DarkLightHitomi
 member, 1479 posts
Tue 19 Mar 2019
at 09:47
Re: An expandable 2-page system, looking for feedback.
Starchaser:
DLH: How long do you think until you have the system fleshed out enough to playtest? Ive been almost exclusively freeform until recently but would love to playtest this system in a game I'm running. I find systems out thereare either too conplex for forum-based games or too simplistic to bring much value to a game.


Mostly an issue of typing it in. Not likely to get much more till friday. Midweek is busiest.

It is also a matter of how much the gm needs to feel comfortable. I coukd run a system with nothing more than what has already been posted if I wanted to.
DarkLightHitomi
 member, 1486 posts
Wed 27 Mar 2019
at 04:05
Re: An expandable 2-page system, looking for feedback.
I intended to post the conflict resolution over the weekend, but I got sick and had trainees and basically, life happened. I've been dealt junk lately.

Anyway, it's almost ready so I hope to get it up soon.
pdboddy
 member, 636 posts
 EST/EDT [GMT-5/GMT-4]
Wed 27 Mar 2019
at 15:38
Re: An expandable 2-page system, looking for feedback.
I've recently developed an interest in rules light systems, mostly thanks to a FATE mush that I play on.  So I'm watching this with interest.
OceanLake
 member, 1065 posts
Wed 27 Mar 2019
at 23:45
Re: An expandable 2-page system, looking for feedback.
Are you going to have the equivalent of classes? (careers, 'born-into" social ranks?)
DarkLightHitomi
 member, 1487 posts
Thu 28 Mar 2019
at 01:44
Re: An expandable 2-page system, looking for feedback.
Certainly not in the basic set. I'll eventually include pre-built "paths," that make building characters quicker and easier, and provide inspiration, but they will not be required as they are basically just preselected choice collections.

It'd be rather easy for a gm to make a few to fit the campaign and require their use though.

I certainly will never require them though as A) I hate classes, and B) classes are about  enforcing balance which is a concept that works against my goal for the system.
Starchaser
 member, 567 posts
 GMT+0
 http://bit.ly/2NvdzWG
Thu 28 Mar 2019
at 11:25
Re: An expandable 2-page system, looking for feedback.
+1 in total agreement with hating classes. If you think about RL although people have their specialities, most people do have a handful of unrelated things they are proficient in. Classes tend to get in the way of creating a unique 'flavour' to a character IMHO.
V_V
 member, 815 posts
Thu 28 Mar 2019
at 23:04
Re: An expandable 2-page system, looking for feedback.

This message was deleted by a moderator, as it was against the forum rules, at 06:30, Fri 29 Mar.

V_V
 member, 816 posts
 You can call me V, just V
 Life; a journey made once
Fri 29 Mar 2019
at 07:48
Re: An expandable 2-page system, looking for feedback.
This is a great simple system, that gives me an idea for running a game of this at some point. Granted a different style than is mentioned, but yeah, it looks good. :) *thumbs up*
horus
 member, 665 posts
 Wayfarer of the
 Western Wastes
Fri 29 Mar 2019
at 08:10
Re: An expandable 2-page system, looking for feedback.
Just seeing this topic.  This has promise.  I'll follow, and comment more after I've really had the time this deserves.  Playtest?  I'm really tempted.
DarkLightHitomi
 member, 1488 posts
Fri 29 Mar 2019
at 09:01
Re: An expandable 2-page system, looking for feedback.
Not sure how clear this part is, I totally think it needs to be better written, but here is an initial draft of the conflict resolution.

This part is more of a kit to toss together a quick framework for handling any kind of contest from a chase scene to a dimplomatic negotiation to combat.

This kit is real simple, and is broken into three simple parts, Score, Goalpost, Check.

The Score is a measure of progress towards success/failure. The score can start at zero and grow, or it can be a value that shrinks to zero (or any other measure method you can think of). If you have a value, it could be based on a certain stat (i.e. your hardiness score) or an objective value (i.e. start at zero, aim to reach 20).

