certain actions depending on a pick of cards from the Drama Deck.
Basic Attacks
*Attack: the character makes a normal (melee?) attack. In some systems the character may need to split a bonus between “attack” and “defense” initially, while others assume normal attack/defense unless a specific action is taken.
Some weapons may use different sub-actions for attack e.g. “Automatic fire”, or “Continuing Beam” fire may be a different action.
*Shoot: - Chance to hit may be calculated differently for melee and ranged attacks; Metamorphosis alpha actually uses different dice rolls for ranged vs. melee rolls, as does Tunnels and Trolls (which uses a Dex roll, whereas normally for melee attack/damage is one opposed roll with the difference giving hits. Savage Worlds uses skill rolls for both melee and ranged attacks, but with target numbers being calculated differently for ranged attacks (usually making it easier to shoot, barring cover). Shield bonuses, as noted under shields, apply a Toughness bonus against ranged fire in SW, instead of a Parry bonus which is irrelevant.
Ranges frequently vary by weapon. Something I'll drop here is references to Phoenix Commands' to-hit table for firearms - see this thread which gives details of the highly complex equation used to generate the to-hit table.
*Press the Attack: (DC Heroes) attacker beats up defender relentlessly. Gives +1 to hit; requires the attacker win initiative.
*Aim: at cost of an action gain to-hit bonus; more rarely aiming may delay initiative without costing an action. Using it may prevent movement, even where that is a free action normally. Aim may also give a damage bonus (or could give a bonus indirectly, if combined with a called shot or damage bonus from high hit roll). Bracing may be related to aiming, characters may be able to brace some weapons for extra bonuses (at cost of not moving). It may be terrain-dependent rather than an action i.e. you may need a low wall to set a weapon on.
*Counterstrike/Simultanous attack: counter-attacking at same time as attacker; usually both forfeit defense.
*Free shot: make a special extra attack against a foe who can't fully defend themselves. For instance, 3E's "Attack of Opportunity" is triggered by an opponent exposing themself via movement, dismounting, casting a spell, reloading, etc. HarnMaster gives extra attacks for "tactical advantage" results when comparing attack/defense rolls.
Free shots are normally less powerful than a normal turn - in 3E D&D, a normal turn for a character abstracts a whole round of action ('full attack') and so usually includes several attacks, while an attack of opportunity is a single attack, making it less significant; in 4E a character gets only one attack per turn, but can't use special powers on opportunity attacks. ROAR normally made an opposed attack roll to represent abstractly a whole round of attacks; a 'free shot' could occur under special circumstances but did 1/5th normal damage since it represented a single blow. JAGS' interesting opposed action system let a character substitute any action with a shorter time in response to an opponent's action.
Attack+ Movement Actions
*Charge: may be only descriptive or may penalize defense for extra attack/damage. In 3.x charging commonly allows multiple attacks (for characters with the ‘Pounce’ special quality). A Flyby Attack/Hyperslam may be present in some games.
Dragon Warriors had no built in Charge action, although the game has rules for Minotaurs which treat their charge like a ray attack (match minotaur SPEED vs. EVASION, instead of the normal ATTACK vs. DEFENCE roll - i.e. it cannot be parried).
*Bull Rush (Pull/Push/Trip): manuever used to push foe backwards or move their location. Effect of roll may determine distance moved. Shield Rush may be a variant of this.
There may be a separate knockback option for punching someone backward (without the attacker moving), or this may be a natural byproduct of punching someone in a supers game.
*Pressing Forward (LegendQuest, Age of Heroes): in LQ the attacker pushes foe back with repeated attacks, causing them a hit penalty if their resulting movement exceeds the allowed “free walk” allowance. Age of Heroes has 'Pressing Attacks' which force the target to move backward a hex or take a penalty to the parry roll.
*Trample/Overrun
Multiple Actions:
*Multi Attack / Multiple Actions: the character takes a penalty to hit to attempt two actions. Found in various systems. Sometimes requires a roll to attempt, instead of needing a penalty (e.g. in Superbabes it requires a d20 roll under Dex and also costs fatigue points, as do all combat actions).
*Full Attack: full round action found in 3E and Warhammer 2nd Ed; the character must give up their movement to attempt multiple attacks.
*Two Weapon Fighting (TWF):
TWF is not always a form of multiple attacks - some systems use other options i.e. in 4E the basic 'Two Weapon Fighting' feat just adds +1 to damage, or in Tunnels and Trolls each character's combat roll represent a whole round of combat abstractly - TWF here just adds extra dice (a 3-die shortsword in each hand lets a character roll 6 combat dice, same as a greatsword; ST and DEX requirements for both weapons are cumulative). Swords and Wizardry adds +1 to hit for using two weapons, dealing average damage. However TWF is usually represented by an additional attack with the offhand weapon, which is the best way to make damage/description of the offhand weapon relevant i.e. whether you’re using a lit torch or an artifact magic Sword of Infinite Slaying is irrelevant if if having an offhand weapon just gives a +1 to damage. A system can also just let a character with multiple attacks already hold two weapons and divide their normal attacks between them, but in most cases this is irrelevant (one choice is better) while also penalizing the character for using small weapons instead of a two-handed sword. [White Dwarf #19 Berserker class; similarly someone early in 4Es run suggested re-skinning the Cleave power for fighters to represent dual wielding]
In the normal cases where TWF gives multiple actions - a game may treat TWF as just a normal use of a 'multiple actions at a penalty' rules (Savage Worlds, ORE perhaps?), or TWF may have specific rules which make it possible. This first option is more integrated with other subsystems, but note that TWF has intrinsic penalties (one-handed weapon, no shield) which make it inferior to attacking twice with one weapon if that is also allowed. TWF itself may also count as a specific combat option e.g. the 4E 'Twin Strike' power (which actually does get two attack rolls unlike normal 4E TWF) or Feng Shui's "Double Tap" manuever, or it may just provide a bonus combat action which might be used for other actions - in this case a 'shield punch' may actually use the TWF rules, for instance, or an offhand action might be useable for a trip, disarm, or to pin an opponent's weapon (leaving them exposed to a hit from the main weapon).
Games with multiple attacks often limit TWF to a single extra attack - for instance 3.x limits TWF to a single extra attack unless multiple feats are taken, while SenZar allows an extra attack on only one Action Phase (characters start at one, but can get up to 5 or so phases per combat round at higher levels).
TWF often incurs some sort of to-hit penalty (like -2/-4, or having to split a dice pool), with penalty sometimes reduced by an Ambidexterity ability, though depending on system this ability may be required to fight with two weapons at all.
TWF is often Dexterity intensive e.g AD&D reduces the to-hit penalty by Dexterity adjustment, while 3.x requires a high Dexterity to qualify for the appropriate Feat. It is also sometimes Strength intensive in systems that use Strength requirements for weapons (Tunnels & Trolls, LegendQuest). In other games, TWF multiple attacks can often allow a character to leverage multiple uses of their STR bonus to damage, making it more appealing to stronger characters - this is sometimes balanced by reducing the damage bonus for offhand weapons (3E), reducing the damage bonus for light weapons, or prohiting Str bonuses on TWF actions entirely (4E did this on both weapons; 5E limits both weapons to being light and doesn't add a Str bonus to the offhand weapon).
Miscellaneous: Palladium has the interesting drawback for TWF that a character forfeits their normal Automatic Parry when using paired weapons. A significant balancing factor, it has the odd effect of making TWF particularly attractive to heavily armoured characters who can rely on armour in place of parrying.
An old D&D houserule was sometimes to roll a chance of for 'ambidexterity', before a character could use two weapons: one variant (White Dwarf #18) being to roll a dice for each hand (d6 for left, d12 for right for instance) with the higher roll determining handedness and equal rolls meaning ambidexterity. A sub-variant of that is to separate partial ambidexterity (can use either hand) from full dual wielding (can use both at once) i.e. full ambidexterity might only occur on a roll of 6/6 on d6/d12, with lower ties meaning the partial version. ROAR used various advantages, with 'coordinative' ambidexterity giving no hit penalty but making the off-hand not as strong. The Aftermath RPG has a separate 'off-hand dexterity' score, partly based off normal Deftness (i.e. Dex) +a random factor, Wits modifier and possible training bonuses.
*Multiple Opponents/Area attack: a single attack targets multiple opponents (e.g. with same roll). Sometimes found in supers games – using powers or with “Sweep Attacks” e.g rolling logs under several opponents. Legends of Anglerra has an "Unthinkable Attack" useable by certain epic creatures, which requires a turn to power up and burns a Fate point and inflicts consequences on targets in a large area.
*Combination Move: ability to join two moves together as one action (Ninjas & Superspies) i.e. combination Parry/Entangle where parry also ties up opponent’s weapon.
*Full Auto:-gun option emptying clip to do x10 damage IIRC (Palladium), or a full-round action in d20 modern.
Movement & Defense
*Move: action type varies from system to system – anywhere between ‘counts as full turn’ and ‘free action up to x distance’. A character might be able to expend variable action points to get more or less movement, or different movement actions may be defined (e.g. Normal, Double Move, Run, 5’ step/Shift, Withdraw, Circling [JAGS], Intercept (Shadowrun)). Changing facing or standing up may also count as movement.
*Giving Ground: parry combined with retreating backwards to give an extra bonus (LegendQuest, JAGS).
*Block: by this I mean using a body location e.g. an arm to parry, taking damage to that location instead of the original location struck. This result may appear from a ‘partially successful’ Parry, rather than being defined as a separate manuever.
*Parry: block opponent attack. Some systems assume certain amount of parrying, giving a “passive defense” rating or high defense value, while others assume an active parry must be made to factor in defensive skill; decisions like this determine how dangerous multiple (lower-level?) attackers are in a system. AD&D has multiple types of parries (single attack or all opponent’s attacks).
In some cases parry may cost only a penalty to attack, rather than being an action (MSH). Some systems may allow a character to parry attacks vs. an ally (e.g. with a polearm; AD&D); this may have separate rules as a ‘Guard’ action. Parries may apply a fixed or rolled penalty to an attacker, or be rolled as an opposed check; for example Palladium. Rolled parry systems of course have more dice rolls in combat, but also may handle situations where a character can't readily defend (i.e. when surprised or casting a spell) more intuitively. The choice of whether the defender gets an active roll can also be affected by luck point mechanics e.g. rerolls, which otherwise typically favour the attacker.
Elaborations: The Stormbringer RPG has rolled parries, with the additional effect that a critical parry can break the attacker's weapon.
Some systems give PCs a total of “defense points” to distribute as desired between opponents (making flanking rules largely unnecessary) e.g. Dragon Warriors.
*Skill Defense: basically as Parry, except a couple of games e.g. Hollow Earth Expedition (HEX) gives characters a defense bonus from a skill in use, rather than just combat skill (i.e. you can defend with Photography while trying to photograph something, or Magic while casting a spell).
*Fend: similar to parry, but assumes defender is making attacks to hold the opponent at bay (like a lion tamer with a chair).
*Dodge/Tumble: used to avoid an attack or do something acrobatic, perhaps disengage from a dangerous area. Ninjas and Superspies (Palladium) distinguishes between regular Dodge and Multiple Dodge (lower bonuses).
Dodge typically uses an opposed roll of some kind to activate (i.e. roll the same or better than the opponent); or there may be a flat chance of success. Some systems (SenZar, Talislanta) may add penalties to defense for an unsuccessful dodge attempt; which might result in a more likely hit (if the dodge had to be declared before the attack roll; otherwise this is moot) or additional damage.
Dodging may be automatic, count as one action (Palladium), impose a penalty to attack rolls if used (Marvel Super Heroes), or be free up to a certain limit (Dragon Warriors defense points). Some games demand dodge-type actions be declared in advance (3.x D&D Total Defense & Fighting Defensively) while others permit them as interrupts (often burning future actions).
*Shield Wall: locking adjacent shields for extra bonus.
*Roll with punch/fall (Palladium): spend action where dodge etc. has already failed, to reduce damage by half. The action does tend to have more bonuses than Dodge.
*Heroic Attempt: mostly unique to Synnibarr; if one hero is about to be hit with an attack, another hero may attempt a ‘heroic attempt’ to interrupt it and interpose themselves, or pull the victim out of the way. Requires an unusual bonus initiative check to pull off. JAGS more or less allows this indirectly as well (it allows interrupts on any action, with a shorter action).
*Interpose: the character takes damage meant for someone else. e.g. Risus has rules for this which let characters take double damage (instead of rolling among team members to see who takes normal damage, since the system is quite abstract); the other characters also get extra dice nexd round to 'avenge' them, regardless of whether they were taken out entirely.
*Jump: specific movement type. Distance may require a roll on skill/attribute (e.g. 3.5 Jump/ Pathfinder Athletics) or be fixed i.e. 1ft per Str point (Synnibarr); or 1/4 normal movement rate (Attack of the Humans). A fixed distance might be "pushable" as an action (cf. DC Heroes). In combat there may be a “Leap Attack” that uses Jumping.
*Climb/Swim/etc – typically uses a skill roll (Str based). One game (RECON) uses a Perception check for Climbing.
Duck for cover
Cooperative Actions
*Team Attack: two attackers attack simultaneously. May add damage for purposes of stunning (HERO), or add damage before armour subtraction to get more oomph vs. invulnerable foes (Superbabes).
*Aid Another – spend turn assisting an ally, adding bonus to their action.
Initiative Actions
*Ready/Delay Attack: acting later in round. 3.x D&D distinguishes between ‘readying’ (a standard action interrupts foe) and delaying (a larger full round action can be performed, but after the opponent). IMHO if a 'ready' is used to interrupt, this ideally should use some sort of initiative-based mechanic so that (say) attacking people threatening hostages is risky. Covering someone may also be called out as a separate action (JAGS). LegendQuest lets characters using two weapons have separate initiatives for each weapon, hence a ready ("hold") can be used with one weapon while fending with the other.
*Shoot from hip (figurative or literal): penalty to hit to get bonus to initiative
*Set vs. Charge: hold action (esp. with reach weapon) dealing additional damage vs. charging opponents.
*Refocus: taking penalty to boost initiative roll next round. Redundant if actions are permitted to “hold over” between rounds.
*Abort: for a system where an action is predeclared, dropping this action to do something else (HERO) e.g. ‘abort to defense’.
*Drawing a weapon: may be an action (or part of one e.g. a “move action”), apply an initiative penalty, or apply an attack roll penalty. Thrown weapons (knives, throwing axes) may require a “draw” action before each attack.
*Start/Complete Full Round Action: A 3E D&D action, a 'full round action' can be spread over two rounds, using a 'standard action' in each.
Damage Modifying Moves
*Pull Punch: declared to reduce damage from an attack. Some systems distinguish between bashing/lethal (the equivalent action changes damage types). A roll may be required e.g. in Palladium. One system (a supers freerpg, I forget the name) allows regulation of damage only in dice rather than exact points to build in some uncertainty (a character with punch damage 5d6 might roll 1d6,2d6,3d6,4d6 or 5d6 to try to get the right damage, but not roll the total and automatically reduce it to “just enough”).
*Called Shot: attempt to hit a specific body location. May have different penalties depending on which location; might be useful against a specific monster with an “Achilles Heel” in a specific body location. May include “stapling people to walls” (thrown knife through clothing), cutting Z’s in opponent’s foreheads, or nerve strikes. May also include rules for breaking/severing limbs (usually involving damage > some threshold).
Variants: HarnMaster allows a character to choose “zone” (upper, normal or lower) at -10% to hit rather than fully calling a shot; the One Roll Engine’s “count matches” system may give a PC a couple of different hit locations possible off the same roll, at various #s of successes – building a sort of called shot into every attack.
*Bypass Armour: called shot variant ignoring some armour worn at expense of a hit penalty (e.g. Shadowrun). (Only applicable where a system use armour variants other than “AC”/armour as target number). Bypassing armour also sometimes occurs as a critical result (Runequest criticals, Earthdawn "armour defeating hits").
A variant of this can also be to have a 'find hole in armour' action which is used before another attack. This works better with systems where armour makes a target harder to hit - the time cost replacing a hit penalty.
*Death Blow: special move to kill (or probably kill) opponent. Move may not exist or may be heavily controlled by a point cost, activation limitation (“Death Blow on a natural 20”), target level (can’t kill opponents greater than level N), or defender saving throw.
*Power Attack/Going for Broke: part of a combat action where a character takes a penalty to get a damage bonus; requires a feat. In DC Heroes, anyone can use the same mechanic but ‘result points’ include varies forms of effect, not simply damage i.e. spell duration or degree of intimidation could be improved by taking a roll penalty. DC Heroes also the opposite (a plus to hit for less damage) called a “flailing attack”.
*Knockout/Sap: stuns opponent; effect level or damage may determine how long. This manuever may occasionally be seen designed for story use (capturing the PCs) –but if abusable could also lead to lots of NPCs being laid out and Coup de Grace’d. (also watch out for railroading). In some games may just be a “head” called shot effect.
*Coup de Grace: attack on downed foe. May be automatic or involve increased damage; in systems where damage is increased based on difference between attacker/defender rolls this move isn’t really required (a Defense of 0 automatically increases damage).
*Finishing Move: often a creature dropped to 0 hit points/the death negative threshold for the game may be described as killed in some gruesome way. This is typically just a descriptor, though videogames may hard code a separate manuever that does this (e.g. the Mortal Kombat series), and sometimes a game may include some mechanical benefit e.g. the 'Eviscerator' feat in 3E D&D means the target is killed so gruesomely that surviving allies are shaken. Conversely a game may have the option to choose between stun/kill at 0 hp.
Special Attacks
*Trick Shot: attempt to do something tricky e.g. bounce an attack off another surface to avoid cover. May also include ‘ranged disarms’.
*Sunder: destroy held object/ other object. Problematic manuever for PCs since it breaks the treasure- still a good ability for monsters. Sometimes treated as a subset of called shot.
*Disarm: opponent drops a weapon/object held. Larger weapons tend to get a bonus to resist (in AD&D requires 2 successful attempts; 3.x gets +4 per size category different, unfortunately making the Greatsword far better than the rapier for disarming...and the polearm the best, since reach negates the Attack of Opportunity). Location it flies to may be determined randomly (scatter die?) or attacker may be permitted to grab; AD&D yses scatter table but Expert disarm variant lets attacker choose exact location. Sometimes permitted with ranged weapons.
*Suppression Fire -included in e.g. Twilight 2000. Midnight at the well of souls had (relatedly) "Opportunity Fire" as a separate action, perhaps in part due to having a move phase occuring before Ranged Fire was resolved - Opportunity Fire acted in the earlier section of the round prior to normal ranged attacks.
*Toss: throwing sand in targets’ eyes or glove in their face, etc. May be application of a “dirty tricks” type skill.
*Grab: hold or wrestle a monster. 3.x D&D distinguishes between ‘grappling’ (struggling hand to hand up close) and ‘held’ (one side pins the other). Other systems may include rules for martial art type joint locks/submission holds, or choke holds. Twilight 2000 uses a system of ‘controlling hits’ based off damage (hits equal to opponent Strength subdue them) while other games count successes or coloured results for effect. May include ‘hostage taking’ rules. Movement may be impossible, require a roll, or subtract opponent STR from movement rate (DC Heroes). Usually includes a “squeeze” type option to damage held target. Initiating the grab may deal damage.
*Choke: choking may be an option under the 'grab' manuever, or distinct. Choking may use subdual damage rules, have special effects, or apply fatigue damage (GURPS, IIRC).
*Throw: Judo style throw; may require martial arts training.
*Attack to off-balance (Superbabes): if successful, opponent is +3 to be hit next round.
*Pin Weapon (Clinch) – grab on opponents weapon to hold it in place; user may be able to punch foe with free hand. A two weapon fighter might be able to use this to pin an enemy’s shield in place as well. An Entangle (with a chain weapon) is usually basically the same thing. One old Sorcerer's Apprentice magazine mentions an old viking trick where using a crappy wooden shield lets an opponents' axe get stuck, holding their arm in position for a chop to the wrist- something like a weapon pin using a shield.
*Trip (/Unhorse) – knocks opponent to the ground or pulls rider of horse (Ride skill likely to help). May gain bonuses against unaware opponents or moving targets. May include sweeping e.g. from staff.
*Feint: distract opponent to land extra attack. May allow bonus damage or select hit location (e.g. cutting at head then rapidly at legs).
*Twisting the blade: fairly Bad Guy trick; typically extra damage but to-hit penalty.
*Stand Still:[font=Verdana]: making an attack (often as an interrupt) to block another character's movement e.g. a 'clothesline' type manuever. Appears more abstractly in 4E D&D (Fighter's Challenge).
Player Actions
*Stunting: WUSHU, Exalted. This covers many of the others but is designed from a different perspective. In these games doing difficult/cool things gives characters a description bonus, rather than a penalty; contrast to most systems where doing something tricky probably gives a penalty in exchange for doing something more cool when it succeeds, unless its a particularly appropriate situational thing that warrants a bonus. Stunting is a mechanic that encourages players to do wacky things, rather than a simulational mechanic. In a similar vein, Feng Shui gives characters +1 to hit with shot guns if they make a shotgun loading noise (ka-chick ?).
*Use Safety Valve: this is usually not an action in-character as well, but sometimes is e.g. D&D 3.5 complete scoundrel, spending a “luck reroll” counts as an immediate action.
*Soaking (Savage Worlds): soak in SW burns a "bennie" and so is a subset of using safety valve, really. The damage result changes, but there isn't particularly a clear way of explaining in-character why damage went down. In most systems with soaking, the soak roll is free and perhaps represents how tough the character is, although its unclear what the random factor the dice roll represents. It is also perhaps uncertain why Vigour is used for the roll (since that already factors into Toughness), except that this 'steps up' the effect of the Vigour attribute which has only a slight effect on the [quite variable] damage roll.