The Goalpost is the value you desire to reach/avoid with your score and how this affects success/failure. I.E. you might start with a score equal to a stat and desire to avoid having the score reach zero, or you might have a value that you want to reach with your score, or you might desire to be so many points above your opposition (though this is a form you want to be very careful with, lest you get a conflict that never ends).

The Check is what kind of skill/ability/etc check that is made each turn to gain score or avoid losing score. This can be a directly opposed check (like hiding vs finding), side-by-side checks (both roll same skill I.E. acrobatics, pick winner), or narrative tasks (such as completing a series of challanges/puzzles open for the player to develop their strategy). Once you get the hang of it, you can come up with many others as well.

Examples.

A diplomatic negotiation, each participant has their Score starting at their Independance attribute and last participant with a Score above 0 wins the negotiation (though both parties reaching an acceptable end before this can still end the contest). For the check each side makes a persuasion/oratory/social check and loser reduces their Score by one.

A combat encounter, each particpant has a Score based on their Hardiness, if score reaches 0 they lose whether it be death, capture, or simple unconciousness. Each turn, a character can do something, but affecting an opponant's score requires an attack against the opponant's defense, which, if the attacker wins the check wil reduce the defender's score by an amount dictated by the weapon used.

A chase sequence through a city, each group has a score starting at zero. Each turn, participants make a check such as athletics (to outpace), navigation (lose pursuers by taking difficult to follow routes), or acrobatics (by taking difficult paths requiring jumping and tumbling) and success gains one score point. When one party has 5 points more than the other group, they succeed in making their get-away (if the runners succeed) or capturing them (if the pursuers win).

These can be stacked, such as running a combat side-by-side with a chase. Losing the combat automatically loses the chase, but winning the chase would end the combat. Another way these can be combined is performing a task to win favor as part of a negotiation.
Starchaser
 member, 568 posts
 GMT+0
 http://bit.ly/2NvdzWG
Fri 29 Mar 2019
at 09:12
Re: An expandable 2-page system, looking for feedback.
I could so use that in a combat situation that is about to occur in a game I co-gm right now (Though in reality I already know what the outcome will be).

Mind if I playtest what you have posted ao far in one of my own games?
DarkLightHitomi
 member, 1489 posts
Fri 29 Mar 2019
at 18:26
Re: An expandable 2-page system, looking for feedback.
Certainly. Just let me know how it turns out.

If you have any questions about it, I'll be here.
icosahedron152
 member, 941 posts
Sat 30 Mar 2019
at 04:10
Re: An expandable 2-page system, looking for feedback.
Just a couple of points.

You've used the word 'score' previously in a different context.

If your purpose in a contest is to reduce a person's Hardiness, say, from 15 to 0, at a rate of 1 point per game turn, that contest is going to last a looooong time. Especially in a PbP game.

You've already picked up the fact that rising number contests can last indefinitely.

Maybe you need some way to limit long contests?
DarkLightHitomi
 member, 1490 posts
Sat 30 Mar 2019
at 05:02
Re: An expandable 2-page system, looking for feedback.
>Score, noted. I'll figure out a different term. Good catch, thank you.

>reducing score, The combat example, you reduce the score by the weapon dmg. I missed a typo in which the diplomatic example should reduce the score by one per successful turn but starts at the attribute rank.

I also need to make it clear that the points of the contest are independant of any stats they take a value from, thus while combat points start out equal to hardiness, your attribute doesn't drop from standard dmg.

> Long contests
The dimplomatic example should last around 4-8 turns. The combat example woukd last 2-6 turns. The only example with significant chance of lasting a long time is the chase, but I don't really think a rule to limit that is a good idea.

In a sequence like that the gm has two options, first is to bring a story close to the chase (in which a rule brings a hindering expectation), the second is to make the chase the adventure (in which the rule is directly hindering), so players are being chased but are worrying about the small things like their tracks, getting around obstacles, making diversions, etc which can benefit from lasting out, so really, the gm needs to have the ability to handle it appropriately anyway in which case, more freedom is better than arbitrary limitations.