Recovery Actions
*Second Wind: the character regains hit points or the like. 4E allows this once/encounter, while FantasyCraft charges action dice for a "Refresh".
*Recover – turn spent throwing off a condition. May require some sort of Con roll, etc. (source - JAGS). Treating this as an action may represent a stunlock on a character i.e. if the only action a character can attempt is to try to remove the condition. Savage Worlds lets a character remove a 'shaken' condition as a turn, but with a 'raise' (high roll) letting the character also act normally. (Savage Worlds uses shaken to represent damage as well as effects like intimidation, so 'recover' and 'second wind' are indistinguishable for SW).
*Reload: replacing ammo in crossbow or firearm for additional use. Some systems e.g. Twilight 2000 distinguish reload types by weapons in considerable detail.
*Ready Weapon: an action may sometimes be needed to 'ready' a weapon after use (particularly for larger weapons). In 2E D&D (Complete Fighter), a disarm vs. a two-handed weapon caused the target to lose initiative as noted above; a character with multiple attacks could spend one to cancel the initiative penalty next round, or might be reduced to just attempting a punch with their other attack.
Standing Up could also perhaps be classed in this group.
Miscellaneous
*Presence Attack/Intimidate/Taunt – turn used to overawe, intimidate or distract foe; may gain initiative, apply attack penalty to foe.
*Spot: roll to notice something untoward – may have separate rules for deliberate spotting vs. reactive.
*Grope: (HarnMaster) covers situations like recovering a dropped weapon while attacked or perhaps pulling an impaled weapon out of a foe; uses a Dex check.
*Pushing: attempt to briefly increase an attribute -or a super power rating - for a specific effect, such as lifting a weight or running or flying faster/jumping further than normal. Rarely found (usually in supers games). May require dice roll and/or expenditure of luck points or fatigue points.
*Instinctive Attack: [Runequest] this is a roll by the target under [Con x 1%], to determine if they can continue fighting 'instinctively' after a head shot that should knock them out. (Perhaps not a true 'manuever' but I don't know where else to put this).
Other minor: A few other misc. very specific manuevers include hammering the opponent into the ground like a nail (Superbabes), pulling an opponent into a punch (combination grab/punch dealing two-handed damage/double damage?(Superbabes), the fastball special (character A throws character B at an opponent; HERO), mount (getting atop grabbed opponent; JAGS), breakfall (Ninjas & Superspies), Beat/Expulsion (briefly slam opponent weapon out of the way; Riddle of Steel – one variant here is attacker and the other defender), half-sword (grasp blade to reduce weapon length; Riddle of Steel), Stop Short - stopping movement quickly to trick opponent (Riddle of Steel), Finesse Throw (LegendQuest- throw using Dex but without adding Str mod to damage, and range halved). A thread here discusses a 'grab shield' manuever (spinning a strapped shield with the resulting force breaking the defender's arm).
This last post for combat (unless I think of anything else) is just a grab bag of things I've not yet mentioned. If there's anything ppl feel I've neglected, feel free to make suggestions. My current plans for the next few posts are something like Terrain & Environment, Vehicles, Adventuring Situations (?).
Hit Locations: apart from standard rolled location, called shots (potentially modified by Block results), and the One Roll Engine system , a couple of other determination methods use a silhoutte or body map: Aces & Eights' "Shot Clock" uses a d12 to generate scatter around a prechosen location (which is hit without scatter if the attack roll is sufficiently high), while Millenium's End uses an “overlay” (showing how much roll is made/missed by) over a “body map”.
Hit locations mostly provide a more realistic game, at a cost of more mucking around, but do tend to generate issues with certain damage types such as electrocution, shock, or poison – even falling – which are hard to allocate to single locations. Some systems may use different location tables for melee and ranged weapons.
I’ve occasionally thought that in cyberpunk type games where “organlegging” is popular, hit location tables might be useful for the GM to help determine what “treasure” is salvageable out of defeated opponents..
Missile Fire: generally uses the same mechanic as melee combat, but not always; Metamorphosis Alpha uses a different mechanic for missiles to remove AC as a factor (2d6 with TN set by range, instead of d20 vs. AC). Tunnels and Trolls uses a Dexterity check with difficulty set by range instead of the combat opposed roll of lots of dice for attacks by PCs. For attacks on PCs, a PC may be allowed a Luck roll to dodge an incoming missile (consistent with how traps are handled, and since monsters by default lack “Dexterity” ratings). Systems can use exact measurements or (as in Warhammer 3rd, HOL) a highly abstract range/range bands (HOLs ranges are “Really Not Far”, “Not Far, Really”, “Closer than Really Far”, “Really Far”, and “Really Really Far”).
Some systems adjust penalty (as well as maximum range) by weapon e.g. 3.x D&Ds “range increments” - which is probably easier with less abstract range.
Others systems may adjust throwing distance by Strength (Palladium).
DC Heroes has a particularly neat exponential equation which determines maximum heft/throwing distance for supers characters;
Weight (in APs) + (distance in APs) = STR score
Superman (STR 25) could hit a baseball (Weight 0) 25 APs of distance (32000 miles/orbit), throw a battle tank (weight of 11 APs i.e. 40 tons) 14 APs of distance (16 miles), throw a 20 AP weight (a 25,000 tonne submarine) 5 APs of distance (100 yards), or just lift a 25 AP (750,000 ton) object.
Poison: may inflict either damage, ability damage, or some weird effect. Traditional D&D had poison nearly always causing death (with a save to negate). Tunnels and Trolls gives poisons a damage multiplier (on weapon damage) rather than fixed damage i.e. curare x2, dragon’s venom x4. Most systems categorize poison as Ingested/Injected/Contact/Inhaled (or something like that). RPGs often have unrealistic onset times for convenience. Elaborations: LegendQuest has a dosage table which lists # doses require to coat a weapon of a given size (from 1 unit for a arrow head, to 3 for a knife, 4 for a ballista bolt or hand axe or 8 for a long sword); extra doses increase the # hits that are effectively poisoned as well i.e. the longsword is poisoned for the next 8 swings.
Many systems allow for a chance of self-poisoning e.g. on weapons fumbles. Some fantasy settings inflict social controls on use of poison (e.g. the death penalty in 1e AD&D, as well as class and alignment restrictions on their use).
Mass Combat: a few systems include a mass combat system for quickly resolving large numbers of enemies e.g. Basic D&D’s War Machine rules, or the system in “Under the Moons of Zoon”.
If abstract such games may give an army damage based off its size (# troops) and perhaps a random variable with a leader strategy modifier and resolve over a number of rounds, or a really abstract method might just be a few random rolls on tables to determine victory/defeat (e.g. in the Central Casting character background generator books). At the very detailed level, figures may represent “squads” and be played out with something like 3.0 D&D’s Complete Miniatures’ Handbook rules, or the wargame of your choice.
People have also suggested using the Swarm rules for things like e.g. Orcs in 3.x/4E D&D.
Savage Worlds again is designed for handling large numbers of creatures as part of its regular combat system (monsters are “up, down [shaken], or off the table”), and multiple checks for large numbers of NPCs can be rolled easily e.g. 10 guys shooting arrows might have Shooting d6 each, and so 10d6 can be rolled to find hits – handy for something like pirate ship battles). Tunnels and Trolls or (I believe) “Forward – to Adventure!” use side-by-side battle systems and so also can resolve large combats fairly quickly.
Using the normal combat procedures for some games, multiple rolls of e.g. d20 can theoretically be streamlined using tables: Dragon Magazine #113 includes a fast-rolling table for D&D hit rolls/saves, where a single d100 roll generates the equivalent number of hits/misses as rolling 20d20 at a given target number. However, this can’t easily determine # of crits/fumbles, only hits/misses.
Combat Event Rolls: this was an obscure mechanic from Combat & Tactics in 2nd Ed. D&D. The GM would roll on a table each round, which would generate a number of unusual combat results including the battle moving a number of squares in a given
direction, an armour strap breaking, or a weapon getting stuck in a fallen opponent (if applicable).
Character capabilities determine whether terrain hazards are a significant threat. These abilities can include: direction finding, ability to forage/hunt food, ability to carry equipment, resistance to environmental extremes (heat or cold), disease or other problems. (Of course, its not necessary for terrain to be a major hassle, particularly in a high powered game).
Spells and specific character abilities that negate terrain as a game challenge include: Teleport (bypasses hazards), flight (same), energy resistance (heat or cold), not needing to eat/drink (e.g. spells such as create water were nerfed on Dark Sun for this reason), unlimited carrying capacity (via bags of holding or vehicles), and skills preventing characters getting lost, and even ability to produce fire magically. Note also:
*Fantasy or SF games may have racial options which give more-or-less immunity to some hazards (and/or susceptibility to others); something to think about when balancing these.
*Environmental damage is less significant where characters have large reserves of HPs; occasionally systems with level-based HPs have ended up assigning damage to hot/cold conditions that should result in massive depopulation of certain zones. (IIRC, 3.x D&D cold rules would kill most of the population of Finland fairly quickly). Difficulty of rolls to avoid damage or find food will vary depending on the core mechanics of the system (again in 3.x, it may be easy to take-10 and find food or water easily, largely regardless of terrain conditions).
*Energy resistance as “damage reduction” is particularly powerful dealing with heat/cold effects. This may be acceptable, but if the effect is excessive note that frostburn treated as a large lump sum of damage infrequently (say, each 10 minutes or hourly) is less affected by this sort of energy resistance than small amounts of round-by-round damage (unless there’s some sort of “minimum successful damage is at least 1” rule). As with armour, energy resistance may also be treated as a chance of resisting an attack/armour bypass, albeit that this has odd effects in other parts of the game (e.g. fire resistance 75% seen in at least one game I can think of: “3 of those missiles did nothing, but that fourth one was a bitch”!), or even a proportional energy resistance (mechanically annoying, unless you’re doing this by varying target numbers on a dice pool i.e. reducing damage by 70% would mean rolling d10 for each point of base damage, a 4+ negating it ).
*Foraging systems tend to be more detailed in systems where characters are actually likely to starve to death (Interestingly for D&D, while Ranger is popular as a class choice in later 3.x/4E D&D, the wilderness aspect of the concept becomes less important across editions). HarnMaster has extremely detailed Fishing charts (including exact Fish species caught for either fresh or salt water!), as well as foraging rules; it cross-references skill result by expected conditions on a table to determine food found rather than just applying a bonus/penalty to the check, thus reducing food found more severely for harsh terrain; Cadillacs and Dinosaurs lists food availability by terrain type (including heavy seasonal adjustments) as well as detailing the exact amount of meat provided by deceased dinosaurs in their monster descriptions.
*In games where characters use vehicles alot (whether modern or SF) miring, mechanical breakdowns, fuel concerns and the like for those can also be critical, as well as the usual food/environment concerns. Of course, certain terrain types may be impassable to some mounts or vehicles e.g. mountains or heavy jungle; others may just slow movement rate.
Cadillacs & Dinosaurs again is one of the better treatments of vehicle-based hex crawling of this sort I have seen , including lists of random encounters based on hex type (jungle, mountains, etc) which directly plug in both monster encounters, NPC encounters and terrain hazards that are detailed e.g. rock slides, volcanic eruptions, earth tremors, earthquakes, subterranean gas, and storms (for those boating adventurers). While alot of other games have rules for similar hazards it succeeded fairly well (IMHO) at bringing those rules forward and making them a focus of the game.
*a number of SF games detail various interesting environments (Traveller?GURPS probably has a few sourcebooks for this too...) – dangerous conditions in such games could include more severe temperatures, high/low gravity, toxic or corrosive atmospheres (or suffocants e.g. Argon in StarCluster supplement Sweet Chariot) , atmospheric pressure/vacuum, radiation, and microbes, as well as the usual hostile organisms. Note some games (e.g. Aberrant) give characters massive freezing damage for exposure to space, incorrect as vacuum is actually an excellent insulator, (cf. thermos flasks). http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SpaceIsCold
Notes from flyingmice: Actually, argon is not a suffocant on Chariot, any more than nitrogen is in Earth's atmosphere. It's a noble gas, and non-reactive, but under high pressure becomes an intoxicant and a poison, like nitrogen - cf. rapture of the deep, nitrogen narcosis - the victim gets both drunk and poisoned. That pressure (4 atmospheres) is reached at approximately 2 kilometers above sea level on Chariot, so normal mammal life is only found at higher elevations.
Also, Sweet Chariot is not a supplement for StarCluster 2, but a full game, using the StarPool dice pool mechanic rather than the percentiles used in StarCluster 2.Sweet Chariot came about because of random tables. Unlike StarCluster 3, first and second edition came with a setting. I generated that setting using tables I created for the purpose then threw away - I created entirely new ones for SC 3. Chariot was the first world in the first system I created, and for years the specter of how a billion people lived on a planet with poisonous atmosphere and too much solar radiation with only steam-level technology bothered the HELL out of me. Sweet Chariot was the result of Albert Bailey and I brainstorming some workable way for that to have happened, and what it all entailed. In the process it became a very fun - and risky - place to game.
Vehicles rules are critical in SF games where PCs are going to do battle in spaceships, and very handy in shipboard games. Mecha battle games (MechWarrior, Junk, Mekton Zeta, Robotech) have particularly detailed vehicle rules as well.
Other game rules that interlock with the Vehicles rules include Size, Gadgetry, movement rules/chase rules, cover (to passengers), and hit location (ships frequently get their own malfunction tables to determine e.g. if the bridge catches on fire or the crew on C Deck goes and sucks space – often even in games without hit location systems for characters). Important combat manuevers include Trample/Overrun and ramming.
Approaches to Vehicles: Vehicles rules at the simple level can include just a few sample vehicles with a cost for each and maybe some very basic data (the GM may be left to wing it on the details, as often as not); More complex rulesets may attempt to actually give rules to let players create their own vehicles, much more ambitious. Cost for vehicles is sometimes in game cash (credits or gold pieces) – though sometimes a vehicle instead has some sort of associated “character point cost” /counts as an advantage etc.
Some examples here to consider the sort of different approaches:
Impact on Character Generation: In many games, characters may have the option to get driving/piloting skills of some sort – depending on how much focus of the game is on this, Pilot may itself be viable as a major archetype/class, or a few skills of this kind may just round out a character who is already something else in concept, like a super-spy or warrior. Shadowrun 1E has ‘ Rigger’ as a separate archetype but (realizing that what they do tends to occur separately to other PCs or be downplayed) eventually merged it with Decker. D&D 3.5 has various “charioteering” feats – which were not really worth picking up for PCs, but were possibly of interest to the GM if they wanted Gladiator-style drive-by scythings in their D&D arena game. The old Robotech game by Palladium, being largely about giant robots blowing up other giant robots, has specific classes for different vehicles, e.g. Veritech pilot or Destroid Pilot.
Falling: one of the more interesting methods for this is to base damage on the falling person or objects size; handy since big things usually have lots of HPs (you probably want a crashing shuttle to actually be totalled rather than scratched by 20d6 damage). While I'd normally feel damage proportional to size to be fine at least in a fantasy game, IRL the square-cube law (double the height = 8x the mass) means larger objects actually suffer worse from falling; compare effects of a 10ft fall on a flea and an elephant. ‘The Mutant Epoch’ was a recent game that allowed for this. Mechanics around this sort of thing typically become easier with a “Size score” for characters/objects, though Epoch used a table.
SF games may need to allow for differences in falling damage based on planet gravity. Detailed systems sometimes add modifiers for landing surface e.g “deep water” or “mud”, “snow” etc. (HarnMaster).
Lifting Objects: depending on system this may be a totally fixed roll (i.e. STR x 10), a base from STR increased by some sort of Willpower roll (Storyteller adds Willpower successes, or possibly a STR check modified by another STR check (mostly I find this weird, though I suppose it makes a Strength scale slightly more exponential, or something). Depending on outcome a roll may be an effect-type roll (roll anytime you lift something, roll determines amount lifted; compare that to the weight) or in simpler systems weight determines check modifiers to a simple check e.g. HarnMaster will make a character roll under from [End x 1] to [End x 5] depending on how heavy a load is.
Some systems may apply separate adjustments for base Strength and Size to lifting objects (3.x D&D).
Skills rarely improve lifting (the Trinity game for white wolf for example uses a dice pool of [Strength+ Might skill].
Note that lifting capacity is proportional to muscle cross-section and roughly increases as the square of height, though realistically using this, giants aren’t going to be able to stand up (weight increases at the cube of height).
Another designer friend of mine who was something of a body building enthusiast, once built a complex derived system for Strength; a character determined a final Strength using a base value from the square of their height, a Muscle score which reflected how much working out they had done (never rolled directly), and a separately purchased build multiplier, which were all multiplied together to get a final strength.
Older D&D sometimes used a combined Strength total to shift an object ('30 or more to move the slab') which was unfortunately out of kilter with the exponential scaling of the attribute, and meant a titan (Str 25) couldn't move objects 3 ordinary humans could (see for instance 'Wall of Iron'). A more precise system was HERO's adding together of pound values to get total lift, which could then be mapped back to a STR score.
Encumbrance: somewhat relatedly, systems may use exact encumberance in pounds; Basic D&D instead measured it in “cn” for coins, at the rather heavy 10 cn = 1 lb. A few systems (Swordbearer, reputedly; Dragon Warriors) also use just an “object limit” e.g. 10 objects, plus/minus possible Str modifiers. Of course games often handwave the details of encumbrance, particularly when PCs have horses/vehicles/bags of holding.
Fire: fire damage works particularly well for systems where its possible to calculate a probability or DC of something catching alight off a number of points of damage - though very few systems actually do this (see discussion of Marvel Super Hereos above under Combat – Damage). Fire (or sunlight for vampires, say) might also be surface area based, as below.
Immersion Damage (in something bad e.g. acid, lava): damage for this is logically based off amount of surface area exposed, as a proportion. The easiest way to handle proportions in game is in count success systems, by setting the target number i.e. if "Boiled in Acid" is 10 dice of damage, complete immersion would be TN 0 (= 10 damage) and half submerged would be TN 6 (average 5 points of damage).
Some systems have tried to have surface-area based calculations to deal damage - this only works well if a creature's HPs (or other attacked attribute) are at least proportional to its surface area. For example, the 5th level druid spell Slimewave in 3.0 D&D hits a creature with a patch of green slime for each 5ft of area it has, each of which deals d4 Con damage a round; an Orc (medium size) might survive for three or four rounds (one slime patch), while the spell dissolves Colossal creatures (like most great wyrm dragons; 40ft facing or 8 slime patches) within the round.
Saving throws: older games tend to have fairly idiosyncratic systems for saves, with later systems streamlined them for easier identification of what does what e.g. Fortitude/Reflex/Will in 3.x D&D. Modifers may be class-based, or racially-based (e.g. in Battlelords of the 23rd Century). Some systems may just use skill checks or attribute checks for the equivalent of saves; RQ2 uses skills but with an optional rule for some of the equivalent skills e.g. Resilience that they be capped at [stat * 5], Tunnels & Trolls just uses attribute checks (older editions have no other numbers). AD&D 2E was somewhat weird in that a save-like situation might use either an ability check (roll under d20) or save (roll over d20) which gave very very different results - the 1st level thief with an 18 Dex would be 90% likely to pass a Dex roll to not be crushed by a falling boulder, but would probably fail the equivalent save to dodge (i.e. a save vs. Breath Weapon of 16+, w/ +4 defensive adjustment from Dex).
A trend in design discussion recently seems to be toward rolled saves with standardized “defense” numbers like “Fortitude Defense”, an integrated system with armour class or the like. This isn't really a new idea: Hero for example has attack/defense values for both physical and mental combat, as does the 1992 Edition of Gamma World which used rolls of d20 + mutation modifier vs. “Mental Defense” (the mental equivalent of armour class). Dragon Warriors is similar, with hostile effects occurring if a roll is made under the attackers’ Magical Attack (just as a sword blow hits if it rolls under a warrior’s Attack).
This does make the system more consistent, and can be used to more easily reset an attack from one defense to another, but keep in mind the following, IMHO:
*Feel: an “attack” that lets the GM announce a “death” result feels less fair than getting a save to negate Death, even where the probability is identical. Dragon Warriors is particularly an offender here, since save or dies (SoDs) requiring a Magical Attack rolls are frequent – the actual text example of a Magical Attack is for a gorgon rolling to petrify a PC
*Area of Effect/multiple checks: a GM may be able to roll several saves for monsters faster than a player can roll several attacks, as they know the target number i.e. the GM quickly calculates he needs a 15+ on d20 to save vs the fireball and just rolls a bunch of dice, counting how many are crispied). This can however go either way, depending on whether its the players or the monsters that dish out the most AoE effects.
*Who rolls what can have interactions with other rules, like whether a character gets to spend luck points to reroll. An amalgamated defense system sometimes gives other odd effects, like invisibility giving a wizard +2 to hit with their sleep spell (4E D&D).
*Conflation: in a defense system there is a tendency that a secondary roll to resist gets streamlined out; instead of an attack vs. AC that deals X damage and then requires a roll vs. being moved, only one roll is made. That is, two effects that should be resisted separately (by different factors) end up conflated - ‘I hit the Gargantuan monster’ and ‘I push the Gargantuan monster’ are different things, but a single roll often seems to do both, ignoring most of a critter’s modifiers against half the effect.
An interesting compromise between rolled saves and standardized defences can be reached here using the idea of a ‘Passive Defense’ vs. ‘Active Defense’. For example in Talislanta or GURPS, a character receives a passive defense vs. physical attacks they’re normally aware of, but can opt to spend an action to make a full “active defense” against them (a dice roll) to raise the difficulty to hit them.
http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/...son-rifts2.jpg
Above: the Blind Warrior Women are OK with Rifts not having Spot checks.
Noticing things in games typically uses a mix of player-driven description and rolls to notice things for tricky /in doubt situations. Perception scores may be rolled or function as some sort of target number (“Passive perception”). This is already touched on a bit in the earlier post on cutting down excessive dice rolling.