Basically, at this core level, it isn't the point to stop the gm from making mistakes, but rather enable a great gm to focus on being great, while later add-on blocks can bring in the limitations that make it easier for less experienced gms to avoid shooting down their own game.

A good analogy is programming. Assembly is a language lacking a lot of built-in protections, a fact that allows an experienced programmer to make amazing code, while java is a language that is easier and safer to use as a newbie but is less efficient.

This kinda how I see this core and block relationship. The core is a minimalist structure for great versatility in the hands of well-practiced gms while the blocks to be added later build on that to achieve a systemic goal, such as enhacing a particuoar feel, or making it easier for newer gm to avoid mistakes.
DarkLightHitomi
 member, 1491 posts
Sat 30 Mar 2019
at 05:10
Re: An expandable 2-page system, looking for feedback.
Belated consideration,
Some gms may have the experience and ability to handle the more advanced requirements of the rules not protecting against such issues as long contests, but who desire such protections anyway to make things easier on them.

This is fine, I think though, that having things so open lets such a gm use the blocks of additional rules (that will be added later) directly or to develop such protections themselves that they can apply to any game they later run without developing it again.

I also see it as part of campaign prep to fiddle, perhaps extensively, with the system to really fit the desired style, genre, and feel the specific campaign is going for. Arbitrary limits make that harder for anyone trying.

Edited for clarity and spelling.

This message was last edited by the user at 06:18, Sun 31 Mar.

horus
 member, 669 posts
 Wayfarer of the
 Western Wastes
Sun 31 Mar 2019
at 03:11
Re: An expandable 2-page system, looking for feedback.
DarkLightHitomi:
Not sure how clear this part is, I totally think it needs to be better written, but here is an initial draft of the conflict resolution.


It doesn't have to be perfect at this point in development - it seems like you're still brainstorming for definite ideas.  That's a valid phase of development and can result in some really innovative methods and practices.

quote:
...This kit is real simple, and is broken into three simple parts, Score, Goalpost, Check.

The Score is a measure of progress towards success/failure. The score can start at zero and grow, or it can be a value that shrinks to zero (or any other measure method you can think of). If you have a value, it could be based on a certain stat (i.e. your hardiness score) or an objective value (i.e. start at zero, aim to reach 20).


Seems like the Score here is the current value of something being either measured or diced for based on a skill, attribute, aspect, etc?  Is this right, or can the Score rise or fall in subsequent rounds/segments/turns/whatever?  (Seems like it.)

quote:
The Goalpost is the value you desire to reach/avoid with your score and how this affects success/failure. ... .


I would tend to nail this down a bit better.  If there are several cases relevant to your particular game where a Goalpost would exist, it needs to be well-defined, at least in terms of how one arrives at it.  (Or is this a task you are leaving to the GM?)

quote:
The Check is what kind of skill/ability/etc check that is made each turn to gain score or avoid losing score. This can be a directly opposed check (like hiding vs finding), side-by-side checks (both roll same skill I.E. acrobatics, pick winner), or narrative tasks (such as completing a series of challanges/puzzles open for the player to develop their strategy). Once you get the hang of it, you can come up with many others as well.


It seems, to me at least, all these variants can be encompassed in a single simpler mechanic:  Task Definition, Difficulty/Threshold Determination, and Task Throw.  I might, however, be missing the subtleties here and I don't mean to be a Philistine.

If two or more persons are involved in a matter, there is room for an Opposing Task Throw that determines the Threshold (Goalpost) which must be equaled or exceeded to indicate success in the matter, and for Aiding Throws that, in some way, add to the possibilities for success or failure (that is, a player could aid the opposing throw or the initiating throw, dependent on situation and player's inclination.)

quote:
Examples.