AD&D is interesting here in that while some specific situations such as “Hear noise” or finding secret doors are individually defined, it typically uses player described searching (“I look in the pocket of the cloak”, “I see if I can lift up the bottom of the chest”, etc). No general perception attribute though specific checks could cover for it when appropriate e.g. ability checks. Palladium is similar to this as well, though I believe a later supplement (Nightbane?) adds Perception rules.
Other games may have Perception attributes (/skills/derived attributes), though this can in rare cases cause more confusion than not having them; while additive systems may just use an opposed roll, roll-under mechanics can struggle with this. Jonathan Tweet discusses this in his notes on how Runequest influenced the structure of the d20 system here; http://www.jonathantweet.com/jotgamerunequest.html
(Anecdotally, I’ve found this myself not too long ago. In Cadillacs & Dinosaurs, a d10 roll-under system, we had a situation where the Observation skill had a default of zero for untrained characters regardless of attribute – a rule that easy tasks get a x2 skill multiplier wasn’t helping); this was particularly odd when someone else failed a Stealth check, requiring some pondering - requiring a roll by PCs to notice hiding NPCs means the PCs probably fail to notice them; requiring a roll by NPCs to sneak means the NPCs probably fail to sneak.).
Other perception related rules:
HERO has detailed rules that distinguish between “targeting” and “non-targeting” senses; characters can have senses beyond the usual few that count as ‘targeting’ (equal to vision) and upgrade a “non-targeting” sense to “targeting” (i.e. Daredevil radar hearing).
Some games have multiple vision types:
*AD&D has “infravision” –allowing characters to see using heat radiation – and more rarely “ultravision” which used ultraviolet radiation assumed to be common in the underdark (?), and provided vision similar to normal vision, rather than Predatorvision.
*Palladium had “night vision” (seeing in low light conditions); D&D 3.x distinguishes between “low light” vision which works as long as some light is present, and “darkvision” which just breaks the rules of physics, as well as defining "blindsight" and "blindsense".
*Shadowrun has both Low-Light and Thermographic vision.
*Dragon Warriors distinguishes four types of sight: normal vision, darkvision, gloomsight, elfsight, and panoptical vision. Creatures with darkvision (orcs for example) could see perfectly well in utter darkness but were blinded by bright daylight (the same penalty humans had in the dark). Creatures with gloomsight, such as dwarves preferred shadowy places and had a lesser penalty in either daylight or total darkness. Creatures with elfsight preferred light but had lower penalties in low-light conditions, while creatures with Panoptical vision were comfortable with any level of illumination (no bonus or penalty).
A few systems don't have any sort of crafting system. Others have skills for this, but without much development of how these are used – it remains up to GM discretion.
The normal ‘default’ system is probably making a simple skill check to construct an item, with roll determining final quality, using time and cost guidelines dependend on sort of item. Fumbles or bad results may generate a setback or ruin a product completely.
Interesting crafting systems include:
*The D&D 3.x system uses a generalized Craft system; there are many Craft skills (as many as you care to invent) which share a single generic item-building system; this was an attempt to compress what were dozens of Non Weapon Proficiencies in 2nd Ed. D&D into a single skill. Instead of detailed tables of items with time to craft, difficulty, and cost, the system derives crafting time from item cost; the base cost of an item is 1/3 the final cost in raw materials, and a Craft check generates progress in silver pieces per week; this may work for estimating a craftsman’s income, but crafting an item may require a number of checks. Math is fairly cumbersome here since progress on an item in silver pieces is calculated as [DC x roll]; item quality is fixed (a character can fail to make a thingy in the allotted time, but can’t turn out a crude item or a masterwork item accidentally. The generic time means that some items take a long time to craft and makes e.g. goldsmithing much lengthier process than iron working.
*Warhammer 2nd ed has skills for crafting but doesn’t explain how they work; they are rolled together even more than D&D3, with craft and “profession” type skills both grouped into the skill “Trade”.
*Shadowrun; in 1st edition a Craft check determines how long a task takes; divide the base time by the # successes. Time required to build an item is based off cost but with divisor varying by type of item. By 4th edition, Build/Repair evolved into an extended test (rolling and accumulating successes across several rolls).
*Alternity uses simple checks for Juryrig (temporary repair), but complex skill checks (Bill Slavicsek’s first attempt at Skill Challenges) for the Repair skill or to build items. Characters can score multiple “successes” for good rolls, up to 3 per attempt (a d20 roll under their full skill score is worth 1 success, under half score is worth 2, and one-quarter of the score is worth three successes; 3 failures or 1 critical failure botches the challenge) and up to 10+ may be needed depending on repair complexity.
*In most systems each die roll for Crafting (success or failure) takes a certain amount of time, but Burning Wheel varies this. It uses a count-successes system; proportion of necessary successes determines what happens:
0% - an apparently magnificent work [125% usual time required to create] that crumbles to junk when first used;
Under 50% - junk produced, in half the base time (throw it away)
50%: junk produced, in quarter of the base time (throw it away).
One less than needed: item that looks serviceable but fails “dramatically” at some point.
*HarnMaster crafts have a weird effect system, mostly demonstrating an interesting workaround to limitations of the core mechanic. Harn has some difficulty determining how well a character succeeds at a task; it does not use "margin of success" to determine how well a character succeeds, instead speeding up results in combat, etc. by having any roll ending in an 0 or 5 (an 05,10,15,20, etc...) be a critical success or critical failure.
Crafting uses the same system, but to go back and generate more detailed results for Crafting (i.e. higher quality items for more skilled craftspeople), it uses a "Value Enhancement table" and a "Product Quality table" which cross-reference a Skill Index (the 10s place of character skill) with a Critical Success, Normal Success, Normal Fail or Critical Fail result to give a final value or product quality. This gives slightly odd results in that (for example) a character with 60% skill (SI 6) can generate either a x4.0 (Critical Success), x2.0 (Marginal Success) or x1.0 (Marginal Failure) value enhancement, but not a 3.0.
The product quality table is similarly quirky; range of modifiers makes it quite difficult to forge a product of average (+0) quality.
*Gamma World 4th Ed (1992) has very few skills – despite my describing it as a ‘derived attribute game, each class has 3-5 unique skills - but technical skills are strongly represented, with one of only 4 classes, the Examiner dealing with ancient artifacts and getting separate skills in Jury-Rig (=building items from scrap) and Repair Artifact. The warrior class, Enforcer, also has a “Makeshift Weapons/Armour’ skill (one of their three skills). All characters also have a “Use Artifacts” derived attribute; this is used on a trippy flowchart with random rolls to determine if a character can determine what an item does, or ends up eventually at results including ‘Dangerous Event’, ‘False Function’, ‘Falls Apart’, ‘Assumed Useless’ and ‘Assumed Broken’)..
Exotic materials: Talislanta has weird materials including various colours of Adamant (alloys of steel and diamond of the appropriate colour); D&D has adamantine and mithril, as well as dragonhide, chitin, ironwood and obdurium; Shadowrun has orichalcum. One of the lengthier lists (I’ve seen anyway) is the exotic materials list of SenZar; each has its own special abilities, as well as an affinity for particular magics which reduce cost to enchant them (e.g. Supremium can receive the Bifurcation enchantment – x3 damage, deathblow cuts foe in half - at 10% of the normal cost).
Below: list of exotic weapon and armour materials and their properties from the SenZar RPG. (Arrangement of these into a periodic table is just me dicking around, not actual SenZar rules).
http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/...iodictable.jpg
“In the land of Mordor, in the fires of Mount Doom, the Dark Lord Sauron forged in secret a master ring, to control all others. And into this Ring, he poured his cruelty, his malice and his will to dominate all life.”
I was initially going to separate Crafting into just magical/non-magical, but while thinking this over realized that since some games have technological item building rules I should mention as well, so this would be something of a misgnomer.
Complex crafting may use similar rules to regular crafting, though class-based systems often relegate magic item building to particular classes rather than using skills.
Some interesting systems, in no particular order:
*1e/2e AD&D magical item construction is performed by wizards, and requires the GM to determine a list of fantastical ingredients – monster body parts and the like – which the wizard must quest for, hire adventurers to get, or buy through contacts (if available). Construction requires steps including the Enchant Item spell (6th level), a saving throw for the target item, casting of other spells (possibly requiring spell research), a Permanentcy spell (8th level, 5% chance of Constitution loss), and finally a percentage roll to see if the item works properly or is cursed. The wizard earns XP for constructing the item. Costs and processes for making an item are wholly DM-determined (though the monster manual often notes certain monsters are useful for certain things); magical items should be very rare (probably much rarer than they actually end up being in D&D games).
*Palladium Fantasy has most items constructed by NPCs called Alchemists. This again requires fantastic ingredients, but both items and ingredients have defined costs, and are bought/traded freely.
*D&D 3.x requires large gold expenditure to make an item (what this buys is undefined), as well as XP (representing “life force” of the caster). Items are in theory costed based on either [bonus-squared] or a spell level of an equivalent spell [e.g. spell level x caster level x 2000 GP], though standard items rarely follow the equation, and just have a listed construction cost and spells needed to create them. The right Feat and a minimum caster level is required to create items. Items require 1 day per 1000 GP to construct.
Broken magic items can be reforged at 1/2 cost, in a nod to fantasy literature.
*DC Heroes (3e): both technological and magical items are constructed by making checks of Gadgetry or Occultism skill vs. the number of points of the desired superpower to install this into an item. Characters must make a Resources check to buy parts, then someone (any other concerned party will do, not necessarily the builder) must spend Hero Points to actually construct an item, with a cost based on the strength of the power. Characters may get bonuses on the design by having Plans of devices (reduces task difficulty) – an interesting possible adventure hook.
DC Heroes gadgetry has been described as “resembling a Pentagon procurement scandal” (http://www.allenvarney.com/rev_02.html ); though note that (in 3rd ed. at least) Hero Point cost to build a device is much lower (perhaps a fifth or so) of adding equivalent Powers innately from Character Growth. Taking the Gadgetry advantage to initially own a Gadget is however a bad idea (same cost as just buying the powers built in, initially) unless the character has the Intensive Training advantage, which raises the cost to buy powers but cheapens skills.
*HERO purchases devices in character points, handwaving any construction or acquisition process; points are paid by the user of an item, rather than the builder (unlike in DC, you can’t beat up Batman and just use all his stuff without paying the points). Items use standard power costs, discounted by the Focus limitation to account for the possibility to removing them, and possibly other appropriate Limitations.
Savage Worlds is similar in approach to this – a character with “Weird Science” gets a new Gadget by taking the “New Power” Edge (using an item requires a “Weird Science” roll, but I’m otherwise unclear on whether you can beat up mad scientists and take their stuff).
*Tinker gnomes (1st ed. AD&D Dragonlance Adventures): a table of effects gives a base “Complexity” of an item; this also equals its base Size, except points can be exchanged between the two (i.e. making it larger makes it less complex). Exact component lists are provided including pulleys, gears, bellows, tuning forks, etc, though are mostly flavour; an item has components equal to its complexity, and base cost for each is multiplied x item Size. Build time uses a table and is based on [Size x Complexity]. Complexity score is compared to character level to see what penalty the device has to operate (to hit and damage if applicable; also, to a roll on a chart to see if it functions when used), while Size just makes the things unwieldy – gnomish inventions are often the size of a wagon and possibly as large as a mountain. A table of malfunctions is included for when an “unpredictable effect” is rolled.
The system is fairly workable (some specific effects are unbalanced) with enough flavour for the GM to make ad hoc judgments if needed.
*For magic items, GURPS has some sort of system of “energy points” and skill checks. Wizards can churn out lots of magical items given enough time, and occasionally can build items on the spot (I did like this feature - again something I've seen before in fantasy literature).
SenZar is similar to GURPs (but probably more broken); magic items have a Power Point cost and require time to make and Power rolls, but have only minor GP cost. A market value is given for finished items.
*2nd Ed AD&D psionics allowed for psionic item creation using the Empower metapsionic power; using this to create an intelligent psionic item requires only an freshly made item worth 250% to 500% of a normal item’s cost, and to pass a few power checks/spend power points, though the power takes days to use, usually fails (roll under Wis-12), and is expensive in terms of power points. The power did have a prerequisite level of 10th, and knowing it required power choices be spent to access the discipline, buy the power and prerequisite powers); still, this power lets you create intelligent warhammers that can disintegrate people for a cost of 10 GP. Items can also be given multiple powers.
*Ars Magica: interesting in that it has a currency for magic other than gold or character points, a form of magical energy called vis which is expended when constructing an item. Making an item requires a season in the lab; however, extended downtime is quite expected in Ars Magica.
General - Events
Apart from 'random encounters' focussed on monsters, or terrain-based hexmap rules, or treasure generation,games may have various forms of event randomization.
The most developed system for this may be the Mythic RPG designed as a GM 'emulator'; this has a system where a GM is replaced by common-sense question resolution tables- players choose specific questions, assign a probability, and roll. Any roll has a chance to trigger a random event (base system is d100, and doubles less than the 'chaos factor' trigger i.e. chaos factor 3 = 11,22, or 33 will trigger).
In other systems, 'Everway' cards can be used as an idea generator for the GM.
Outside RPGs, the boardgame Tales of the Arabian Nights is slightly interesting too - this uses a huge 'choose your own adventure' type book to generate events rather than using GM fiat (or player fiat as in Mythic).
Magic fumbles ('wild surges' in 2E, or original Advanced Fighting Fantasy's Oops! table) are also event generators of a sort, although very specific. Most use fixed tables of results.
"Hello Mr. Faceless Creature Of Evil. Will you be my friend?"
–Duckman
By default, most games have a single attribute for social interaction (Charisma or Appearance or similar), that skills are based off. Games may allow social skills to affect NPCs and not PCs, or PCs may be wholly player controlled.
Social rolls may usually be opposed by a target’s own Charisma, by the game’s Willpower statistic, or may have a set target number (e.g. for 3.x D&D Diplomacy checks, which tended to break since check bonuses could escalate infinitely against the set difficulties by target attitude).
Games Without Charisma
In other cases, games lack a Charisma but roll functions of it into another attribute (perhaps avoiding having a Cha so player’s can’t dump it):
*GURPS bases social skills off Intelligence (which also includes perception and willpower), and may modify the score with advantages/disadvantages.
*Savage Worlds bases Persuasion off Spirit (the willpower attribute) though it also has a derived attribute called Charisma which is the sum of persuasion modifiers due to Edges or Hindrances (default 0).
*Cortex I think probably uses Willpower (I’m judging off reading Supernatural; all the stats and skills are cross-matcheable at GM discretion, and looking at the core attribute list I’m not quite sure which they thought should be used with the Influence skill).
*Marvel Super Heroes has a Popularity rating which is used for social interactions with NPCs (not a true attribute), which for bad guys is negative (e.g. Galactus, who eats planets, has a popularity of -1000; good for intimidating people but bad for getting dates). This may rise/fall as a result of a character’s actions, or bad press (Spiderman). Being narrowly defined, this was somewhat less prone to abuse compared to the Charismas of other games. (The idea of “negative Charisma” also appears for monsters in Tunnels and Trolls). Villains and Vigilantes still has a Charisma attribute, but it may be increased by donations to charity or good deeds.
*World of Synnibarr has a reaction modifier determined by Ego (Int+Wisdom), plus a randomly-rolled personality modifier (rerolled every few levels) and appearance modifier. It also applies a modifier based on differences in alignment (aura colour).
Games Without Social Checks
In some cases, games may not use mechanical testing of Charisma or social skills – it may be up to the player to talk through any and all situations. Here playing a stinky dwarf with 8 Charisma places a roleplaying hindrance on a character (similar to playing a low Intelligence), rather than providing a penalty to dice rolls. E.g.
*older D&D leans towards this approach; though reaction rolls/Charisma checks may sometimes be used, it tends to be less common. The “Etiquette” skill of 2nd Ed. provides knowledge of customs/forms of address to assist in roleplaying, but has no direct effect.
* Dragon Warriors has a Looks attribute only (no mechanics are given to test this);
*Palladium deliberately eschews social skills. A character has Mental Affinity and Physical Beauty attributes which largely just provide only a guideline on how to roleplay the character; if quite high (>15) a rating gives a “%trust/intimidate” or “% charm/impress” value. (For some further discussion on social skill overuse and Palladium see the RPGPundit thread here: http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=20381 )
*Possibly Amber also falls into this category (?)
Games With Multiple Social Attributes
*a number of games have separate physical appearance and mental Charisma stats (Palladium, Kult). The Storyteller system has separate scores for Appearance, Charisma and Manipulation, each used in different circumstances.
*Amazing Engine has separate attributes for Charm and Position (social status).
*DC Heroes has three stats, used simultaneously for social rolls. Influence determines how high a roll is needed to affect a target, Aura determines how much effect a character gets if they do succeed (in result points), and target Spirit resists. A few special social interactions use other stats e.g. Force (Str), Weardown (Will) and Bluff (Int).
*Harnmaster has various very specific stats including separate Comeliness and Voice attributes and a spiritual “Aura”; social skills (on d%) are each modified for 3 different stats e.g. Acting = Voice/Agility/Intelligence, Languages and Rhetoric are Voice/Int/Will, and Singing is Voice/Voice/Hearing.
*The Demonspawn gamebooks have separate scores for Charm or same-sex charisma, and Attraction, or appeal to the opposite sex (the weird thing about those stats in the books were that both attributes added to Life Points i.e. helped absorb damage; Life Points equalled the total of all the characters 8 or so more-or-less percentile [2d6x8] attributes, giving PCs hundreds of LPs).
Other elaborations
*Dying Earth has no attributes, but Persuasion and Rebuff appear as (mandatory) skills. Each of these has a default “Style” which may be rolled for bonus points or selected: Persuade styles are Glib, Eloquent, Obfuscatory, Forthright, Charming, and Intimidating, while Rebuff styles are Obtuse, Wary, Penetrating, Lawyerly, Contrary and Pure-Hearted. Each style is “trumped” by one opposing style, giving it a penalty e.g. Obtuse trumps Glib (they can’t follow what’s being said) but is trumped by Intimidating, or Eloquent trumps Contrary but is trumped by Wary. (see quick start rules: http://www.dyingearth.com/downloads.htm )
*Indie game Dogs In The Vineyard is a system designed primarily around a social conflict mechanic. Combats escalate from social to physical; dice are rolled initially then act as a resource during a conflict; a character puts forward dice, with the opponent having to match the roll. A character failing social conflict can “escalate” the conflict, rolling extra dice for weapons/physical stats to continue the exchange. Character relationships are worth extra dice.
*Exalted has a fairly detailed social combat system including various “Charms” with social effects – many of these very strong. Existence of these may give PCs an incentive to avoiding talking to NPCs, to prevent them being owned immediately.
* The Soothsayer RPG has a single Personality (i.e. Cha) rating which also determines points to spend across five personality ratings scored 1-10 (Conscience, Culture, Humanity, Spirit, and Temperament).
*Pendragon has a system of Passions (personality traits) rated 1-20 which influence character behaviour. Potentially these model a character’s behaviour and thus their resistance to certain social attacks much more accurately than would a simple Willpower roll or the like e.g. Seduction might actually involve a check against Chaste/Lustful, or Intimidation a check vs. Valorous/Cowardly.
Equipment is purchased in two or three main ways:
*Defined currency and expenses: e.g. you get 10 gold pieces; at the inn you spend 3 gold pieces, leaving you with 7 gold pieces. Even in these systems, minor expenses are sometimes assumed to be part of general living expenses, with a character’s living standard deducting a certain number of gold pieces.
*Abstract Resource ratings e.g. you have a Resources of two dots, which gives you a OK house/car/etc and an approximate salary. Some games like this rely on fiat to function, while others may list appropriate items for a given resource level, or a check may be made to purchase an item; a character may have a limited # of checks allowed per week or month. Storyteller, DC Heroes, Marvel Super Heroes all have various Resources/Wealth systems that work like this; Call of Cthulhu includes a “credit rating” skill.
The abstract method cuts down on book keeping, but works best where a characters income is generated off-camera i.e. where characters work in a secret identity or have investment funds. It is nonideal for games where a primary objective of adventuring is to earn cash/treasure, e.g. D&D or Cyberpunk.
While it simplifies bookkeeping, systems such as this are also more prone to theoretical breakage e.g. D20 modern's system lets you buy and sell items to potentially increase your Wealth rating, as well as providing potentially unlimited supplies of useful mundane items (such as medikits in Gamma World 5th edition).
*Some games are almost a hybrid of these two; characters may have a Resources rating which gives characters an income that they spend to purchase items (GURPS ?). i.e. no resources check system governs what is purchasable, so that conversion to a cash value is necessary anyway.
*Character Points: Also as mentioned earlier, some games primarily use character points to purchase important equipment, based on utility. The old joke goes that for Hero a towel might count as power, built as ...
Towel : Transform 1d6 minor (10) wet object to dry, OAF (-1), Extra Time/ Full Phase (-1/2), 2 Recoverable Charges (before towel gets soaked, recover by wringing, -1), No Range (-1/2); Real Cost: 2 points
(Note that Hero does include a disclaimer that very basic equipment should not be assessed a point cost).
Elaborations/Variants
*As well as cost, items may have other limiting factors, e.g. “Availability codes” determining if they are legal/illegal. Other games may define regional availability i.e. % availability in a small village vs. a city or castle (Dragon Warriors does this as a percentage; 3.x D&D handles it via a “gold piece limit” by community size)
*In Ninjas & Superspies or StarCluster, available equipment depends on the sponsoring organization, possibly built by the GM and/or players using points
*some games reset character wealth between adventures (Barbarians of Lemuria ? ) – emulation of the genre where Conan wins a small fortune then spends it on wenching and debauchery before the next adventure.