A diplomatic negotiation, each participant has their Score starting at their Independance attribute and last participant with a Score above 0 wins the negotiation (though both parties reaching an acceptable end before this can still end the contest). For the check each side makes a persuasion/oratory/social check and loser reduces their Score by one.

A combat encounter, each particpant has a Score based on their Hardiness, if score reaches 0 they lose whether it be death, capture, or simple unconciousness. Each turn, a character can do something, but affecting an opponant's score requires an attack against the opponant's defense, which, if the attacker wins the check wil reduce the defender's score by an amount dictated by the weapon used.


These rather put me in mind of Fate's "Ladder" system.  Things start on the Ladder and see-saw back and forth until one side or the other satisfies the agreed upon victory condition?  Is that about right?

Are you proposing a different variant of a general "task" system for different particular cases, or am I misunderstanding?
DarkLightHitomi
 member, 1494 posts
Sun 31 Mar 2019
at 06:49
Re: An expandable 2-page system, looking for feedback.
horus:
DarkLightHitomi:
Not sure how clear this part is, I totally think it needs to be better written, but here is an initial draft of the conflict resolution.


It doesn't have to be perfect at this point in development - it seems like you're still brainstorming for definite ideas.  That's a valid phase of development and can result in some really innovative methods and practices.


There is that a little, but also there is a lot where I understand it quite well, but am not sure about writing it in a way that makes it equally clear to others.

This was a major issue in DnD, where their writing didn't always clearly communicate the intent (of course, plenty of clear sections were ignored by players as well).

As an autistic, I find this a big problem to watch out for.

quote:
quote:
...This kit is real simple, and is broken into three simple parts, Score, Goalpost, Check.

The Score is a measure of progress towards success/failure. The score can start at zero and grow, or it can be a value that shrinks to zero (or any other measure method you can think of). If you have a value, it could be based on a certain stat (i.e. your hardiness score) or an objective value (i.e. start at zero, aim to reach 20).


Seems like the Score here is the current value of something being either measured or diced for based on a skill, attribute, aspect, etc?  Is this right, or can the Score rise or fall in subsequent rounds/segments/turns/whatever?  (Seems like it.)


The score starts at the current value of something, but then is altered in subsequent rounds depending on check results.


quote:
quote:
The Goalpost is the value you desire to reach/avoid with your score and how this affects success/failure. ... .


I would tend to nail this down a bit better.  If there are several cases relevant to your particular game where a Goalpost would exist, it needs to be well-defined, at least in terms of how one arrives at it.  (Or is this a task you are leaving to the GM?)


The goalpost is the value at which a character either loses or wins the contest. This is thus dependent on what the contest is about and how the gm structured it.


quote:
quote:
The Check is what kind of skill/ability/etc check that is made each turn to gain score or avoid losing score. This can be a directly opposed check (like hiding vs finding), side-by-side checks (both roll same skill I.E. acrobatics, pick winner), or narrative tasks (such as completing a series of challanges/puzzles open for the player to develop their strategy). Once you get the hang of it, you can come up with many others as well.


It seems, to me at least, all these variants can be encompassed in a single simpler mechanic:  Task Definition, Difficulty/Threshold Determination, and Task Throw.  I might, however, be missing the subtleties here and I don't mean to be a Philistine.

If two or more persons are involved in a matter, there is room for an Opposing Task Throw that determines the Threshold (Goalpost) which must be equaled or exceeded to indicate success in the matter, and for Aiding Throws that, in some way, add to the possibilities for success or failure (that is, a player could aid the opposing throw or the initiating throw, dependent on situation and player's inclination.)


That is what this is attempting to do, to simply into a simpler mechanic.

Any contest that can be handled with a single check doesn't need anything beyond the one check, but if you want a series of checks to be required for victory, then you need a structure to unify those checks and measure progress.

Score is the measure of progress, goalpost is where you want that score to reach, and check is the type of check needed to modify the score.

There are however plenty of cases where the score needs to change in different ways to better represent different kinds of contests. A sprint race shouldn't be handled like combat for example.

Perhaps this would be clearer if I explicitly listed out the various ways?

quote:
quote:
Examples.

A diplomatic negotiation, each participant has their Score starting at their Independance attribute and last participant with a Score above 0 wins the negotiation (though both parties reaching an acceptable end before this can still end the contest). For the check each side makes a persuasion/oratory/social check and loser reduces their Score by one.

A combat encounter, each particpant has a Score based on their Hardiness, if score reaches 0 they lose whether it be death, capture, or simple unconciousness. Each turn, a character can do something, but affecting an opponant's score requires an attack against the opponant's defense, which, if the attacker wins the check wil reduce the defender's score by an amount dictated by the weapon used.


These rather put me in mind of Fate's "Ladder" system.  Things start on the Ladder and see-saw back and forth until one side or the other satisfies the agreed upon victory condition?  Is that about right?

Are you proposing a different variant of a general "task" system for different particular cases, or am I misunderstanding?


Not really, each participant has their own score and tries to achieve victory in one of two ways, reaching the victory score first, or being the last one who has not reached the defeat score, depending on which one the contest is going for

To make a more detailed exampled,

For a diplomatic negotiation, you have Adam and Bob.
Adam has an Independence of 10 giving him 2 ranks in that ability and thus 2 points for this contest.
Bob has a 14 Independence which is 3 ranks and thus gets 3 points for this contest.

The contest is last man standing, whoever reaches 0 points loses.

Each turn, Adam and Bob roll checks to try and cause the other to lose a point. Any check that makes sense could be used, so Adam could try Intimidation while Bob could try Diplomacy or even Haggling if he tries to buy his way to victory.

The last one with more than 0 points wins the contest, getting their demands met.

Other things can be done during the contest to alter the chances of victory. For example, if each turn is a day of negotiations, then if Bob finds out more about Adam, then Bob can adjust his demands in the negotiation at the start of day two (the second turn) to make victory more likely.

To reference Drowtales, if Bob finds out that Adam values Amber, then Bob can change from offering Gold to offering Amber, so that Adam is more likely to accept.
horus
 member, 672 posts
 Wayfarer of the
 Western Wastes
Sun 31 Mar 2019
at 07:36
Re: An expandable 2-page system, looking for feedback.
A fundamentals question:  What do a character's basic vital statistics look like for this system?  What is their numerical range, in particular?

EDIT:  It looks like, from my re-reading of previous posts, that Stats are basically setting a dice pool, and that the number and type are defined by such things as "level" and other factors?  I'd love to see this doped out.

This numerical range is important, because it serves as the basis for "check" rolls in some cases, yes?  This, in turn, sets the number and type of dice to be cast for a check.

In one of my games here on RPoL, I use a basic range for attributes from 0 to 15.  Tasks are resolved using 2d6 + any modifiers against an opposing roll for conflicts, or against a Difficulty Rating for non-conflict tasks.  The degree of success or failure is determined by the difference between the Difficulty rating/opposing roll and the Task throw.  Snake eyes always fumble, and boxcars always crit, regardless of any modifiers.

If that looks familiar, you've probably played Classic or Mongoose Traveller at some point.  That particular game of mine is heavily based in Classic Traveller, in mechanical terms, anyway.

A technique of organization that may help is to write an outline for the system.  If the outline goes past one page, you'll have trouble fitting the whole system in two.

One last question:  is this a game system, or more like a System Reference Document that can be used to produce games (more like a "game engine")?

This message was last edited by the user at 07:44, Sun 31 Mar.

DarkLightHitomi
 member, 1495 posts
Sun 31 Mar 2019
at 08:11
Re: An expandable 2-page system, looking for feedback.
horus:
A fundamentals question:  What do a character's basic vital statistics look like for this system?  What is their numerical range, in particular?


3d6 is a good description for normal people's stats. The average score is 9-12, which gives an average rank of 2.