*In powers-based systems, resources rating could potentially be modified using power advantages/disadvantage rules, to give an interesting range of effects (characters who must pass a skill check each month to earn their income, who have a variable income month-to-month, are paid in random items by the black market, and so on.
*D&D 3.x treats cash as a “stock” rather than a “flow” – it is assumed characters will stockpile all their treasure from killing monsters and convert it to magic items, with only small amounts used on consumables. A given number of encounters are required to gain a level, and approximate cash value is known for each encounter, making it possible to estimate the expected wealth of a character of a given level. The model does not however take into account the likely sales of randomly-found treasures to get other more suitable treasure; this would result in replacement characters having up to double the number of items of characters actually played from 1st level, if anyone particularly followed the wealth-by-level guidelines. Additionally, NPCs are much poorer than PCs (their treasure is fudged up to 3x that of a normal single encounter of their level).
*Some games have certain equipment limited by merits/flaws or archetypes. This sort of idea can work in a short-lived/ 1-shot game, but in longer games causes problems because other characters may gain these items without point expenditure. The Ars Magica character with the merit “superior equipment of faerie iron” may be outdated by another character finding this, or they may just die accidentally and their items end up owned by another PC. In some SF games, complications arise due to even super powers (Synnibarr) or skills (e.g. Cyberpunk skill chips) being purchaseable with cash.
Similar problems also occur with characters whose main ability is being rich (e.g. the slug-like Quan Nobles in Talislanta).
Characters sometimes purchase wealth/equipment with “background” points (Storyteller) which may be used for various things such as Resources, Mentors, Allies and equipment; this sort of system is relatively fair since any of these backgrounds are equally mutable and could be gained or lost through roleplaying, rather than using the same pool of “character points” as other character abilities.
*some games may have very strange economies where currency is limitedly applicable. A Stone Age game might just use the barter system, if there’s anything worth buying – an assuming characters don’t just take what they want; the “Sufficiently Advanced” RPG assumes a post-scarcity society where information is the only currency. The Slaine d20 supplement (IIRC) uses a traditional Celtic economy which establishes prices in terms of female slaves and cows.
*a few games or supplements may have gone beyond basic equipment and into trying to design a detailed economy e.g. Board Enterprises’ supplements on their worlds’ currency (Coins of Fletnern, a free supplement at drivethrurpg – very detailed) and economy (Grain into Gold, which I haven’t read).
(Also, sorry, this probably belongs earlier in the thread but oh well).
The range of attribute scores depends mainly on the core mechanic of the system. Attribute scores are normally designed with the player characters in mind – scores are largely used to differentiate between the PCs and equivalent foes, so typically operate at a human scale.
It is possible that a game will include a wider variety of opponents – much stronger or weaker than the PCs – or that a game may be written as a “Physics engine”, in which case the game is designed to accommodate not just human battles but other cases. Depending on gaming style, this sort of thing may rarely come up and be determined by GM fiat or similar when it does (flip a coin or assign a percentage to determine which rooster wins in the cock fight, or which god wins in the God War), but edge cases may appear where something is critical, or a game setting will make such comparisons necessary.
Occasionally systems don’t quite manage to deal with all the things they probably should: Cadillacs & Dinosaurs for instance has a 1-10 STR scale for humans (inherited from military game Twilight:2000) but doesn’t assign Str to any of the larger dinosaurs, since humans can’t grapple tyrannosaurs. As a consequence, dinosaur-vs-dinosaur (or dinosaur-vs-vehicle) grappling isn’t covered by the rules; this sort of thing is wholly up to GM fiat.
Games that do give everything stats, may not always work quite as hoped. Dice Pool systems in particular scale badly since the pools become unwieldy, hit point vs. damage may not always work at the lower end of the scale (D&D housecat vs. wizard), or Strength modifier may be out of whack with lifting capacity, giving tiny creatures a suspiciously high chance to perform some feat of strength.
Approaches to having a system work at different scales include:
*Attribute categories: Bunnies and Burrows (the Watership Down RPG which has PC rabbits) has stats with not just a number but also a category for different creatures (e.g. rabbits, horses and humans all belong to different categories for Str). FUDGE (written by the author of the GURPS adaptation of Bunnies & Burrows) includes a concept of “Scale” which is similar; this has multiple categories, and allows comparison of numbers across different categories.
In similar approaches, Savage Worlds gives animals intelligence ('Smarts') rated the same as humans i.e. d4 to d10 or more, with the note that this is [Animal] intelligence; this both prevents animals dropping below the d4 minimum that works in the system, and makes animals reasonably good at resisting Smarts 'tricks' in combat; it requires some interpretation by the GM as to what the limitations of animal intelligence are, but avoids complex patchfixing like 3Es bluff penalties vs. animals, and lets Notice be Smarts based without animals becoming incompetent at perception checks.
*Ranks: sort of relatedly, a system can use numbers for normal scores and descriptive ranks outside this. Amber uses a numerical scale for Amberites, who are superhuman, but rank descriptions for weaker characters (who may be “Chaos Rank” or the pitiful “Human Rank”). A similar idea might be applied in reverse for huge attributes, e.g. dinosaurs could have various ranks of Super-Strength instead of a numerical score like humans.
*Moderating scores (e.g. using divisors): JAGS and Forgotten Futures are two examples; both use roll-under, but in an opposing contest if both values are very high, they are divided to get a value with a chance of failure. JAGS uses a table for determining the divisor (i.e. if both are 21+, divide by 2) ; there are significant shifts whenever the divisor changes; Forgotten Futures is arbitrary (the GM sets whatever divisor he feels is appropriate to reduce both scores back to 12 or less (2d6 roll under system).
GURPS has "contests of ST for Very Weak/Strong creatures" rules; if both targets have Str <6 or >20, the weaker value is set to 10 and the higher value is scaled proportionally (x 10/lower ST) e.g. a contest between Str 50 and Str 60 is resolved as 10 vs. 12. This is fairly good, though again note breakpoints.
*Open-ended attribute scale: A core mechanic may be designed expressly so that most things fit on the single attribute scale; a game can use an additive system where scores have an ever-increasing (logarithmic) value, a table for comparing massive linear values that has built in diminishing returns (Marvel Super Heroes), a ‘floating die’ system or a multiplicative system (e.g. see post #25 in this thread).
*Miscellenous special abilities may be used represent a being that goes beyond the normal scale. Dragon Warriors has creatures that get +3 bonuses to damage from Strength (such as golems), even though a 19+ score is normally maxed out at +2 bonus to damage; AD&D has a ceiling of 25 Strength but notes some deities and the like had extraordinary lifting capacity etc beyond the usual limits (Atlas and Magni have strength of 25 [special] and can lift anything; Thor has a strength of 25 [special] and gets a damage modifier of +16 from Strength instead of the usual +14).
Mayor: Er, Master Betty, what is the Evil Councils’ plan?
Master Betty: Nyah. Haha. It is EVIL, it is so EVIL. It is a bad, bad plan, which will hurt many... people... who are good. I think its great that its so bad.
-Kung Pow; Enter The Fist
Many game systems may some attempt to control (or at least describe) the moral behaviour of PCs.
These may be just good or evil – either a description or a number which quantifies this more precisely – or characters may have more complex restrictions/motivations. Games may also have specific alignment rewards/punishments hard-coded into the rules (e.g. Marvel Super Heroes).
The traditional alignment system as seen in D&D gives a method categorizing characters depending on whether they’re the good guys or the bad guys. The alignments give a loose description of NPC behaviour, and limit PC behaviour by threatening them with an experience point penalty if they do not conform (“You can’t do that, you’re lawful good”). In some respects this can be seen as preventing characters from behaving inconsistently, but in other circumstances, this may be punishing characters for actual character development. Alignment is also subject to alot of interpretation as to what constitutes “good” vs. “evil” and when characters crossed the line, as well as generating simplistic conflicts (the paladin is forced to choose between Law and Good). Interpreted overly rigidly, it can create characters that are caricatures of their alignment (e.g. evil creatures with no human relationships or feelings).
Different versions of D&D have had a nine-alignment system (an “ethical” axis of Lawful/Chaotic and a “moral” axis of Good/Evil), a three-alignment system (Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic), or a five alignment system (4E D&D; Lawful, Good, Unaligned, Evil, Chaotic Evil); Warhammer also has similar alignments.
Variant rules within D&D included:
Closely related to D&D, Palladium uses an alignment variant which removes neutrals and defines exactly how characters behave (i.e. will/wont betray a friend, kill, steal, or attack an unarmed foe); which at least cuts down on arguments over whether paladins killing baby orcs is good or not. The Palladium alignments included Principled (LG), Scrupulous (CG), Unprincipled (N ?), Anarchist (CN), Miscreant (NE), Aberrant (LE), and Diabolic (CE). Mystic China also includes a “Taoist” alignment.
A couple of other games also included descriptive alignment systems e.g. DC Heroes defined a list of “Motivations” for characters which described a sort of personality seed for a character and how they would act in most circumstances. These included Upholding the Good (Superman), Seeking Justice (Batman), Responsibility of Power (Green Lantern), Unwanted Power (Cyborg), Thrill of Adventure (Changeling) , and for bad guys Mercenary, Nihilist, Power Lust, Psychopath (the Joker), and Thrill Seeker.
Omnifray has a "spiritual status" system that describes souls as being either Primordial (pagan), Redeemed (belonging to the angels), Excommunicated (cast out from redeemed status), Fallen (spirit belongs to lower powers) and Unbidden (mystical).
As well as the description-based alignment systems, a number of games use use numbers to define how good/evil characters are: In Kirk’s analysis of RPG design work linked earlier, these are described as the “Idiom” pattern. This gives a number that’s rollable against for some sort of check, and can be adjusted up/down more easily for PC behaviour. These systems may be less descriptive of NPC behaviour.
Marvel Super Heroes mandates a specific code of conduct for all heroes, in accordance with Silver Age comic book codes; characters suffered loss of “Karma points” for behaving unheroically e.g. killing people rather than subduing them. Villains had a different code of conduct which gave them karma for upholding genre conventions e.g. leaving PCs in death traps with one inept guard. This in effect gave a two-alignment system, though players were always “Good guys”; rough types such as Wolverine or the Punisher just had to live with less points than other characters.
The following is a bit out of order again, sorry...
Skill-based games: these may have a single "Melee" or "Fighting" type skill for all melee weapons, or different skills for multiple weapons.
That latter is perhaps more realistic; it removes the ability of the high-level D&D fighter to just pick up a lead pipe and beat you to death with it.
HarnMaster "opens" new weapon skills at a higher default (multiple of the skill base) for experienced characters, but this is still a fairly limited benefit. LegendQuest as noted earlier in skills, has variable-breadth skills which let a character buy either general "melee" skill levels, or specific weapon skills.
Even games with a single "Melee" type skill may allow "skill specializations" or the like with specific weapons; these may be a specific form of skill or purchaseable as an advantage/disadvantage.
Fantasy RPGs usually have magical weapons which appear, which might be randomly generated or placed as fits the GMs conception of their world. Weapon proficiency systems are one factor to consider when determining how available magic items are; if the two aren't compatible you may get either of the following
a) a magical sword etc. goes to the character (/party)O, but is considered by them to be trash because they can't use it.
b) a magical sword etc. goes to a character which is a benefit to them, but which prevents a character using a number of their abilities (feats, etc).
Ability to create magical weapons can prevent proficiency/weapon mismatches. However ability to e.g. produce a +3 bastard sword from nowhere is of limited use if one was going to appear in game anyway.
Skill based games with multiple combat skills may have a "use it and it improves" diminishing returns improvement system (e.g. Runequest); therefore unlike some level-based or point-based games characters aren't permanently behind in the long term if they change weapons due to a new item dropping.
Feats: D&D 3.x "feat" system means optimal use of a weapon may requires not just proficiency but also one or more feats; any ranged attacks require Point blank Shot/Precise Shot, reach weapons improve in usefulness with Combat Reflexes, greatswords require Power Attack, quarterstaffs or the various "double" weapons require Two Weapon Fighting, multiple thrown attacks requires Quick Draw, and so on. A warriors' feat choices lock him in to one or a few weapons even though they are theoretically proficient in all martial weapons, even without a character taking weapon-specific feats such as Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, or Improved Critical.
A character has set resources based on their level, so a character who changes weapons (i.e. who takes Weapon Focus: longword then gets a magic scimitar thats better) is permanently behind an appropriately equipped/constructed character. Consequently, the system is designed to allow PCs to dump magical trash at the item mart for conversion into something useful.
(Note that even a complex feat system can support characters Compare this with say 2nd edition (where a character could pick up a new weapon profiency every 3 levels or so and so learn to use new items, or SenZar, where characters but can learn a new weapon in just days of training, with no xp cost/feat cost. However, even a complex feat system could support characters who know multiple weapons; this just requires characters get enough feats to allow a range of them, feats designed to work with various weapons, or splat bloat not continually expanding lists of add-on abilities for particular weapons)
Calculating weapon proficiency bonuses:
4Es defense system does simplify (and balance) 'touch attacks' compared to 3Es system, but not particularly better than most alternative armour methods (i.e. armour as damage reduction, or a separate bypass roll). As implemented it results in martial powers - which add weapon proficiency bonus - having quite high chance to hit against non-armour defense.
Strength Minimums
*a little off topic (but this doesn't really deserve a full topic of its own; some systems have Strength minimums for different weapons -
Tunnels & Trolls and GURPS are two examples. D&D 3E imposes Str minimums for purchasing some particular weapon proficiencies (i.e Bastard Sword and Dwarven Waraxe) although characters can use these two-handed without the proficiency.
It also has 'composite longbows' which have varying minimum Strength, although the modifier varies only how much of a character's normal Str-modifier applies to damage; 4E dropped this when it adjusted bows to add DEX mod rather than STR mod to damage, despite bows with different 'pulls' being a thing in reality.
Strength minimums can be annoying in that they limit character's available weapon proficiencies; if a character can increase their STR via levelling up or magic, they also end up changing optimum weapons, possibly magical previous weapon proficiencies or magical items redundant.
Other elaborations
*Lord Vreeg's Celtricia game has separate STR/DEX requirements depending on whether a weapon is one-handed or two-handed.
*A Strength minimum system might replace 1-handed or 2-handed weapon rules, or awkward weapon sizing rules: a character can use whatever weapons their total Strength permits, though this requires Strength follow an appropriate range (i.e. haflings actually have to be substantially weaker than humans). Damage directly proportional to Strength-required can also balance two-handed weapons vs. two-weapon-fighting i.e. the Strength 15 character might be able to use a Strength required 15 weapon (a greatsword) in two hands for 3d6 damage, or a Str-required 10 longsword (2d6 damage) + a Str-required 5 shortsword (d6 damage).
*Cadillacs & Dinosaurs has a Str-based recoil system for firearms where a character multiples [recoil factor of weapon x number of bursts fired] and, if this exceeds their Strength, the amount over reduces to-hit target numbers (or total dice rolled for automatic weapons fire).
This is the first of a few posts on super powers/character power types; this should end up including psionics, magic (divine or arcane), mutation-based super powers and possibly “Chi” martial abilities.
This post deals with generic "super powers" e.g. of the comic book variety, which I'm calling the "mutation" power type. This is the sort of abilities seen in e.g. mutants like the X-men; Gamma World type mutant characters function IMHO similarly.
Defining Characteristics
A mutant (or superhero), in contrast to other power types (particularly magic) generally has only a few abilities, but these can be very powerful. Depending on system, mutant powers may have a limited number of “power points” or may be unlimited use. Power points can tie into an attribute used by normal people if imagined as being ‘fatigue’ (e.g. Hero System’s Endurance, Villains & Vigilantes Power) or may use some alternative pool of “super power energy” that is zero for non-mutant characters (e.g. Aberrants’ ‘quantum pool’, calculated from their Quantum attribute; Savage Worlds' power points). Characters may sometimes be allowed to burn Hit Points or Con Points for extra power points.
Mutant powers may improve with experience, either with all powers having level-based effects (Palladium), or with individual powers having ratings that can be raised by spending XP. Powers may require some sort of activation roll, or function automatically – usually powers are automatic. Mutant abilities can include super attributes, particularly super-strength.
In a few games, super powers may be the only power type: this includes mutant heavy games such as Gamma World, or Aberrant where a default super type are "novas", evolved humans.
In other games a single super powers system may be used for various other power types beyond mutations, potentially including e.g. gadgetry, psionics, or even magic; systems with this setup include Savage Worlds, Hero, and Mutants & Masterminds. In some cases there may still be distinct limitations/advantages for a power being e.g. psionic or magical in nature (e.g. Savage Worlds’ multiple Arcane, Divine, Weird Science and “Super Power” background edges), while in others this is purely flavour (Mutants & Masterminds), at least barring other characters having powers designed to tag from that.
Rating Powers
Methods for determining how strong powers are include:
a) Fixed effects depending on character level (Palladium).
b) Individually defined power ratings (Marvel Super Heroes; 4th edition (1992) Gamma World). MSH randomly rolls power ratings on the same scale as attribute scores, which is often convenient; Powers range from Feeble (2) to Unearthly (100) and beyond; Savage Worlds’ “Super Power” arcane background edge lets characters buy a power as a skill. The 1st ed. of Mutants & Masterminds bought powers as skills as well (level-based ratings) though I’d thought at the time an attribute-based model for powers might work better.
c) Power working with an ability check (i.e. 7th Edition Gamma World, a variant of 4E D&D)
d) Some powers may be binary – you have the power or you don’t.
Including attribute modifier in a power formula has an unbalancing effect by increasing the importance of that attribute for a character. Generally skills are useable untrained, so that attributes can be important on skill checks whether these are learned or not, but a character who gets several unique CON-based Powers will have their CON become more important, though its cost is unchanged.
(Buying abilities separately, but up to a cap determined by attribute, mitigates this, e.g. Linking in DC Heroes).
As an example Aberrant has powers which are rated from 1 to 5, but a normal check is [attribute dice+power dice] - similar to how skills operate in its parent Storyteller system. However, for standard power activation checks attributes and “Mega Attributes” were more important that power rating, though some things (such as damage dice) depended solely on power rating. This caused power rating to be very important for some powers (Energy Blast), and not worth increasing with others, even though both had the same per-point cost. Advantages also increased the cost per point of power rating, so these were more affordable at lower power ratings.
Separate power ratings also decrease overall impact of high attributes on the game (good for game balance), reduces racial typecasting (i.e. all of race X are good with power Y).
Power Determination
Powers might be determined by random roll or be point-based.
Pros/Cons of random rolling:
*faster character generation
*does feels appropriate (IMHO) for Gamma World type games.
*doesn’t allow players to build specific concepts
*possibly unfair. A random system might just randomly determine which powers a character gets (which may be OK if the designer has designed an array of fairly useful powers; possibly separating them into “major” and “minor” lists before rolling), but if a random roll also determines how much of each power (i.e. +d4 extra arms), hopeless or overpowered characters may be possible.
In purchase systems Limitations to powers frequently have a cost per point (Hero, DC Heroes), though this makes accounting more complex. As noted previously under advantages/disadvantages) Hero distinguishes between adjustments applied per point and “adders” (which have a base cost). Systems may also have varying costs for powers depending on how powerful they are. MSH lets characters raise a score one "rank" by choosing a limitation, even though it generates powers randomly; this provides an erratic increase in rating, due to the way rank numbers increase (2/4/6/10/20/30/40/50/75/100), though allowed limitations also change between ranks.
Power Design
Evolution in design of power lists has tended toward more flexible, generic powers. A game might have separate mutations for “Radiating Eyes” (bolts of radiation from eyes), “Hands of Power” (bolt of energy from hands) and “mental blast” (telepathic attack), or these could be covered by a single “Energy Blast” type power. More broadly, a single damage power might include a variety of attacks.
Broader powers work better where power advantages or limitations can be applied to better adjust exactly what a power does, or where there is a loose rule framework that allows reasonable interpretation (Savage Worlds would let you get away with saying your Bolt is “fire” and having reasonable effects; in HERO you may need to define detailed advantages/disadvantages for “continuing to burn” or “doesn’t work underwater” if you want those things).
Unusual uses of Powers
PCs occasionally attempt to use powers in unusual ways or beyond their nominal limits.
Hero has a power use skill which can be rolled against for unusual situations - Superman crushing coal into diamonds, or frying an opponent you can't hurt with your Jet Boots (which are actually the Flight power). However, using a given trick more than once requires permanent point expenditure to buy whatever power is being copied.
MSH has Power Stunts which can be learned; each attempt to use a stunt you don't have costs a considerable number of Karma points (which are both 'safety valve' points and an advancement currency), and requires a power roll at Red (most difficult) intensity. 3 successful attempts adds a Stunt to the characters' capabilities permanently, for free use thereafter. This is one of the only instances where using advancement currency to boost die rolls works well, IMHO; in any case I find this slightly more logical than the Hero approach, and it gives away no freebies.
DC Heroes doesn't have unusual situation power use rules, but does allow expenditure of Hero Points to temporarily increase ratings to increase areas/durations/etc ('Pushing'). Potentially a character could buy a low rating in a new power on the spot (with GM permission) and immediately Push it for greater effect, but the point costs involved would be quite high.
Aberrant allows temporary duplication of some advantages on powers with a Quantum roll ('maxing' a power). This costs power points and botching a roll results in a character gaining Taint, a somewhat bad thing since this permanent gain gives a character physical and mental aberrations.
On the feats: Feats in D20 System derivative games can be used to buy some abilities that look like powers, and some abilities that aren't.
I guess powers in 4E (or 7E Gamma World) also are also bit super-ish (Fighter 2 utility "Regeneration" comes to mind); but from what I know I think 4E feats are generally more limited than 3.x feats and usually just give minor damage and save boosts and the like. There may be some by now that let you do stuff like you used to be able to do in 3.x – aasimar shooting Searing Light from their eyes, Fire Resistance, Draconic Wings, etc.