People's average tier is 3-4. Commoner level people are generally 3, while those who get better educated and experienced often get to tier 4. Getting tier 5 is uncommon, and is often the leading people of a nation, the heroes and household names.

quote:
EDIT:  It looks like, from my re-reading of previous posts, that Stats are basically setting a dice pool, and that the number and type are defined by such things as "level" and other factors?  I'd love to see this doped out.


A better way to think of it is to start with d20 and use the variable modifiers variant rules.

It is a dice pool I guess by way of technicality, though no dice pool game I've played really looks at it the same way.

Level is not about the dice rolled at all, but is just about advancement, gaining points for improving skills, attributes, new features, etc. It can be used for gaining power or tier if the gm wants a more DnD scaling style.

quote:
This numerical range is important, because it serves as the basis for "check" rolls in some cases, yes?  This, in turn, sets the number and type of dice to be cast for a check.


The range of attribute scores is actually the same as d20 (if you read the actual rules rather than the popular interpretation), and the results range is only half again larger than d20 being 0-60 (rather than d20's 0-40).


quote:
In one of my games here on RPoL, I use a basic range for attributes from 0 to 15.  Tasks are resolved using 2d6 + any modifiers against an opposing roll for conflicts, or against a Difficulty Rating for non-conflict tasks.  The degree of success or failure is determined by the difference between the Difficulty rating/opposing roll and the Task throw.  Snake eyes always fumble, and boxcars always crit, regardless of any modifiers.

If that looks familiar, you've probably played Classic or Mongoose Traveller at some point.  That particular game of mine is heavily based in Classic Traveller, in mechanical terms, anyway.


Traveller is one game I have not had a chance to even look at yet, though I haven't really heard anything that makes me want to give it a high priority as it sounds very much not really my style.


quote:
A technique of organization that may help is to write an outline for the system.  If the outline goes past one page, you'll have trouble fitting the whole system in two.


A major part of this however is figuring how much explanation is needed for various parts. For example, Strength can by with a sentence or less, but Independence probably needs more than that.

And also,  concise writing, which is hard to find even for non-autistic people.


quote:
One last question:  is this a game system, or more like a System Reference Document that can be used to produce games (more like a "game engine")?


Depends on what you see as the difference. Is gurps a system, or a SRD?

Truthfully, DnD 3.x was written with the intent to be modified by each gm to fit each campaign, not that anyone treated it like that. In fact, it amazes me how much popular culture misconstrues and misuses dnd 3.x, often outright ignoring what is actually written in the core books.

However, a good line to divide the two is to say that a system needs no modification to be played, while a SRD needs to molded before use.

Using that definition, the core of what I'm doing (the 2-page part, even if it ends up as 3-pages or so) is SRD, while the blocks I'll be writing later will be more of a system, just pick the blocks you need/want and go.
horus
 member, 673 posts
 Wayfarer of the
 Western Wastes
Sun 31 Mar 2019
at 21:34
Re: An expandable 2-page system, looking for feedback.
DarkLightHitomi:
3d6 is a good description for normal people's stats. The average score is 9-12, which gives an average rank of 2.


And it seems this to be determined by a roll with dice added together to get a result.  The norms for 3d6 are 10 and 11, which tally well with the stated average score. Results of 10 and 11 each occur 27 times out of 216 permutations.  Thus a norm occurs 54 times in 216, or 25% of the time.  An "average score" would occur 104 times in 216, or a little more than 48%.

quote:
People's average tier is 3-4. Commoner level people are generally 3, while those who get better educated and experienced often get to tier 4. Getting tier 5 is uncommon, and is often the leading people of a nation, the heroes and household names.


I'll have to go back and re-read again, because I don't have a clear idea of what "tier" is being used to represent.  (Probably due to my lack of memory these days...)

Hmm...Tier, a character's overall agency in life.  Is "agency" a character's ability to determine and to act independently of others?  (Do I get the concept?)

quote:
Traveller is one game I have not had a chance to even look at yet, though I haven't really heard anything that makes me want to give it a high priority as it sounds very much not really my style.


I won't argue the merits of Traveller based on anyone's personal preference, but the mechanic I stated above is an elegant, understandable, task system modified by me to accommodate varying degrees of success or failure.

The basic mechanic is flexible, dead simple, consistent in all cases, and only varies in how the Difficulty Rating is determined for a particular task, more notably for combat tasks, which include the concept of an opposing roll.

Modifications to the basic task roll are made for applicable skills, "stats", and other factors (more so for combat tasks) as are specified in a Task Definition block.  (As new tasks are needed, I discuss with players and we define them together.)

quote:
quote:
A technique of organization that may help is to write an outline for the system.  If the outline goes past one page, you'll have trouble fitting the whole system in two.


A major part of this however is figuring how much explanation is needed for various parts. For example, Strength can by with a sentence or less, but Independence probably needs more than that.

And also,  concise writing, which is hard to find even for non-autistic people.

The whole purpose of an outline is to set down the major points of the document briefly, and to provide a framework to help organize one's thinking.  Don't explain at all - create a short list of major topics, sort of like a table of contents, then go back to each major topic and list under it subtopics relevant to it.

You'll find that you can work from the merest of outlines for a simple project, or "drill down" where more research and development is needed.

Example:

1.0) Characters

     1.1) Attributes
          1.1.1)  Strength
                  1.1.1.1)  Definition of Strength
          1.1.2)  Intelligence
          ...
          1.1.6)  Charisma

     1.2) Skills

          1.2.1)  Spells
          1.2.2)  Common Skills
          1.2.3)  Combat Skills

and so forth.  Different numbering systems are out there for use in outlines, or you can leave them numberless, as best suits your purpose.

Concise writing means using fewer more effective words to get one's point across.  That's all - there's no magic formula for it. If one's thoughts are disorganized, one's writing is also likely to be disorganized.

With respect to System Reference Documents:
quote:
Depends on what you see as the difference. Is gurps a system, or a SRD?


{snipped:  stuff about D&D 3.x, a system with which I'm not all that familiar, having stopped playing AD&D about version 2.0.  No accounting for taste, huh?}

quote:
However, a good line to divide the two is to say that a system needs no modification to be played, while a SRD needs to molded before use.

Using that definition, the core of what I'm doing (the 2-page part, even if it ends up as 3-pages or so) is SRD, while the blocks I'll be writing later will be more of a system, just pick the blocks you need/want and go.


Ah.  This definitely brings it into focus for me.  So... what we should concentrate on for now is what those first few pages (the basic system) will look like.
DarkLightHitomi
 member, 1496 posts
Mon 1 Apr 2019
at 00:03
Re: An expandable 2-page system, looking for feedback.
horus:
DarkLightHitomi:
3d6 is a good description for normal people's stats. The average score is 9-12, which gives an average rank of 2.


And it seems this to be determined by a roll with dice added together to get a result.


Yes, in this case though, it is meaning that the bell curve of 3d6 fits closely to the bell curve of normal people.

quote:
quote:
People's average tier is 3-4. Commoner level people are generally 3, while those who get better educated and experienced often get to tier 4. Getting tier 5 is uncommon, and is often the leading people of a nation, the heroes and household names.


I'll have to go back and re-read again, because I don't have a clear idea of what "tier" is being used to represent.  (Probably due to my lack of memory these days...)

Hmm...Tier, a character's overall agency in life.  Is "agency" a character's ability to determine and to act independently of others?  (Do I get the concept?)


Sort of. You ever hear about player agency in a game? A game with no player agency is a game with no player choice in the structure of the game.

Basically, a railroaded game has little player agency as the players are at the whim of the gm. The story goes according to the plan of someone other than the players. But in a sandbox game, there is high player agency as the players choose the direction they direction they go, and the results are the reactions to the player's choices.

Tier is like someone's agency in life, their ability to make things work out according to their plans rather than following the plans of others. People who conform to society and do as they are told or remain stuck because they can't do what they need to do to get unstuck are people with low agency.