A 'tree' structure (feat chain) isn't often used for super powers since supers tend to start out with most of their powers; its easier to just make more powerful abilities cost more. There are 3.x power-type feats that work like this, but I think this is largely due to powers being shoehorned into the existing structure perhaps originally meant to prevent fighters getting stuff like Manyshot or Whirlwind Attack at 1st level.
Though come to think of it Vampire Disciplines are sort of super-power ish as well, and also something like feat trees in practice (buying each new dot adds an all-new ability). This has the added advantage over a feat tree that you have a number (the Discipline rating) which can be rolled for checks if needed.
With regard to whether feat trees are themselves a good idea, there’s a Frank Trollman piece here that’s of interest (the “Failure of Feats” bit about a third of the way day): this basically points out that in D&D switching feat chains means your high-level character is now getting a 1st-level appropriate feat; his solution to that to remove trap options was the multi-functional scaling Tome feats.
http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=33294&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=2
The following is a quickie basic super powers list, with some general notes.
The same powers list might basically apply to spells, psionics or other power design, as well as mutant powers. These are fairly generic powers; subvariations are listed after the semicolon. Other specific powers may be combinations or flavourings of these. I doubt this is exhaustive, though I’ve looked through a few systems to compile it.
Aid: assist ally (roll or statistic). May also be represented as another power with a "useable on others" type advantage.
Absorption/Armour/Damage resistance- absorb damage or effect. Psychic shield or other 'armour' powers (social armour? resistance to knockback? etc?) may use same system as regular armour. This might also be a subtype of Power Resistance, to the "Damage" power.
Afflict e.g. Disorient, Stun, Curse, Devolution, etc. This might apply a defined "condition" like weakened/dazed, or it might give a target a Disadvantage, with these largely replacing conditions.
Animal/Plant Control; speak to animals/plants
Astral Projection; more likely a magic or psi power.
Bestow Power to others (e.g. “grant mutation, psionic "Psychic Surgery"). Needs tight controls on use.
Clone - create duplicates of character.
Computer Interface
Damage: Claws, Disintegrate, Bolt, Mental Blast, Poison, Weapon, Immolation (damage aura), Breath Weapon
May include damage to non-HP e.g. attributes or mental HPs, or this may be a separate power.
Darkness Generation; Fog, "darkness" to alternate sensory types.
Density Control; may (or not) be taken as "always on" for very heavy characters.
Dimensional Travel
Divination: e.g. Psychometry (generally a psi power), Scrying
Duality/Schizm: additional mental actions
Duo-Dimensionality
Elasticity
Energy Control: one energy type
Enhanced Memory/Total Recall
Enhanced Senses: Darkvision, Infravision, UV Vision, Radar, Sonar, Hgt. Smell/Taste, hgt. hearing, Telescopic/Microscopic vision, Directional hearing, hypersensitive touch, x-ray vision. May give vulnerabilities to sensory attacks.
Environmental Adaptation; water breathing, vacuum, temperature adaptation
Extended Lifespan
Extra Body Parts; e.g. Extra Limbs, redundant internal organs; this power may also be represented by taking other powers (e.g. multiple actions or extra HPs) and flavouring it appropriately
Detection: various e.g. Life, particular power category, particular Power, weakness detection
Flash: deactivates target senses
Flight: Floating Disk; Levitation, gliding (winged may be a disadvantage; body part as power focus).
Force Field
Healing: Resurrection, Damage Transfer. Regeneration may be form of healing applicable to self, but is more likely to be an ongoing power. Healing usually has firm limits regardless of whether most powers are unlimited use.
Independent Body Parts - separate body parts to act independently; Swarm
Internal Dimension
Illusion Generation
Immobilize; Stun Ray, Web, Entangle, etc.
Intangibility; Gaseous Form; Permeation (e.g. "Meld into stone")
Invisibility
Kinetic control: Telekinesis, Gravity Control; Magnetic Control may be TK with limitation "metal only".
Light Generation
Luck: (adjust dice rolls). May be an attribute in some systems rather than a power.
Matter Creation
Metempsychosis (Personality Transfer)
Mind Control: Hypnosis, Domination, Pheromones, Emotion Control
Movement (other): Climbing, Jumping, Water Walking, digging
Multiple Lives; may be variant of Healing (Resurrection) with target: self.
Negate Super Powers
Omni-power: duplicate various powers, usually at additional cost. Selection of multiple powers may be limited i.e. a "power framework". Shapeshift may be a specific example of this.
Premonition
Power Resistance: e.g. specific power (Poison Immunity, Illusion Immunity (true seeing).
Power Reflection: (specific power, powers generally)
Power Vampirism/Transferral
Regeneration
Shapeshift
Shield
Size Control: (grow, shrink) - may be super-attribute if game has Size score.
Skill Boost; super linguistics, Mechanical/Economic/etc. genius
Sound Imitation
Summon
Suspended Animation
Sustenance: eat anything, solar sustenance (as plant), reduced needs.
Super-Attribute
Super-Speed: in games with a SPD attribute, may just be a super-attribute
Telepathy/Empathy
Time Travel/Time Control: will probably destroy your campaign. Oh well.
Transform (creatures)
Transmutation; change state or condition of matter
Travel: Teleport, Warp, Teleport Object, Dream Travel
Voodoo (zombies)
Weather Manipulation
Note: Random roll mutation systems may include "defects" which are included on the mutation tables to be accidentally rolled instead of a beneficial mutation (e.g. Gamma World through to 6E).
Here I'm discussing the idea of limitations or advantages that modify specific powers.
These can be subsets of a general advantage/disadvantage system used by characters, or this may be a specific subsystem just for powers. (Some of this is applicable to general advantage/disadvantage systems).
Variables in properly costing a limitation are:
Severity is somewhat circumstance-dependent; indeed there may be situations where a disadvantage becomes beneficial. "Energy blast affects only mutants" is helpful when you're trying to hit a mutant who is grappling your girlfriend to carry her off, even though it means that later on, the robots in the wastes won't be affected. "Requires oxygen" in a blast type power might logically be used to suffocate opponents in close confines.
Frequency of a limitation occurring is somewhat campaign-dependent, but designers frequently assume a likelihood and use this to preset different discounts for different disadvantages, based more or less on the first two factors; potentially a GM can adjust costs if they really need to (i.e. "only useable underwater" in an aquatic game).
The third factor (strength of powers) may be inapplicable depending on the system - e.g. if powers have no individual ratings i.e. are just level-based or use ability checks. Its more often not bothered with. Note that if a disadvantage has a proportional benefit, characters with high power ratings are compensated for taking it more fairly. On the other hand, if a disadvantage has a fixed benefit, characters should probably not cripple their strongest power; flaws in such power systems occasionally give away weak powers for free.
Most existing systems consider only some of these, sometimes none of them - a trade-off between complexity and game balance.
From simplest to most complex, more or less:
Now a question I don't have an answer to: Disadvantage systems may encounter a sort of philosophical problem in design; how much is something a Disadvantage that the players should buy, and how much should be hard-coded into the rules itself? Should constructs be immune to death ray because they have a power that gives them resistance to it (costing them points), or should I logically have to buy a Disadvantage so it doesn't work on them (giving me points)? Should water have Resistance (fire) or should my fire blast have the disadvantage "doesn't work underwater?"
Also, below is a partial list of Advantages/Disadvantages (one list since many are reversible; likely to be expanded later).
Armour Piercing/Low Penetration -requires system to be able to adjust armour penetration, or gets messy
Counter [specific attack advantage] i.e. Impervious (ignores armour piercing) -may be costed as cheaper than equivalent attack advantage; difficult for defenders to optimize all defenses.
Ignore defender resistance i.e. no saving throw, Aggravated damage - generally unbalanced
Secondary Effect e.g. condition applied as well as damage
Quicken/Slow -if extra attack becomes a "free action" to use.
Additional Roll Required to function (Disadvantage) e.g. skill check (this is a poor balancing mechanism with variable cost disadvantages, since this will have little effect if other score is high; it may work somewhat for fixed-cost disadvantages as can be balanced for a worst-case scenario i.e. maxed out skill).
High Damage/ Low Damage - poorly designed advantage usually; often the main benefit of rating increase is extra damage making this is a min/max dodge.
Burning (Continuing Damage)
Area Clearly an advantage, though if can't be turned off it has its downsides.
Reduced Power Point Cost / Increased Power Point Cost
No Range/Extra Range
Limited to specific body part: e.g. defensive power limited to one hit location.
Useable Less Often (e.g. daily or even once-only). (variant of reduced power point cost)
Always On/Uncontrolled Power -mixed benefits/penalties; may be either an advantage or disadvantage.
Extra fumble effect (usually poorly balanced as a variable cost disadvantage, although "friendly fire" damage becomes worse as damage values increases)
Increased/decreased maximum value - decreased value generally a poor balancer - you wouldn't have raised it above the threshold anyway. Increase may be OK, but deliberately leads to "all eggs in one basket" characters.
Focus (Item) - an advantage for generic supers powers. Potentially leads to complications like having some dude stealing your powersuit, so this disadvantage might theoretically lead to other people getting free powers, if not carefully considered. See Tech discussions earlier. A similar disadvantage might be use to require focus "body part" for a power e.g. winged flight might give a character a Focus, since their Flight power could be damaged by called shots.
Usage Limitation (i.e. doesn't work against yellow objects, works only in a specific case) - good for creating more specific powers out of general powers e.g. a generic super-attribute power could be customized to represent anything from dwarf stability (+4 Strength applicable against being moved only) and poison resistance (+4 Con for checks against poison) to . This sort of disadvantage requires fine judgment of how often specific situations arise in costing.
Powered by X: has particularly variable (by campaign conditions) circumstantial effectiveness.
Code of Conduct: perhaps a good one for replicating Silver age type supers, and keeping PCs on the straight-and-narrow.
Linked: value of power must equal controlling attribute. Makes raising powers more difficult, adds attribute-dependence without adding extra value to attribute score for characters who don't have the power.
Random: power is generated randomly.
Psionics (mental powers) tends to be less spectacular than magic, fitting into a sort of mythology of the paranormal IRL. Characters tend to have only one or a few psionic powers, as compared to magic where characters may know dozens of spells. It is typically imagined as being rare, and may be unreliable to use.
While often seen as more of an SF thing, AD&D had it (one of lots of extra details to sell it over OD&D), and various fantasy fiction has included psi powers even if not named as such - the idea of "Gifts" in some romantic fantasy series. Some stories or RPGs may also have magic thats' "actually psionics" if trying to give it more scientific plausibility; in RPGs Tunnels and Trolls used this explanation, in fiction there's Stasheff's Warlock series, and perhaps Julian May's Saga of the Exiles books; that last and T&T however have very spectacular "psionics". In fiction, psionics often invokes a lot of superstition and witch-burning, with telepathy in particular having little social acceptability.
Characters may have a number of racially-predetermined psi powers, a class providing them with powers (possibly increasing with level). Bonus psionic "wild talents" are also sometimes randomly rolled (an old AD&D tradition being to give everyone, or at least those with high mental stats, a base 1% chance of psionics), or may be purchased as an Advantage and/or a skill. Systems may also treat Psionic Ability as an attribute (Space Opera).
Examples:
Nearly all psionics systems use some sort of system of "power points" to use their powers - even D&D, despite Gary's dislike of "spell points" (as noted in his book Role Playing Mastery). Exceptions/complications:
*HarnMaster instead of points has characters roll a check to avoid gaining physical fatigue (measured in "fatigue levels"). Each level gives -5% to all skills.
*Talislanta 4E gives characters a skill check to use magic or psionics ("Mysticism"), with a cumulative penalty equal to number of spells cast. This makes power use increasingly likely to result in critical fumbles.
*In Dragon Warriors, Mystics make a check to avoid "Psychic Fatigue" - this is a d20 roll under [13 +mystic level - power level]. In comparison, DW Sorcerors have simple level-based "spell points" ; the fatigue roll gives a mystic on average a similar # of highest-level spells to sorcerors, but casting a lower-level spell is still very likely to burn out a mystic, whereas the sorceror can safely output lots of low-level spells.
[In a homebrew version of this I was working on, I was planning on bumping Mystics up to 3 failed fatigue checks/day at target 11+mystic level- power level, using a 2d10 roll instead of d20, and giving sorcerors a linear spell point progression of 7 points/level; about 3 spell levels doubled chance of fatigue, that led to a power level equivalence as follows:
Level Mystic Sorcerer
1 0.75 0.5
2 1 1
3 1.5
4 2
5 2 2.5
6 3
7 3.5
8 4 4
9 --- 4.5
10 --- 5Note as with hit points, power points may be arbitrary, or may have some other use in the system. i.e.
Power point recovery may require full bed rest/meditation, or there may be fixed regeneration of points/hour e.g. 2nd ed. has a table of recovery rate by exertion level. This limited impact of point depletion on need to rest, but could add to accounting. (Tunnels and Trolls magic system is similar; point expenditure here actually reduced character Strength and so combat ability, but conversely GM encounter guidelines encourage wandering monster rolls while PCs attempt to rest. Warrior types could potentially lose STR in combat as well, albeit not as quickly, from using overly heavy weapons or berserking).
Some games have a "psionics" attribute: Aura in HarnMaster, Psionics in Space Opera; Psychic Talent in Dragon Warriors. Wisdom/willpower or an equivalent is the usual prime requisite in other systems, e.g. in Palladium, Mental Endurance is a main factor in determining "Inner Strength Points". Occasionally Intelligence may be used, instead.
Some games also have more complex setups e.g. AD&D modified 'psionic strength' based off all of Int/Wis/Cha.
3E assigned one "discipline" of psionic powers to each attribute, giving some psions Str/Dex/Con based powers - Str for psychokinesis, Dex for psychoportation or Con for psychometabolism, Int for shaping, Wis for clairsentience, Cha for telepathy. 3.5 removed the stat/discipline correlation which psionics based off just one of Int, Wis or Cha, depending on class; it also uses wisdom as a prerequisite for some feats e.g. Rapid Meditation. SW psionics is independent of any attribute, despite there being a "Spirit" stat.
2E powers used an ability check to see if powers worked (typically of Int, Wis, or Con) - a new mechanic compared to 1st edition inherited from the skill (Non Weapon Proficiency) rules. For why this is a bad idea, see mutant powers, above; additionally, unlike most classes, Psionicists do not improve at any of their powers as they level up. They gain more powers known and power points but a 3rd level psionicist with Con 18 and disintegrate would have a higher success chance for using it than a 20th level psionicist with a 13 Con and the same power. Psionic Monsters in 2E have default listed power scores for psi powers rather than using an ability check, as they have no defined ability scores.
Games may also include “mental combat” rules. 2nd edition D&D had various attack and defense modes, which had different modifiers against each other somewhat similar to the earlier 1e weapons-vs.-armour-type tables. Some games may also have “mental hit points” that may be damaged by psychic attacks. (note that this has tactical effects: psionic and physical attacks vs. a single opponent no longer have any synergy, though parties still function when facing lots of small opponents).
Chi rules (or Ki, the Japanese version) are included in only a few games with an Eastern or martial arts flavour. (At least few that I know of).
“Sadira kept her hand open. One after the other, the cacti drooped, then browned and withered. . . Even then, she did not stop, until the soil itself turned black and lifeless.
...Though the sorceress believed she had been justified in saving herself then, the present issue was less clear. . . If she resorted to defiler magic to save herself from eventual death, would she use it out of simple convenience the next time?”
- The Amber Enchantress (Troy Denning).
Magic is perhaps the game subsystem with the widest latitude for the prospective game designer. Most other game systems must correspond in some fashion to reality; a magic system is however entirely fanciful and its basic principles of operation can be anything the designer wishes. Fiction contains any number of basic ideas for how it works, its limitations and so on, which can translate to any number of game mechanics.
Magic might be the direct rewriting of reality by belief which requires a spell only because the wizard believes it does (as in Mage: the Ascension), or it might be a call to spirits or other-planar creatures that are compelled to obey the instructions, or a speaking of true names of the things being affected (a la Earthsea), or even a form of psionics but where the wizard needs to speak certain words to "focus" themselves, or something.
Magic itself may be easy or difficult to learn, work perfectly or only sporadically (a 'klutz roll'/skill roll), and be based on various attributes. Most systems (and much source fiction) places limits on how much magic a wizard can use: this can include spell memorization (e.g. Jack Vance or Terry Pratchett), mental or physical exhaustion (perhaps suggesting some form of spell points, or even a tie in to fatigue points or a condition track), or even require some sort of energy from the environment; Dark Sun where magic sucks dry plant life had an interesting concept which was however poorly represented within D&D mechanics, while in fiction the idea of mana being a finite resource being steadily depleted by wizards is explored in some depth in a number of Larry Niven’s works (e.g. ‘What good is a glass dagger?’; or ‘The Magic Goes Away’). Use of magic can also have moral or at least roleplaying consequences.
Apart from resource usage, the behind the scenes limitations and principles of how magic works are often fairly badly defined. (D&D 3E is a particular offender in this regard with magic that can basically do anything; my pet hate being that even though the combat system doesn’t handle specific injuries – meaning you can’t cut off someone’s hand or head with a frickin’ sword, at least unless its a magic sword – there are spells which can do it, like Grim Revenge or Decapitating Scarf).
In RPGs, Ars Magica sets very clear limits to what magic can accomplish – such as not being able to interfere with souls (and, thus, resurrect the dead), interfere with the divine, or affect ‘spheres above the Lunar’ ; each variety of magic (all PCs use just the one, ‘hermetic’ magic) can break one law. In fiction, another interesting set of principles rather than limitations may be the one from Lyndon Hardy’s ‘Master of the Five Magics’ where each style of magic has underlying rules (if not limits)(originally derived from cRPG 'A Bards Tale').
Another essay on guiding principles in magic which may be of interest is this one by John Kim (discussing how to make magic more evocative of myth and folklore): http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/magic/antiscience.html
"If you belong to the class of the Warrior then set aside this text, for the touch of iron is harsh in your blood, and you will never cast a spell." – the Book of Magic, Crusaders of Khazan
Whether a character can use magic may be an innate 'gift' of some kind and/or require a particular class or skills. Some variants include:
Magic may sometimes involve a skill roll, or have a set chance of failure (e.g. gamebooks like Demonspawn series giving magic a "fundamental failure rate". 2E D&D had % spell failure for clerics based purely on their Wisdom score, irrespective of level; perhaps representing an idea that the (foolish) PC will have succumbed to some temptation requiring their deity to punish them by holding out on granting a miracle.
Difficult circumstances may also add extra chances of failure e.g. D&D 3.5s "Combat Casting" rolls and % spell failure due to armour. Mage has consequences for casting spells near "sleepers" who don't believe in it - this causes accumulation of Paradox points and potential paradox backlash.
Result: Unreliable Magic Variable Fatigue
Critical Failure Caster becomes walrus Spell Fails
Failure Spell Fails Spell Works, extra cost
Success Spell Works Spell Works, normal cost
Crit. Success Spell works really well Spell works, low costMost systems limit how often magic can be used. Some methods...
# Spells Per Day: Palladium FRPG (the original one) and Heroes Unlimited versions of Palladium used this; characters can cast a fixed number of spells, chosen as they go, regardless of which spell this is. Simple book keeping is fairly simple but spells must be designed more carefully to prevent one spell being too good/overused; they might be balanced by varying chances of success, casting time, or exceptional resource costs like a GP cost. Very powerful spells might have a cost of (2) or (3) normal spells, making this into a crude spell point system.
Vancian memorization: this gives a character high-level spells alongside low-level spells, meaning that characters have a high rate of advancement. The spell point characters point reserve might give them a 2nd level spell instead of their existing 1st level spells; the memorization system usually gives a character a 2nd level spell as well as their 1st level spells.
The main drawback of spell memorization for the caster is that spells must be pre-prepared to suit the situation; this lets spells have somewhat greater effects than they otherwise would have, without being unbalanced. A character with their 1st level spell may have to choose between Shield (protection vs. enemy magic users with magic missile), Sleep (zaps enemy fighters), or Tenser's Floating Disc (letting you carry out a hoard of copper pieces). This rewards intelligent play, but adds excessive book keeping (a particular nuisance with NPCs) as more spells pile up.
4E D&D is essentially this for most classes, though some resources instead function per encounter or at-will.
Recharge Magic: an obscure 3.5 optional rule (Unearthed Arcana) - something similar is more common in MMOs (cooldown timers). This makes a spell "offline" for a while after use, how long depending on its level.
Progressive Check Penalties: Talislanta 4E uses a check to cast spells, with a cumulative -1 per prior spell cast. This forces characters to move to lower-level spells as their day progresses or suffer an increasing chance of a mishap occurring.
The Blood Sword method: this series of gamebooks had an adaptation of spell memorization where a wizard had to ready a spell into memory before it could be used (taking an action), and had to make a spellcasting roll to get off a spell; a character could adventure with some spells pre-readied to avoid this extra time, but each spell readied gave them a -1 to Psychic Ability, i.e. a penalty on their rolls to cast spells. Prepared spells could be changed freely in between encounters. Player choices were further complicated by spells having different casting penalties, and the possibility of the spellcasting stat being used for other game functions (i.e. rolled against to resist enemy psychic attacks).
Spell Points: while only slightly harder to keep track of than spells per day, these allow for spells that use more or less power.
Spell points are likely to be burned through quickly. Unless the character knows they need to conserve power (and is unable to rest) then the most powerful spells tend to be used first. Making this more tactically interesting can be done by either decreasing return on cost for more powerful spells (a 2nd level spell costs many more points than a 1st level spell, but isn't much better) or adding penalties for using up magic - for example, in Tunnels and Trolls up to 5th edition casting spells cost Strength points, which would immediately lower a characters combat ability, what weapons they could use, and Strength-based checks.
As all a wizard's spells are available at any time, there may be some chance of decision paralysis depending on the player and how many spells are involved. Spamming the same damaging spell over and over is also possible, unless targets can take precautions against them or the spells themselves vary in effectiveness based on terrain and enemy type.
Systems may have fixed spell point costs for a given spell level (i.e. all 3rd level spells cost 5 points); in others each spell has its own unique cost (slightly more book keeping). Costs may be fixed, modified by spellcasting roll (see prior post), have slight random variation, or have a fixed subtraction for higher-level characters, giving high-level wizards who can cast cantrip-type spells more or less at will. This principle can also be used if a high level character should be able to use more spells, but where spells drain a resource that doesn't increase with level, like an ability score (as with T&T characters).
Some other spell point related odds and ends:
Exceptional Resource Drain: In all of the various systems, exceptional resources may act as an added balancing factor for specific spells. These can include material components with a non-negligible cost, experience points in some systems, or drains to a character (i.e. loss of Constitution points or hit points which might be permanently lost, temporarily lost, borrowed or shared with creatures or constructs); sometimes these costs may be borne by a beneficiary rather than the caster.
As with other skills, magical skills can be defined very narrowly or quite broadly. E.g.
Aside from skill specialization, a game system might also have multiple wizard specialties off a single Magic skill by giving spells benefits from different character attributes i.e. a system might have a raw Power attribute that modifies spell damage and an Intelligence modifier for illusions and subtler enchantments (perhaps effects involving saving throws), leading wizards with the spell magic skill and spell lists to still prefer different spells. Merits/flaws can also modify a wizard’s preferences.
If each spell is a skill, it follows that skill points must be expended to learn a new spell (unless a spell can be used untrained). Other systems usually learn spells individually separate to the magic skill; some (Talislanta up to 3rd Ed) do charge XP for characters to learn spells, while other games (D&D) would involve just a probable Gold Piece cost. Rolemaster is interesting in having “spell lists” which once learned level up with the character, unlocking new spells. Some systems do not have individual spells at all and characters need to adapt a basic effect on the spot (Talislanta 4E, and Amazing Engine IIRC), while Ars Magica has rules for both that (“spontaneous magic”) and predefined spells.
Part of our system is that we use spell points, but we use 8 different power sources, and different spells need different types and combinations of sources. So part of the cost is based on different types of spell points/spell skills.
More powerful magics often use more types of spell skills as well as higher point costs. we also have a recovery skill and a success skill in each type. We have some casters who have a few levels in fire, but as many levels in recovery and can get back their whole amount of fire points in a few hours. |
The StarCluster variants with magic - Blood Games II/OHMAS/Outremer and Book of Jalan - generally use up the linked attribute for the skill. If the magic is based on STR, it will cost a point of STR to use it. I know it isn't the only example of this, too.
-clash |
Quote:
sets of spell points at all. Come to think of that, I think Ars Magica may have a very distantly related idea (pawns of vis, or stored magical energy, often only work for a particular type of spell), and there are systems where you can multiclass and have different sets of resources powering different spell lists, but I hadn't seen that idea exactly before. The variable recovery skill is a new one on me too. Thanks! Quote:
I love systems that do that, actually, since it adds considerations to spellcasting that can deter players just burning through all their points, and since characters don't get unbalanced extra value out of the spellcasting ability score- when you've burned your high STR up for spells you lose all the usual bonuses for beating up people. Slight additional overhead in recalculating bonuses occasionally of course. |
Quote:
-clash |
Quote:
|
This is only an incomplete listing which I’ll go back to later and add to (maybe), but please feel free to suggest anything I’ve missed and I’ll add it here.
D&D: arcane (wizard, sorcerer), divine (cleric, druid, bard (depending on edition, may share spell lists with druids/wizards).
2E has psionics, wild magic, rune magic; 3E has binders (entities inhabit caster to give them special powers depending on entity), truename magic, shadowcasting, elemental magic (shukenja), an oriental wizard variant (wu jen), warlocks. Assassins, demologists, blighters, and a few others other specialized characters have unique spell lists; however most types of magic are fairly similar. FR Magic of Faerun IIRC includes gem magic, gnome artificers. Eberron includes an ‘Artificer’ class.
Palladium Fantasy: Wizardry, Psionics (Mind Mage), Diabolism (rune magic), warlockry (elemental), witchcraft, Alchemy, healing; priests gain limited wizard spells+ unique special abilities. In supplements- Necromancy, Shamanism.
+Rifts includes Techno-wizardry, Tattoo Magic, the bio-magic of the Splugorth, gem magic, temporal magic, biomancy (hippie nature magic), mystic smithing, nature magic, fire sorcery, whale spellsingers & ‘Koral’ shaping.
+Mystic China: Chi magic, mudras
LegendQuest: druidic, healing, illusion, necromancy, sorcery, spellsinging, alchemy, enchantment, mentalism.
Talislanta: Biomancy, Cryptomancy, Erythrian Battle Magic, Invocation, Mysticism, Natural Magic, Necromancy, Pyromancy, Ritual Invocation, Sorcery, Thaumaturgy, Witchcraft, Wizardry
Dragon Warriors: sorcery, mysticism (psionics), elementalist (includes evil “Darkness” elementalists), warlock (battle-mage/fighter)
Shadowrun: hermetic, shamanic, technomancy
Mage: the Ascension has several ‘flavours’ of magic, but with all sharing the same basic magic rules. Types include the Technocracy, virtual adepts, order of Hermes, Euthanatos, etc.
Ars Magica: Hermetic, Hedge and Witchcraft
Interesting fictional examples of worlds with multiple magic systems I can think of:
Master of the Five Magics: Alchemy, Sorcery (mind control), Wizardry (demons), (item creation), Thaumaturgy, Magic (item creation)
The Misenchanted Sword series: sorcery (technology?), wizardry, witchcraft (psionic?), demonology, warlockry (telekinetic), theurgy (divine magic).
Jack Vance’s short story “Green Magic” has colour coded magicks (White, Black, Purple, Green).
This is probably the last post on magic, though its entirely possible I've missed major subtopics. Apologies that this one is a bit random.
Power limits: maximum spell level/spell point cost of spell useable is typically limited by a character number gauging their spellcasting power; this might be the characters level, an attribute score (s), or a specific skill score. Spell levels may be equal to character level, or interspersed; for D&D wizards there are only 9 spell levels (across 20+ character levels) - with the memorization system giving a character a new spell level each level would also mean a new spell slot, and so an inordinate number of spells.
Implements/aids to magic: 4E D&D gave wizards staves which, like enchanted weapons for fighters, add ‘plusses’ to the wizards’ powers (staff +3 = +3 to attack rolls and damage with a wizard spell, assuming this spell has the ‘implement’ keyword). (Not in itself a bad change, IMHO, though a radical departure from prior editions where staves contained a number of charges of bonus spells)
Tunnels and Trolls allows wizards to have magic staves which subtract the wizards’ level from the Strength cost to cast a spell; the normal ‘ordinaire’ staff is slightly expensive (100 GP), although a wizard can use a L1 spell to construct a ‘makeshift staff’, which would possibly explode when first used (1st level save on Luck to not explode) and eventually burn out (after a given amount of use). It also had ‘deluxe staves’ – demons bound into staff form - which were semi-sentient and indestructible, learning any spells cast through them. A spellcasting aid could also take the form of a ring, enchanted jewel, etc.
Dragon Warriors lets sorcerors create a staff, but at a cost of their own permanent spell points; 2 spell points lost forever become 3 in the staff, which can be used only for the staffs particular sublist of spells (depending on its theme). Staves were effectively indestructible, but losing them was a major hazard to the owner (reminiscent of Sauron and his magic ring).
Power components: extra ingredients might add extra effects/power to a spell, or absorb some of the cost.
Magic Resistance aka Spell resistance: games frequently have magic resistance as a monster quality. Tactically, in terms of how much the wizard is boned, this parallels weapon immunity or damage reduction to the fighter types, or perhaps heavy armour. While armour more commonly (across game systems in general) reduces damage, magic resistance tends to negate or bounce a spell completely rather than reduce its effect, presumably since in most systems it is difficult to adjudicate what happens with a reduced effect spell (much like when a rings of spell turning makes a target take 60% of a charm person...).
If an “armour bypass roll system is in use for armour, then magic may function analogously; or if the game is e.g. a dice-pool system and the effects of 1 success, 2 successes, 3 successes etc. on a spellcasting roll are determinable, magic resistance might be partial; as an example I will mention Arkham Horror here although its a boardgame rather than an RPG – here characters get bonus dice for either weapons or spells, with resistances halving the bonus dice and Immunity negating it – for example a monster with Magical Immunity ignores a spell, while a monster with Physical Resistance takes only ½ the bonus dice from weapons – the character’s base combat dice still apply.
In other approaches I vaguely recall seeing a magic system where MR instead functioned by reducing spell duration, so a spell was thrown off more quickly, and there are specific cases (e.g. some anti-psionic feats in 3E) where using an ability costs more points vs. a resistant target. Valley of the Pharaohs contained a monster from Egyptian mythology, which was difficult to affect with magic because spells attacking it required speaking its true name, which was inordinately long and thus increased the casting time of spells).
“The Gibbelins eat, as is well known, nothing less good than man. Their evil tower is joined to Terra Cognita, to the lands we know, by a bridge. Their hoard is beyond reason; avarice has no use for it; they have a separate cellar for emeralds and a separate cellar for sapphires; they have filled a hole with gold and dig it up when they need it. And the only use that is known for their ridiculous wealth is to attract to their larder a continual supply of food.”
-The Hoard of the Gibbelins; Dunsany.
OK, monsters.
Other game systems interrelating to the monster rules include: hit location, hit points, Size, special abilities/powers, attribute scores, races, movement/miniatures.
Some interesting systems/ideas with regard to monsters:
4E has a set of statblocks for monster roles (Ambusher, Lurker, Artillery, etc.) at various levels, which are the basis for designing new monsters - one oddity here being that monsters seem to sometimes change types i.e. the younger version of Green Dragon is an ambusher while the older version becomes a controller. Fantasy Craft reportedly uses a numerical system where monsters are rated from 1 in 10 (in roman numerals) for various traits; that value is used with the monster's level to determine its final bonuses in a category, so that it can be threoretically scaled up with level differently in each aspect.
Below: from Different Worlds magazine #35, the Star-Devourer is a particularly sexy Lovecraftian worm monster in Superworld (APP 50). Note the complexity of the stat blocks - in T&T it would just be Monster Rating 500 or something.
NPCs are in most systems similar to PCs. By this posts nature, it concerns itself primarily with systems where NPCs are treated differently to PCs, although my personal preference is generally for them to be treated as similarly to PCs as possible.
Systems may do it to ease tracking that would otherwise be too complicated, because of actual assumed differences between PCs and NPCs (e.g. PCs being assumed to be adventurers/heroes and hence exceptional). Systems may treat NPCs as “narrative constructs” rather than fictitious people in a fictitious world - this could include setting PC hit points at a level that makes them readily fall over dramatically (minions), or setting DCs to influence an NPCs at a level-appropriate rating for the PCs.
An extreme case of this would be Apocalypse World, where NPCs have no statistics; they have a health (less than a PC) and may inflict damage (based on weapon), but all rolling is done by PCs, with NPC ability not giving any adjustment.
More common examples of this include:
Quote:
Top Secret/SI(Designed by Douglas Niles and published by TSR way back in 87, it used all kinds of cool/innovative bits in its design--ads/disads, stun/wound dmg marked as /X, luck points, etc) pulled two result from attacks for close combat/melee. You'd roll under your Attribute (plus small skill bonus), if you succeed, your damage was based on the tens die (a Price is right/blackjack mechanic) and the ones die determined hit location. Other percentage systems use doubles on the percentile roll as Special result. Seen some that use exactly = to your Success chance as critical success. A price is right/blackjack variation. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
A variation of this kind of additive system is adding bonus or penalty dice to your add dice. So if you have 3 regular dice +1 bonus die, you keep the 3 highest, while if you have a penalty die, you'd roll and keep the 3 lowest, etc. |
Thanks RobMaudib - I haven't read Top Secret so...what's the Stun/Wound marked /x ? And by using 10s place that would be worked out directly i.e. roll 21 = 2 damage, roll 41 = 4 damage?...so that higher skill directly adds to damage?
On the doubles on d% - I'd forgotten that one but I think Rolemaster does that for combat rolls (I think Arms Law uses it for weapon breakage). |
Quote:
One of the very earliest and simplest 'dice pool' systems is Prince Valiant, by Greg STafford/Chaosium. http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/9/9189.phtml You added your attribute to your skill to get your 'dice pool' Which is the number of coins you would flip, heads are successes (Gareth Micheal Skarka used this in his Underworld game as well) My hate of D02 kno no limit! (and yeah I am system archeology geek:) ) |
Quote:
And yep, higher skill, higher damage potential for unarmed/melee weaps. (firearms were random dice ) Yeah, I've seen the doubles for special success in a couple spots. |
Thanks again! Mind if I go back and edit in some of your notes (with attribution to you), to keep info as organized as possible for any prospective designers) ?
(if not that's also fine; I'm feeling pretty lazy...). Checking quickly, Shadowrun and Prince Valiant both seem to be '89, though I haven't found more exact publication dates than that with a quick search. |
Quote:
Card values were from 2-10, the different suits mapped to action types, needed to have right suit to get full bonus. Jokers counted as 15. Brief overview in 4th from last paragraph of that review. |
Quote:
Great work btw. The general rule on mechanics is, its probably been done before, if only on some web published game:) Oh yeah, more discussion of open-ending mechanics is probably warranted. Main way to get around flat die-distributions, give remote chance of success, etc. Lots of variations common. (ars magica's stress die, roll d10,on a 1, roll again and double result, keep doubling, a 0 on it is a botch) All die open-end/explode, single die can open-end explode (star wars), etc. DC heroes used an open-ending 2d10 roll compared to your chart, roll again and add on doubles. Why it had a high handling time in addition to the action+result chart (and loss most of the simplicity of the standard d% action chart ala MSH) though it was rock-solid and industrial strength at least:) (Column shift idea was common for handling bonuses/penalties in such systems, along with color coded results. GW3rd had the most complicated/detailed overloaded success chart, nearly every effect had a sub table of results with lots and lots and lots of conditions ala D20 (sick, nauseus, shaken, unbalanced, whatevs) Oh, you should probably describe what attributes are used for/represent (inherent ability in an area, usual possessed by all creatures/entities in a game systems. (not always, early D&D mobs, or don't have all of them.), balanced against skills (typically defined as learned abilities, specialized knowledge.) And their relationship and weighting. from no significant effect, 1/2 ability (stat + skill), to bulk of ability (Warhammer/old TSR systems) (lots of variation in here including no set attributes in OTE, Fudge, variants of Cortex, etc., as well as no particular skills in like Strands of Fate.) |
Cheers! and thanks.
Will add section on open-ended rolls (although I think this means I have to go re-read MetaScape and lose San) and further commentary on attributes/ weighting. Yeah seem likes there's no idea so weird that someone won't put it into an RPG, just to be original. (apparently 5E D&D is going to let characters with minimum ability scores pass some checks automatically, like Dragon Warriors was doing in, IIRC, '86). |
Quote:
Also, some discussion of problems related to opposed rolls, because of effectively doubling variance. Was reading about people complaining about FATE,think it was Dresden files, where because of the granular trait range versus the effective 8dF variance, you get some huge variation of results in combat. |
Quote:
Not overly familiar with Whispering Vault, though I've seen the player rolls idea - I think Icons has all player rolls as well [d6-d6]; a thread roundabout here somewhere on ICONS suggested rolling 1d for both PC and NPC for opposed rolls as a fix. |
Quote:
It's not just the potential variance, its the variance plus FUDGE/FATES tight/granular trait/results scale... Because +/- 4 is extreme result for general rolls, doubling the variance makes it more common, so you have the potential for 'blow outs' relative to the scale. it's easy to go 'off the chart' because of the doubled range of results from opposed rolls. Most often comes up as gotcha's in combat. Just something to pay attention too in designing. |
Quote:
an extensive overview of system can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ars_Magica (lot of innovative bits in that game.) Quote:
|
Quote:
Another thing to consider is how fewer important attributes can lead to serious min/maxing especially in GURPS. while systems like Silhouette, or Paragon HDL and Interlock, with 10 or more attributes and stat+skill pairings reduce this problem. It also circumvents 'dump statting' somewhat. Especially if you have like reflexes/agility/dexterity So one might affect your initiative speed, the next your dodging ability, and the last to hit with ranged weapons. So you can't focus on stat for max effectiveness and dump the others as much. All of this contributes to feel of system, and kinds of characters it produces. (i.e. gurps talented amateurs, while RQ's its all about skill specialization and experience/training is more important) (getting more into elaboration and effects of system types, but useful to consider ramifications of your mechanic choices.) |
Quote:
Used an online dice calculator at www.anydice.com (there are no doubt others around - Troll, etc. - just found this one lying around).
4dF distribution (using 4d3-8, since each dF equates to d3-2)
http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff507/BSJ17/8dF.jpg
|
Quote:
With the post you quoted I was looking largely at types of magic; so Hermetic, Hedge and Witchcraft here (adding). I vaguely recall that there were a set of inviolate rules of magic in Ars Magica which each of the non-hermetic schools can break just one law of (e.g. affecting spheres above the lunar, or immortal souls) which I thought was a great idea, but can't recall any specific details of. It may have been in a supplement I browsed rather than the core rules. |
More hit point/damage/injury systems
Thought of a more detailed/realistic system. Millennium's end sticks out in my mind, as it used a fairly complicated non-ablative invidual body location wound based system.
It used 'Trauma Levels' and had a detailed damage table (though not on the order Phoenix Command's ultra hardcore system. Which has great big scary damage tables by ultra-fine body location and shot direction etc.) Paraphrasing... Quote:
FEEL OF COMBAT Oh yeah another thing that bear's mentioning with the more abstract systems with increasing hit points is how normal threats (i.e. falling) become trivial (the old saw about high level fighters being able to jump off a cliff and get up and fight with no ill effects.) So you have to add kludges like the massive damage rules etc. Another thing is the overall speed and feel of combat. Does it resolve quickly, or does it end up like D&D combat with everyone hacking on each other for several rounds, etc. You should design it for the effect you want out of combat. Do you end up with lots of corpses in a gritty system, do people cut and run after getting wounded. Does everyone just get knocked out and roughed up like in Super Heroic systems. Each type of system works better for some things than others. The more heroic the game system, the less lasting effects of damage there should be, and the more of a beating character's can take. While gritty systems can end up with lots of dead character's, often to the extent that combat is effectively MORE deadly than real life, lots of people die every time there is combat, instead of people getting wounded, fleeing combat and dying without medical attention. Indeed, because most game systems don't include any morale systems, lots of fight are to the death, while in real life, people cut and run if possible. Another thing is on Impairment, in real life, people can be wounded and not really notice any significant effects of the wound due to adrenaline, unless a bone is broken, the body part is mangled outright. In some famous cases of suspects on PCP, they can take over a dozen gunshots to the torso and not even be slowed down. (In reality people only drop immediately if they take major damage to the CNS (Brain, spine, neck), or the heart is directly damaged) People can be shot without realizing it. While at the same time they can drop for purely psychological reasons, or die of shock from a shot to the foot. Most often impairment is used in RPG's so people can be beat down and rendered ineffective, the death spiral, instead of just eventually dying. Incapacitation is used to make for an effective end to combat, without necessarily people dying, especially in Heroic/Super Heroic realities. Needless to say there is HUGE amount of variation in combat systems. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Open-ended & Impossible Rolls
Quote:
The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the inferior roleplayer to correlate all MetaScapeII's contents. We live on a placid island of roleplaying ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinite levels, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The booklets, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of roleplaying, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.
General solutions to this problem include: *Auto-Win!: a roll of maximum on the dice automatically passes: e.g. 20 on d20 automatically hits.
*Additional roll: a very good/maximum roll will succeed, providing the character passes a second, separate, die roll. *It's going to Cost You: Shadowrun 4E has a "Long Shot" rule letting a character perform a normally (slightly) impossible stunt by spending a point of Edge. This lets characters attempt very difficult tasks, but rarely and at cost. *variable difficulty: Alternity expresses difficulty factors as dice (i.e. "impossible" -3d20 to character skill). Almost any roll can theoretically be made given a low roll for penalty. The common solution to the problem however is to allow "rolling up" of some kind. Here certain rolls increase further, so that any target number can theoretically be made - it just becomes increasingly less likely the more ridiculous the number required is. Rolling up is sometimes seen for damage systems, even when not used for other mechanics - e.g. HackMaster damage or the 2nd ed. D&D arquebus (d10, 10s roll and add)(Combat & Tactics later made the rolling up a function of the Knockdown die, rather than the base damage die).
Examples include:
*Maximum rolls again and adds (various). Usually this means that certain numbers become unrollable (if a d10 rerolls on a "10", you can't roll a 10 since that will become at least an 11), giving a "discontinuity" or "jump" in the progression (this is mostly an aesthetic thing though - it generally has little or no functional consequence). Some system may add a roll of [die-1] etc. The added reroll needn't necessarily be the same sort of die originally rolled.
-MasterBook uses a 2d10 roll where either die rolling a "10" adds and rerolls, conventionally enough. However, it also sometimes limits if roll-ups are possible: a character can be "stymied" meaning one of their roll-ups (whether from rolling 10s on the dice or by spending luck Points, called Life Points in MB) is cancelled.
MetaScape possibly warrants special mention here - it has an odd scale system where you can both roll up and roll down - using a custom d16 labelled (C), t, 1,1,1,1,1,1, 2,2,2,2,2,4,4,8,16.
For the special results, a "(c)" changes the category toward Light (i.e. a x4 would become a x2), while the "t" changes the category toward personal - dividing the multiplier by 10 unless it was Bantam, which instead goes up to x1. For either a (C) or t the d16 is rerolled unless the multiplier is already x1, in which case it counts as a 1. |
Quote:
Oh, and this bit in the announcement, you too can someday be raised to a second class citizen by toiling for you ominscient masters Quote:
|
Quote:
After playing MetaScape you will see how great it is to be able to roll 50,000 damage with your light blaster and accidentally destroy the Death Star! Normal RPGs will no longer be sufficient! (There's a note in the rulebook about how the highest roll they ever saw during playtesting was 130,000+. Makes my rolling a 34 once playing Tunnels and Trolls look pretty lame in comparison...) I've always wondered what would happen if we got this guy, and Synnibarr's Raven McCracken together (maybe with SenZar's Todd King too). I don't know what the final RPG would look like, but it'd need some big dice. Oh and thanks for the notes on CthulhuTech.. I probably wouldn't have thought of Ars Magica if you hadn't mentioned it initially, either. |
Contested Actions
http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/...vs_Cthulhu.jpg
Above: Cthulhu vs. Godzilla Deciding who wins in some sort of contest can involve *bidding of points *highest wins *opposed rolls. Highest wins is usually fairly straightforward (although circumstance modifiers might apply). Bidding of points: (e.g. sometimes seen with initiative systems e.g. Secret of Zi'ran, IIRC). Related to this but also including rolling, Dying Earth uses an opposed roll system where skill just gives a number of rolls/re-rolls for a skill each session; characters roll d6 (unmodified) on a simple table, with high rolls forcing an opponent to spend more points to re-roll. Gumshoe (by the same author) gives a base d6 roll for free, plus allows point spending from a skill pool to increase the roll (+1 per point). Most of my discussion will focus on opposed rolls.
These are most straightforward in additive systems, where everyone rolls a die and adds their bonus. Ties are sometimes broken by highest modifier, rolling again, or even a roll against another attribute; the defender may also win ties automatically or it may trigger a special 'deadlock' result. Other systems may be asymmetric in various ways - either intentionally or not their progression shifts around as bonuses go up:
For example
*Marvel Super Heroes had a defender roll on the action table using its normal rules - giving a Green, Yellow or Red success. Green imposed a -2 rank shift, Yellow a -4 and Red a -6 (equating to a -10%, -20% or -30% penalty). Green results are always 30% likely, while Yellow had a chance of about 5% per rank (including rank 0) and Red a very low chance (base 1% and increasing irregularly). Active defense did not count as a full action, but inflicted -2 CS (-10%) to the character's own attack roll.
*variability: as noted above by Rob, an opposed roll has a different distribution to a single die roll (so having both sides roll is different to using an "average" roll as a defense). Particularly noticeable in original FUDGE; presumably also there to a point in in some of the more recent FATE variants, though most of these use [d6-d6]. *scaling: an opposed roll - even a simple additive roll - is unfair where one side gets an unreasonably larger bonus. For example, a Trip attempt in 3.5 D&D normally uses just an opposed Strength or Dexterity roll. A mounted target can also be unhorsed with a trip, but instead resists with a Ride skill check; this is likely to be an extra +4 at 1st level minimum, grows steadily with level, and gives a character access to possible other boosts (feats, synergy, etc.).
Weirder Systems for opposed checks:
*Proportionality - a couple of weirder dice rolling systems have been set up specifically to give %s on opposed rolls that are proportional to the ratio between scores. (See posts #25 in the thread; notes on "Conflicts in Sorcery & Super Science" and multiplicative systems). A % system can also reduce two scores to a ratio and use that to roll a chance of success (i.e. in the You Stupid Bitch game for control checks). *Promotion- Risus includes rules for 'promotion'. Where an opposed roll occurs and one participant would have no dice due to their abilities being wholly inappropriate, everyone gets a +2 dice bonus (both the character with no dice and the characters with dice). An interesting alternative to the usual "OK, here have a default rating of 1 die/+0/whatever". |
Some errata to the above with regard to Savage Worlds; there I've noted that the Wild Die skews the attacker result upward. What I didn't notice before, is that the way Fighting is calculated itself gives a weird asymmetry thats normally skewed towards the defender - at least if the attacker isn't a wild card. If they're extras, two guys with d10 fighting are more likely to hit each other than two guys with d4.
Parry below is calculated (2 + half dice max. for Fighting). Mirror Match (same Fighting score) to-hit odds:
Code:
Fight Parry % to hit (non wild card) % to hit (wild card) |
Constrained Design Spaces
This is going to be a weird post - dealing with the idea of limitations built into systems and how they are dealt with - I'm still formulating my ideas here a bit though.
Some systems are just more flexible than others - some methods of doing things (for instance, some core mechanics) seriously limit possible operations, or at least significantly overcomplicate some things to the point where you're better off not doing them. Here I'll discuss a few particularly limited systems and interesting workarounds. One Roll Engine: the core mechanic here (roll X d10s, count the matches) generates a "height" and a "Width" to the roll. This has a limited range because # dice going over 10 guarantees a success - consequently modifiers have to be uncommon. (I suppose a workaround might be to require more multiple-successes for some tasks). It also doesn't have 'critical failures' or 'critical successes'. Reading ORE (Godlike) I was struck by how few options were available; my impression was that the rules had been written the only way they could have been written, given the core mechanic.
Savage Worlds (sorry I keep going on about this game!! ): the main constraint in this system is granularity; there are a limited range of possible skill ranks (d4,d6,d8,d10,d12) with very noticeable jumps between them. (You could potentially increase the number of steps using Zocchi dice like d7s and whatnot, except that few people own a set, let alone several sets). Keeping characters down to rolling 1 die on attacks, limits options even more than with other step-die games like Earthdawn or Cortex.
Jeff Moore's freerpg Hi/Lo Heroes (thanks to danbuter for bringing this up on the main forum): again a granular system you roll 2 dice, with your stat (Hi or Lo) determining if you take the best or worst of the two rolls. Additional modifiers are possible as a flat "+" to the dice. As a supers game, this limited the degree of versimilitude possible; attribute effects in game world terms are very fuzzy. However the system looks very well balanced because of the low range. |
Controlling bonus and penalty accumulation
Inherent in most games are some controls to prevent a character's success chance going too high, to the point where rolls become meaningless or automatic, such that the tension/peril of the game may dissipate.
Minimizing the modifiers applicable to a roll reduces the chance that a roll becomes pointless. There are also logistical problems involved in having too many modifiers: the game bogs down, character builds start appearing designed to cherry-pick lots of tiny bonuses of different types, people start to forget modifiers.
Roll-under games are typically fairly conservative with numbers of modifiers applied, while additive systems allow more modifiers, compensated for by further increasing target numbers. Some core mechanics readily handle multiple attributes being added together to determine success chance (additive systems, dice pool systems) while others (many table-based or roll-under systems) don’t do this that well. These latter systems struggle a bit more to handle many complex tasks (in some cases, even things like stat+skill level both modifying a task are difficult) but are less likely to have problems with bonuses breaking the system.
*just avoiding having too many modifiers! - see part II *Capping bonuses at a maximum of "X%" (95% or 98%) is common, as are certain rolls automatically failing e.g. 1 on d20 (or 1 on d10 - Cyberpunk). Non-linear purchase schemes for skills etc. also slow down skill inflation. *In some cases, an adjustment may apply special effect, rather than a flat bonus. A character special ability might also act to negate/reduce a penalty in some particular circumstance, rather than granting a bonus.
*A reroll often provides a big shift in chance of success, but may be preferable where otherwise a bonus might take success chance to beyond 100%.
*Tight specification - the more nebulous a thing is, the more potential modifiers may apply. Something like "Armour class" in D&D can receive various modifiers since it also factors in dodging (Dex) and etc; other systems might split out Dodging as a separate roll with essentially half the possible modifiers, then an armour roll or Damage vs. Toughness chece with the other half of the modifiers. Total number of modifiers involved isn’t reduced exactly, just split across multiple rolls.
*EABA/Timelords had a table where difficulty acting as a % reduction to a characters' skill bonus. *scaling down modifiers in general i.e. attributes bonus tables let modifiers scale at a different rate to the attributes themselves. *relative modifiers [thanks to Talysman here]; on an opposed roll two characters may compare numbers, with the higher getting a limited bonus. For example take a rule stating "on an opposed skill check, the character with the most years of experience gets +2 to the roll". This allows the experience number to scale infinitely while never giving more than a +2.
Minimizing the number of modifiers:
*Stacking: D&D 3.x uses a stacking system where multiple bonuses of the same type are non-cumulative (only use the highest in most cases); the number of bonus types is quite high however, and a number of 'unnamed' bonuses appear, as well as new bonus types getting invented occasionally in sourcebooks (e.g. 'alchemical bonuses' in Book of Vile Darkness). Some types are questionable i.e. there are separate 'profane' and 'sacred' bonuses - which can be stacked together - rather than a single 'alignment' bonus. *Making modifiers function indirectly: A system might add Size modifiers to attack/defense, or Size modified may be folded in by using Size to adjust Dexterity/Agility. This reduces the number of additional factors to consider but doesn't give as detailed a resolution (shooting at barns wouldn't be easier than shooting at cans since they probably both objects have an 0 Dex (though you could give the barn a negative Dexterity...). *Bonus substitution: A 'bonus' might simultaneously take away other potential bonuses: i.e. "apply DEX modifier in place of STR modifier" (Weapon Finesse).
Single-stat vs. Multiple-Stat Resolution Systems Certain systems -including many table resolution systems, Savage Worlds, and FUDGE/FATE normally only allow a single statistic to determine success chance - they don't readily allow factoring in of multiple stats etc. Savage Worlds applies circumstance modifiers very heavily (e.g. an off-hand two weapon attack without the appropriate Edge is at -4, although the standard die roll to hit is only 1d6 or best out of 2d6!). On the other hand, Marvel Super Heroes (a table game) controls modifiers fairly stringently by making them a part of the ability score. Here difficulties apply usually as "column shifts" which move the character's stat up or down on the table e.g. a A -1 CS would shift a character's stat from Incredible to only Remarkable, before rolling on the table. (The exception to this is Karma points, which add directly to the d100 roll on a 1:1 basis).
While multiple column shifts could be applied to the same task, the range of modifiers is still slightly limited because the attribute can't be pushed below Shift-0 or beyond Shift-Z. MSH also builds "diminishing returns" into the system through the bonus table itself; shifting up from a base stat of 10 (Good) to a base stat of 50 (Amazing) moves a character up four ranks -through Excellent (20), Remarkable (30), and Incredible (40) - to give only +20% to their base chance of minimal (Green) success, the equivalent of +4 on a d20, and with even less increase to the chance of Yellow or Red success levels.
Saving rolls target numbers likewise start at about 20 and increase by 5 per difficulty level (i.e. a "20th level SR" - shooting a coin off someone's head at 150 yards away or resist certain spells cast at level-20, is target 115). |
Point systems with variable costs
From now on (actually, awhile ago) I'm going to add things as I think of them - I think I'm largely out of ideas now, so posts are likely to be just single "hey this is cool" things I've found, in no particular order. Assuming I do find something new things of course.
Today's post is mostly a rant on point systems that use variable costs. A few systems attempt to charge characters different numbers of points for an ability. For example +1 to a skill costs character A one point, and character B two points. *Aces and Eights (I believe) does this for some advantages, so that you can be a dwarf magic-user costs more points than being an (anything else) magic user. *Skills and Powers D&D also made certain advantages or disadvantages cost more or less for certain races (or classes), as well as having certain proficiencies cost more for characters with low scores (>9); and had class features which were cheaper to some classes than to others. *Savage Worlds' varies skill costs depending on how high your stats are - with cost changes being non-retroactive so that the guy with [Agility d6, Fighting d6] who raises first Fighting, then Agility is worth less points total than the guy who raises Agility, then Fighting. *GURPS has a photographic memory advantage which has a point cost, but then quadruples skill point investment in mental skills. *Rolemaster and subsequently 3.5 D&D have varying costs to puchase individual skill ranks depending on whether skills are cross-class or not. My advice would be to avoid doing this when building a system. If you want a system to be balanced the cost of something is based on how good it is - its effect on play. If something has a fixed benefit therefore, it should have a fixed cost. Charging more to some characters based on concept is deliberately building in trap options; it rewards players who are gaming the system. Giving certain characters discounts or bonuses gives them more or less total value, from an objective viewpoint (rather than the POV of the games' point math). For instance if you let elves take Ultimate Bow Mastery at half cost, this is a benefit to the elves who want Bow Mastery and no benefit to elves who don't; consequently someone is getting a freebie, someone is getting shafted, and you're building in a trap option (either Bow Master characters who aren't elves, non-Bow Master elves, or both, depending on how costly being an elf is). There is a caveat to this: if the actual benefit an ability grants varies, you should consider varying the cost, or consider adjusting the benefit to make it equally useful to more potential buyers. - e.g. if a character has 4 arms, you probably should charge them more for ambidexterity (if it applies to all their limbs). Particularly a concern for balance may be abilities than have intrinsically variable value depending on a character's attribute scores (or even skills); if the ESP merit lets a PC brain probe someone with a successful Intelligence check, this is of course going to be more useful to a character with higher Intelligence (even though it'll probably have the same cost to all characters). A Int-based merit alters the relative value between Int and the other scores as soon as its taken. This sort of thing is IMHO, undesirable, but not always avoidable; the same sort of problem applies e.g. to class features which derive largely from a stat (If most of a wizards' powers get a bonus from Intelligence, expect wizards to have high Int scores). |
Dice As Monsters
Running a D&D adventure with lots of low-level monsters on the weekend (specifically, Gates of Firestorm Peak, which has a chamber with 70+ duergar in it - fortunately one of the PCs decided to challenge their leader to a duel...) had me pondering systems that streamline mass combats.
Savage Worlds and Tunnels and Trolls are two of the better ones. T&T gives monsters lots of dice, which you can roll as a group. Thinking about MR, its actually slightly awkward since you generate an MR, each MR generates some dice, you roll all the dice, then when the monster takes hits the MR goes down and that drops the dice roll. You could streamline this by having a monster described as just a dice total; "hits" come directly off the dice somehow. Now, I don't even need to keep track of hit points on a piece of paper, or individual monsters - the pile of dice in front of me represents the monsters that are there.
A Savage Worlds-type interpretation of this would give monsters varying dice (d4s, d6s, d8s, etc), which you roll to hit/damage for the monsters. The PCs would do damage expressed as negative dice steps: a monster with a d8 die could be injured (stepped down to d6 or d4), or removed completely if its dice is reduced below d4. Edit 23 May: no new ideas under the Sun. I've found Risus handles monsters as totals of d6s more or less as above - unsurprisingly, its combat system is descended from Tunnels and Trolls'. |
This thread is fantastically useful.
I an nit sure (because this thread is also fantastically long and not necessarily fantastically in a sensible order) but I don't see the Silcore method of dealing with skills, here skills are split in the aptitude (not sure its called that) rated 1 to 3 and the Complexity (rated 1 to 3). So you would have a skill Melee 3/2. With would allow you to use your characteristic + aptitude to perform Complexity 2 tasks without penalty, but would impose a modifier (-2?) on complexity 3 tasks. I am unconvinced its very good, but I don't think I have seen it anywhere else. |
Hi Jadrax, glad you’re finding it useful! Sorry its a bit haphazard. I may attempt to reorganize the information into a .pdf at some point, time permitting, although it’d be a fair amount of work.
Also thanks - I hadn’t heard of Silcore. I have seen something like that mechanic, though I didn’t think to discuss it earlier – JAGS has a “Level of Mastery” (Beginner, Professional, Expert, Master) which is bought separately to the characters chance of success, so you can have characters with skills of “Professional, 13-“ or “Expert, 13-“. The point of either the JAGS or Silcore setup (I think) would be that a highly-skilled character has a decent chance of performing a high-difficulty task, without necessarily having a huge chance of success at a low-difficulty task. I'd say the arrangement is a bit over-complex, since you need an extra value or descriptor for each skill to do something might work just from designing the core system correctly (choosing the right numbers and dice types to get the probability spread desired). So it looks more like a patchfix, although I guess other mechanics could build off it in a perhaps interesting way. Its still perhaps less complex than the other possible approach to solve that problem, where each complexity level gets a separate skill (e.g. Palladium’s Basic Mathematics vs. Advanced Mathematics, and Computer Operation vs. Computer Programming vs. Computer Hacking, etc.). |
Its been incredibly useful, not least when I think I have a new idea only to see its been done. ;o)
Quote:
|
System Design - Known and Unknown Information
(This last post is more about a principle I'm trying to work out in my own mind, rather than a list of design options - apologies for that. The examples here are somewhat dodgy, since they oft involve some speculation into designer intent.)
Good design ideally requires the designer know what is going on within the system- in order to predict how rules will interact with each other. What will happen in play will depend on chance, circumstance, player behaviour and GM fiat. However, I'm not so much speaking of that here, as how the design of the system itself is impacted by the designer's available information or lack thereof, when generating the basic numbers that run the rules. Inclusion of certain rules may be avoided because they *might* become unworkable in some circumstances; and the likelihood of that is unknown; or it may be evident during play that numbers have been included that don't seem to work, due to miscalculation on something that was quite hard to calculate. Unknowns that have been encountered by designers may include: *unknown dice probability i.e. likelihood of character's rolling X number of successes in dice pool systems - isn't easily apparent to designers, and may result in mis-estimates of likely # successes for performing various actions. (possible example: Burning Wheel is sometimes mentioned as having routine rolls be extremely difficult - although I may misunderstand, and it could be deliberate intent). *unknown average i.e. average ability scores. In a 3d6-down the line system, 10-11 (or 9-12) is normal and so no modifier. Consequently it is fair to have skills etc. unadjusted by any ability modifier. Shifting to [4d6-lowest] and having modifiers be more frequent changes "add no modifier" from being just different, to being a penalty condition. This increases the tendency to add modifiers to rolls since the exact penalty from getting a 'nonadjustment' to a rating is unknown and potentially large. 3.5 shows additional rules being generated as a consequence of this; in particular "nonabilities" have additional rules for how alternate ability scores apply their bonuses to various checks; Pathfinder and late (MM III onward) 3.5 monsters with no Con start adding Cha bonuses to hit points since these ended up fairly low. *unknown range. A large range of values can lead to rules generating funny results; rules may be designed to avoid possible problems with high values, by not taking a value into account. For instance T&T had a more divergent ability scale (since race, level, and magic bonuses can staggeringly raise attributes); weapons have a "STR-required" value which could be used to determine whether a weapon is one-handed or two-handed, except that increases to STR would rapidly give rise to ridiculous results - halflings who could use a greatsword in each hand. Likewise, solo adventures sometimes contain "you fail a saving roll and are stabbed in the chest and die", despite characters being able to have hit point values that could make a surprise attack from a normal monster non-lethal; (Palladium has the same problem due to HP bloat and so has a "you automatically die if you smother a grenade with your body" realism rule). Comparatively, other systems may be able to directly use STR to determine height or other such "tight couplings" (as Kirk might say). (EDIT: Rules might be added to cap ranges due to them possibly becoming a problem (unknowns) rather than actually being a problem - limits that are too harsh ?) *unknown equivalence. 3.5 D&D has a GP:XP equivalent set at 5:1 (1 xp is worth 5 GP, for instance when buying a spell or creating a magical item). This is an ad-hoc simplification of what's probably a quite complex relationship; available XP to spend scales proportionally with level (level x 1000 to go up a level in 3.5), while gold snowballs (perhaps polynomially). (this is more speculation: I imagine designers trying to work this one out, going "ah, screw it, lets just use 5:1" and just going with the 5:1. Although it might be a matter of avoiding over-complexity rather than a true unknown.) |
Quote:
Scott Gray's Dicepool Calculator Invaluable -clash |
Nice, thanks Clash.
Here's another one that does some of the funkier systems (more versatile, though output maybe not as convenient). http://topps.diku.dk/torbenm/troll.msp (EDIT: hey I just tried out the chart function with Savage Worlds d6. Man that is a weird distribution). |
(This is more of an abstract principle rather than a specific list of engineering options. It may be of interest although the analysis here risks becoming a matter of philosophy rather than engineering).
Inspired by reading this here: - http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/87/my-indie-realization/ (which I’d stumbled across mostly from its discussion on Dave Arneson/Braunstein, not that it matters).
Games vary considerably in the conceptual scope –the range of situations that they attempt to describe and implement within the game rules. There is a continuum running from extremely tightly focussed designs, to specific genres, through to generic do-anything systems. For example, from most general (wide scope) to most specific (narrow scope) to we could include:
Multi-genre: the ‘generic’ games e.g. GURPS and Hero System fall in here. Of these Hero’s toolkit approach lets it model more or less anything (you buy your blast power and decide whether its a magic wand, a blaster or a psychic barrage); GURPS has comprehensive rules which are much more specific in nature, meaning less work for the GM but relying on multiple supplements for further details in many cases.
One genre. Genres themselves could be said to have variable width; the range of things which must be covered by a Western game (Boot Hill) is much narrower than that of a Fantasy game. Supers is perhaps the “widest” genre since it can encompass most fantasy or SF concepts (both Dr Strange and Iron Man), as well as having to cover variable power levels, and differing styles as to degree of realism/consistency.
Many genre-wide games still have varying degrees of fit to specific worlds/subgenres (magic rules or combat mechanics may support e.g. Sword & Sorcery better than Romantic Fantasy, or Greyhawk better than Dark Sun).
A particular world/setting - games highly tied to specific settings (Talislanta, Tekumel). Talislanta for example gives a range of “archetypes” for Talislanta games (Callidian Cryptomancer, Jakan Manhunter, Cymrilian Swordsmage), but it would be difficult to use the rules for other fantasy worlds – this would require GM preparation, handwaving and reskinning to some extent.
[On the other hand some specific worlds are very multigenre (TORG, Rifts) –and you could use the rules for these for a number of other settings if so inclined].
A very specific place/set of circumstances/situations (whatever you want to call that)– for instance, there have been a couple of games based around playing WWF wrestling champions.
A specific story – this is a very ‘indie’ concept but a niche game can be re-flavoured heavily across genres fairly readily, but lacks flexibility in how the story runs. Of those that I’ve read, “My Life With Master” (MLWM) comes to mind particularly here. The rules generate a particular story through interaction with abstract values such as PCs’ Weariness and Fear ratings, while not having specifics of such things as hit points. An evil master is assumed (without one, the rules become meaningless) but the system could be ‘re-skinned’ so the characters are talking field mice who work for a cat, oppressed goblins serving an evil human wizard, or a single agent of the Galactic Empire trying to resist the whispers of his brain parasite. This category is a bit unlike most of the others in that this category is a matter of how much thematic breadth the game has, rather than breadth of circumstances the game covers. Regardless of the fluff draped over it, certain things (e.g. killing the master prematurely in MLWM) are prohibited and most actions will end up heavily GM-adjudicated or simply irrelevant, so the game design is a “railroad” of a sort.
Specific character(s) -–play a specific set of characters with predefined character hooks and abilities e.g. Lady Blackbird. Games like this may not even have character generation.
Some games may have mismatch between scope of the setting fluff and scope of the rules. 2nd Ed. D&D for instance inherits a big dungeon-focussed set of rules, although the game itself is intended to cover a wider range of game play (court intrigue, city adventures, etc); so GM adjudication and roleplaying will play a major part in how the game runs; which may be considered a feature rather than a bug by some, actually).
Note: Scale (of things in the game) is a concept somewhat associated with Scope, but indirectly. A narrow-scope game may still have to deal with conflict between large things/small things (Bunnies and Burrows) -the likelihood of this needing to be supported is something that increases with wider scope.
Critical Hits: a critical hit might be defined as a situation where a target takes extraordinary damage or an extraordinary effect as a result of an attack. While the earliest versions of D&D didn't have these formally they were popular as houserules and later optional rules. IIRC, the first system with these (and fumbles) may have been Arduin. The traditional D&D example would be the simple 20 to hit = double damage rule (often paired with 1 = fumble). Enthusiasts also frequently added charts of specific injury and death results (Dragon #44 having one attempt at this). In a way these are perhaps a sort of early 'class feature' for the fighter since spells typically don't get criticals - although monsters usually get them as well, so fighters are also frequently on the receiving end.
Commonly a critical hit is triggered by a particularly high (or low) natural result - such as 20 on d20 to hit for D&D, or under say 10% of weapon skill in BRP to get an 'impale' (or knockback with a non-impaling weapon, such as a greatsword). Occasionally a second independent roll is used e.g. AD&D monk gets a separate % chance of instant kill based on level and opponent armour class; e.g. in 3E a second 'confirmation roll' is made against the target's AC to see if a high roll is indeed a critical, and n 2nd Ed. D&Ds Combat and Tactics module, targets received a save vs. death to negate a crit. The exact likelihood of a critical occurring may depend on weapon skill, specific weapon used (e.g. 3E weapons have a varying 'threat range' of either 20, 19-20 or 18-20, as well as a varying damage multiplier); J Arcane's Drums of War RPG includes a system where characters have an exact percentage chance of critical; a 2d10 roll to hit is also read as a percentage to see if a crit occurs.
Systems with universal mechanics may use the same crit procedure for both attack rolls and other subsystems- e.g Talislanta has partial successes and criticals for all actions, while Marvel Super Heroes has tables of Green, Yellow and Red results which in combat translate to e.g. Slams, Stuns or Kills. Rolemaster has tables of specific results for everything, combat or otherwise, based off total dice roll+bonus.
Many systems do not have criticals exactly, with high damage rolls instead emerging from the normal hit/damage process. Most commonly, systems may add bonus damage for a good to-hit result; for instance in a dice pool game, extra successes on the attack roll may convert to bonus damage dice. In a pool system it is difficult to have an exceptional result that occurs a fixed percentage of the time (except perhaps by having one of the dice be a 'wild die'). Some systems may also have open-ended or exploding damage dice (e.g. maximums roll up such as in Hackmaster, Savage Worlds).
More complex systems may have something like a critical that flows through a few steps.
*Earthdawn, a roll to hit over a certain margin is an 'armour defeating hit' and deals more damage. This is more likely to result in damage greater than a target's wound threshold, and so giving a specific effect.
*In HarnMaster, comparison of attack (normal or critical success) and defense (normal or critical success) gives a number of damage dice which are adjusted for armour and etc. and matched with hit location. High results have specific effects depending on location e.g. Sever rolls made be made for a limb to see if its cut off, or Kill rolls (Endurance check or die) for vital locations.
*aside from bonus damage or specific effects, some systems as noted previously have multiple types of hit points, with a 'critical' bypassing low-grade hit points to hit the PCs in the more vital points. This makes characters relatively fragile despite large HPs - IMHO more or less negating the point of having a lot of HPs. While its not inevitable, some systems (d20, SAGA) have had scaling issues where damage ramps up steadily to keep up with the major HP pool, and criticals converting the same amount of damage directly to wound damage caused criticals to go from minor annoyance at low level to an instant kill at higher levels.
Non-damage based critical effects can also exist. In Dragon Age, special effects can be triggered off a high result on one of the character's attack dice (the Dragon Die). Some games may have specific rules handling critical results for non-damagine special moves such as tripping or grappling e.g. 2nd Edition Combat and Tactics. Another 2E optional rule was for a 20 to grant an additional attack, rather than a bonus to damage.
A common concern with criticals is the effects of them on NPCs as opposed to NPCs. While criticals may be fun for PCs (when applied to NPCs), having PCs die messily is often seen as a problem, particularly in games with lengthy character generation. Many systems have mechanics (often fairly metagame) that limit the PCs exposure to critical hits, for instance:
*the old 3E 3rd-party "Deck of Critical Hits" supplement comes with instructions that only PCs and exceptional NPCs are allowed to use it.
*FantasyCraft gives characters "action dice" which must be spent to 'activate' a critical, making them unaffordable to mooks.
*Warhammer 1E/2E has specific injuries that appear only after the Wounds score has been depleted, so when the character would be mostly dead in any event. Savage Worlds has injury effects that occur on 'incapacitation' -as a result of the PCs total health, not a single hit. Similarly, Werewolf: the apocalypse PCs can spend Rage to take a 'battle scar' (permanent impairment) instead of being killed/incapacitated.
Perhaps this sort of effect isn't a true critical, but it serves a similar purpose in the fiction of the game world.
*Characters may get some sort of points to either negate death in general (Fate Points) or to reroll some of the checks resulting in being criticalled.
*4E D&D has the slightly divergent goals of keeping criticals (because they're fun) and also neutering them (because they're dangerous to PCs and unbalanced). Criticals exist there as almost a 'legacy mechanic' where damage is maximized rather than doubled, plus any bonus from a 'high-crit' weapon (+d10). The main source of bonus damage is however magical weapons (+d6 per +) which will not usually be owned or used by NPCs or monsters, thus keeping crits PC-only. Instead of random criticals, a similar role is taken up by occasional-use powers dealing additional damage or effects - in effect giving characters a guaranteed set of criticals throughout the day rather than relying on chance, and removing these from the hands of monsters (which have to rely on their own set of powers).
The permanent injury aspect of some critical systems is another tricky question. Many systems e.g. Rolemaster include a number of spells to repair the effects of critical hits, although this is also a question of genre/feel of the game. Permanent impairments generally mix poorly with balanced, point-buy systems since a point-built character has a precisely quantifiable value, and as a mass-manufactured item is quite replaceable -in such systems taking a permanent injury gives an immediate incentive to kill and replace the character, particularly if treasure or levels of a replacement character is guaranteed to be equivalent.
Quote:
But Star Wars Saga pretty much uses a similar crit-like mechanism to my own game. Going over a massive damage threshold pushes the victim along a condition track. I think in Saga's case both massive damage threshold and weapon damage scaled with level. |
Quote:
Also hmm...perhaps I've neglected discussion of condition tracks as well, beyond say Shadowrun I'm not too familiar with these.
Quote:
Another reason sometimes advocated is just to make combat more deadly - Skills & Powers for 2E took that approach i.e. it mentions wanting to make fighters take notice of crossbows pointed at them, although in this case its something of a patch since it may have been better to just give characters less HPs to begin with. |
Doh, messed up with AD&D monks as well. The d% roll for insta-kill isn't all the time, its only after they successfully 'stun', which occurs on a hit roll 5 over the minimum needed to hit. Not that different to rolling 'confirmation'. To date then, there are no games I know of where the critical roll is made wholly separately to the attack roll and on every roll.
|
Quote:
Mostly joking. Seems weird. |
Quote:
|
I actually use a double critical system, in a way.
Weapons already do a good amount of damage in Celtricia, but they have a dividing die. Smaller weapons generally have a lower divider. A Gladius does an unadjusted 2d6+14/d8. A Claymore does 2d8+17/d5. So rolling a '1' on the divider is sort of a mini crititical as it is, though armor has a protection roll with a divider as well. This follows with giant creatures, etc, btw...no one likes fighting big creatures in celtricia, since pretty much every giant is using a d4 divider on their already massive damage...reflecting pysics, as it were. On top of this, there are criticals on 07% or higher for a normal person that reduce the dividing die. http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/...ritical%20Hits And one of the things that changes a game is whether the skill of the character or creature can increase or decrease the critical hit ability. For example, in our last online session of the Steel Isle Game (the log is somewhere here), we had some mid-level (uper middle level on one) characters fighting a gnoll ambush. So for the PCs doing the major fighting, one had a +33% to hit with his pilum, one had a +44% to hit with his Shamsheer. For every 10% a creature has as a 'to hit' bonus, they also gain 1% on their ability to critical (reflecting their expertise), so these 2 actually had a 10% and 11% chance to critical, respectively. |
Quote:
*I assume that dividing die shifting to d4 for an 04 or less makes criticals for some weapons particularly bad (daggers or bows, mentioned?) since the base damage for these was designed to factor in the larger dividing die?. *I note that you have two separate effects that are skill-based - one being the increase in the chance of a critical roll itself (+1% per 10% added to the base 07), and the second being the critical effect itself being mainly skill-driven (roll under to-hit% to get the dividing die bonus). Perhaps a bit of unnecessary redundancy there since both independently factor into the same final effect; you might in theory be able to tweak either one or the other to get the same final result more simply..? Or not, depending on how happy you are with the current exact %s. *The dividing die itself is interesting since it would work to give occasional massive spikes in damage, with each doubling of damage being half as common. The negative dividing die results look like they give horrendous amounts of damage, but you need both a high skill and a lucky roll to do it, and otherwise I guess a critical couldn't do more damage than a lucky dividing die roll (apart from the 01 armour minimization effect). *No extra special effects for an 01 on your second critical roll?...:) |
A whole new system can be made in a few different ways. It may be interesting to look at some of the possible methods - although in the wild, systems will often be combinations of rules derived in various ways.
Approaches include:
You could probably swap all but the first one with the catch-all terms "iteration" and "appropriation" and maybe even "adaptation."
Iteration would be editions and clones. Appropriation would be good both for "magpie" and hybrids. Adaptation would be emulation of a non-RPG in RPG form. Both for licensed properties and for war-game to RPG transitions (chainmail to D&D, Warhammer to various Warhammer RPGs, or Iron Kingdoms D20 to Warmachine to the new Iron Kingdoms). |
Quote:
1) shifting the dividing die to a d4 on a roll of 04 and lower basically means that even if the second roll is not that great, they get some benefit from their lucky roll/hit. It also means a huge multiplicity effect if the second roll is a good one. getting -2 on your divider with a dagger with a d8 divider is helpful, but if that dagger rolled an 04 on the first roll, that dagger is getting their -2 or whatever off of the d4. 2) more complicated than that, and thus more elegant that we don't have to do any more. In the +1 to crit per 10% chance to hit, that chance to hit includes the total chance to hit, and all the factors included therein. So a particular strong or dextrous character with a magic weapon and maybe using an advanced combat tactic may have a +10% to hit with an axe as a skill, but may have a +30% chance to hit. So the skill with the weapon adds in, but the idea is that a smart player can take advantage and increase their critical %. 3) yes, The dividing die changes the frequency distribution of damage from a bell to a long tail. And it models physics well when smaller weapons have higher dividers, while still allowing them to casue good damage on occasion, while big weapons basically roll a 1 or 2 more often.... |
Quote:
Licensed properties that you mention are an interesting one I think in that the thought process is different to adapting a wargame; there's often a ruleset existing in-house that's going to be adapted to suit the genre, whereas adapting a wargame often means taking the wargame's rules and adding extra RPG elements. Quote:
Fair enough, and the shifts in dividing dice make sense. On the critical % (#2) what I meant is, if you have to roll your to-hit roll again to get the critical effect [the damage boost], the chances of a critical occurring are increasing even if you only had a fixed 7% of making the first roll. Since the chance of the final occurrence (the damage increase) is [probability of first roll] x [probability of second roll]. PS while noticed your different STR/DEX requirements for different weapons depending on 1h or 2h use rule while I was in there and made note of it in the Strength requirements subsection of the weapon proficiencies post (#70). |
Quote:
That the roll for points provides "no input into final character" beyond total points and limits on high scores is precisely because the player's input is emphasized! You're supposed to design the sort of figure you want to play. What sucks is that you're given too few experience points to get any but (at most) one of a very small selection (like 3) of the non-combat skills, at skill level 0; most characters can't even get that. Some kind of weapon skill is doable, but generally not enough to seem like much. A shield is, IIRC, basically useless with skill 0. Maybe something like 600 XP more -- what you might expect from one (unsuccessful?) adventure, or from some months (about a year?) of training/practice -- would be a decent start; I forget the details. Heck, an order of magnitude more might suit many people's tastes. *Literally rolling 3d6 would be unsuitable, since you're supposed to start with an average in the neighborhood of 15 (with a normal cap of 25 on the human scale), whereas "normals" average around 10. |
Quote:
So, instead of the player "assigning numbers" directly, he or she describes the character envisioned in plain English. I work with the player to model the character in game terms. "Excessive" matters only in terms of the scenarios for which a given character might be inaproppriate. That really has more to do with the actual character of the character than with levels of battleship tossing or cosmic ray zappery. Not that those might not sometimes be relevant to a game balance, but in Marvel Comics (or DC for that matter), characters running the gamut often worked together. Another variation on point buy: In TSR's Conan game, you choose skill ratings, and then the score for each category is 1/10 the skill levels rounded down (which may be 0). |
Quote:
Checking some of the numbers for DragonQuest now, its more noticeable when comparing the far ends of the table, and what I think I did miss was that the point total roll is a 2d10 roll (2d10+79). So in actual play, it would be less likely to be a great issue. Comparing the extreme ends of the table -the character with 99 points (max. 19) on the one hand has enough points to get to (19,16,16,16,16,16). At the other extreme 81 points, max 25 gives a character who bought their 25 stats of say (25,11,11,11,12) if they spread remaining points evenly, or maxing out a second stat to the limit of one lower would give them (25,24,8,8,8,8). They can buy a higher stat, but have less points to spend. It does seem not as bad as I've suggested though (I will probably soften the language and add a pointer to more detailed discussion here). Looking at it again, I'm actually a bit surprised by how similar the end results are to 3E-style gradually increasing point costs for stats (except that those let someone pick which extreme to take) Thanks anyway for the tips! PS re. Conan: I've got a note on Conan/ZeFRS (its clone) under 'Skill Defaults' rather than attributes, though I see what you mean - it should probably be in both places... |
Quote:
Proof? Just about everyone wants to re-engineer RIFTS, but everyone who tries ends up saying "ah, fuck it, I'll just run it as-is". It's an accidental masterpiece. Some things can be planned and built. (James Cameron is the king of this, as a director.) Other things are, but are much better than their creators could have imagined. Others should be shit, all logic says they should be shit, but somehow... they are accidentally awesome. Rifts is accidentally awesome. Star Wars is accidentally awesome. (Proof? Look what Lucas did when he was in total control. Total shit. I've heard the ideas he had for Star Wars. If he'd been in total control back then? Total shit.) That's all I'm saying. |
Quote:
As far as I can work out, my theories are: *virtually no metagame mechanics (e.g. luck points, HP inflation, etc). *detailed combat decision making (despite lack of metagame mechanics). *extensive character choice. While modern design typically favours balanced character building, there's really a dichotomy between character diversity and balance; its perhaps only really possible to dial one up if you take the other down. *so unbalanced its actually balanced in places (e.g. you have mega HPs, but bad guys they have broken abilities that will kill you anyway). Unlike a point system, only limited options to reinforce weak points. *no social skills :) *limited impact of attributes, so that characters can be gods stat-wise without breaking the system. *the total opposite of an effects-based system (so - no disconnect between flavour and mechanics; peculiar balancers built into specific powers or classes including setting-based or roleplay-based balance factors like rolling psionics making the Coalition come and kill you, juicer time limits, or Borg multiclassing). Unfortunately this means that rewriting it means rewriting ALL of it. *tiered, specialized skills that set most percentages within a useful range (character progress without "level treadmills" and the like). I also suspect a rigorous ruleset that did what it did would be the size of the Encyclopedia Brittanica, and probably still not work (OK slight exaggeration...but it'd be big). EDIT: its also interesting to look at how Rifts works to provide lots of classes. There are lots of settings that may be deep and atmospheric, but where the answer to 'what should I be?' is unclear, or has only one answer. |
A new topic I missed somehow, prompted by today's game; deities & PC divine ascension.
A few fantasy games give deities statistics; in somes cases divine ability is an endgame of a fantasy character's career (in view of which some games may suggest offering overpowered PCs immortality simply to get rid of them). More ambitious games may attempt to have deity PCs. As seen in many cheesy fantasy series, deities may also serve as major (campaign-end?) monsters. Deities typically have extremely high statistics and some magical powers, combined with immortality. Special rules may govern transfer of divine power between characters governing whether plots to steal it work. Some games may have deities reliant on mortal worship to exist or for determining power points. They may also have some ability to awe mortals. Some examples of systems: AD&D: deities have typically superhuman ability scores (19-25); to divinely ascend a character needs a couple of stats that are 19+, and a minimum Charisma of 18 (plus a body of worshippers who consider them a deity already), as well as sponsorship and possession of high level. Deities have multiple classes at high levels, maximum hit points, and a number of special abilities, modelled individually on mythological deities. 2nd edition claimed deity stats were for 'avatars' rather than the deity itself (though they were similar), leaving the true deities' statistics undefined. Basic: The basic D&D lineage evolved a completely different system for 'Immortal' characters, designed to allow PCs to continue progressing as characters. Characters could ascend after reaching level 36 and performing a quest, losing their old classes and beginning anew as '1st level Immortals', with old xp converted into 'power points' used for spellcasting (1 PP = 10,000 xp). As well as casting all mortal spells the characters gained new Immortal spells, assorted immunities, picks from a specific powers list, and could expend Power Points to raise ability scores. Progressions were reset by creating new saving throw categories, and (in the older BECMI version) moving ability checks from d20 roll under to d100 roll under (this latter also had a backwards system of modifiers where levelled-up immortals, who had higher abilities, took a penalty for no particular reason). To-hit tables were expanded with very high rolls adding damage bonuses. Rules for plots, artifact creation, and immortal monsters were also included. A deity reduced to 0 HP is drawn back to its home plane and reforms over a period. 3rd Ed. D&D: this has a detailed system for handling divine abilities, although these abilities are for the most part not suited to PCs, and the NPCs with them are so ridiculous that the statistic blocks are largely a waste of space. Most deities have monster hit dice, as well as colossal ability scores and a number of other abilities based off 'divine rank' (rated from 0 for quasideities, 1-20 for normal deities, and 21+ for overdeities) with each rank granting a special ability. Deities gained extended senses (1 mile/rank), ability to sense events related to their portfolios weeks in advance, and various personal resistances, as well as being able to get 20s automatically on checks without rolling. Synnibarr: this allows characters who reach level 50 to add a second character class, beginning to progress that instead of their primary class. Eack rank (Immortal, demigod, god) added stat bonuses, as well as raising stat ceilings. Characters also gained 'core god points' based on level (which gave number of god points generated/day, before bonuses from # worshippers), a few minor abilities and un-negateable damage reductions. Synnibarr also allowed starting characters to be 'immortal born' under extremely rare circumstances (five 20s rolled on chargen out of 7d20 with scores under 9 rerolled)- these have 2 character classes/races, extra stat bonuses, and the ability to regenerate from death. It defines 'god power' as a specific energy type, usually resistant to nullification. Marvel Super Heroes: this has a number of 'deity' characters due to Thor being a Marvel character. Asgardians are potentially within the playable range; they have a number of fairly standard super-abilities and enhanced statistics. Rifts: Rifts has rules for playable deity PCs, although it unusually assumes that these are born as deities (and playable from 1st level, despite being stronger than most other characters). Godlings are an RCC (racial character class) receiving several abilities, some of which are more or less other entire character classes, as well as MDC and high stats. Demigods (who are part human) have fewer powers, and select a normal class (OCC) rather than being an RCC. Note NPC deities typically have many more MDC than do PCs. SenZar: this game assumes characters will ascend at level 20; they must have raised their Power score to 100 (the maximum). At 20th the character must choose whether to become a Deific God (having worshippers, needs sponsor), a Material God (Highlander; free Regeneration) or an Eternal (shapeshifting lunatics who bet power with each other). RP limitations apply in each case e.g. divine gods need a sponsor, while material gods change is triggered by dying. In any case the character can raise stats above 20, increase in level further, gets free 'primal' from their prior Fame score, and will have access to special abilities and spells burning 'primal' points. EDIT: And the really obvious hole in the discussion here is absence of any mention of White Wolf's Scion, the RPG specifically designed for playing demigod PCs. Unfortunately, I haven't read it. |