People who go their own way and forcibly change the world that struggles against them have high agency. Hitler was a bad guy and a large part of what him a big bad guy instead of a little bad guy was his high agency. He changed the face of the world largely because he had the agency to stand up and do something despite all the world trying to stop him. A very bad guy, but a good example of what a high agency person can do.


quote:
...

The basic mechanic is flexible, dead simple, consistent in all cases, and only varies in how the Difficulty Rating is determined for a particular task, more notably for combat tasks, which include the concept of an opposing roll.

Modifications to the basic task roll are made for applicable skills, "stats", and other factors (more so for combat tasks) as are specified in a Task Definition block.  (As new tasks are needed, I discuss with players and we define them together.)


Sounds like d20 and many other games as well.

quote:
quote:
<quote>
A technique of organization that may help is to write an outline for the system.  If the outline goes past one page, you'll have trouble fitting the whole system in two.


Not where I thought you were going with that. I've done some outlining for this. A few dozen iterations actually. Though swapping to a "2-page" core with add-on blocks is a recent shift in how I'm structuring it.

quote:
{snipped:  stuff about D&D 3.x, a system with which I'm not all that familiar, having stopped playing AD&D about version 2.0.  No accounting for taste, huh?}


I would say that 3.x was a distilled and simplified dnd experience. 3.x took the adnd and gave a unified structure and all that stuff you mentioned earlier,

quote:
The basic mechanic is flexible, dead simple, consistent in all cases,


Basically this was applied to dnd in 3.x, albeit imperfectly.

quote:
quote:
However, a good line to divide the two is to say that a system needs no modification to be played, while a SRD needs to molded before use.

Using that definition, the core of what I'm doing (the 2-page part, even if it ends up as 3-pages or so) is SRD, while the blocks I'll be writing later will be more of a system, just pick the blocks you need/want and go.


Ah.  This definitely brings it into focus for me.  So... what we should concentrate on for now is what those first few pages (the basic system) will look like.


Indeed, which at the moment just really needs clean-up and polish, and perhaps and example setting for listing out sample skill lists and features.
horus
 member, 675 posts
 Wayfarer of the
 Western Wastes
Mon 1 Apr 2019
at 05:53
Re: An expandable 2-page system, looking for feedback.
DarkLightHitomi:
{snippage:  player agency, railroaded games vs. those more collaborative in nature, etc.}

Tier is like someone's agency in life, their ability to make things work out according to their plans rather than following the plans of others. People who conform to society and do as they are told or remain stuck because they can't do what they need to do to get unstuck are people with low agency.


Okay, so Tier is the basis for a mechanic that compels a more collaborative game?

I got the example you gave of a real person with high agency acting for evil.  World War II and the Holocaust are areas of some personal interest for me, so you shot close to the mark.

A high Tier, if I'm getting it, makes it possible for a player to take some control of the narrative under certain circumstances, right?

DarkLightHitomi:
Sounds like d20 and many other games as well.


I wouldn't know.  I've never played a d20 game that I know of.

quote:
Not where I thought you were going with that. I've done some outlining for this. A few dozen iterations actually. Though swapping to a "2-page" core with add-on blocks is a recent shift in how I'm structuring it.


Okay.  Glad the example clarified that for you.
quote:
I would say that 3.x was a distilled and simplified dnd experience. 3.x took the adnd and gave a unified structure and all that stuff you mentioned earlier,

quote:
The basic mechanic is flexible, dead simple, consistent in all cases,


Basically this was applied to dnd in 3.x, albeit imperfectly.


Obsession with perfection is the destroyer of good.  I bet it worked well enough for all practical purposes.

quote:
quote:
Ah.  This definitely brings it into focus for me.  So... what we should concentrate on for now is what those first few pages (the basic system) will look like.


Indeed, which at the moment just really needs clean-up and polish, and perhaps and example setting for listing out sample skill lists and features.


Yup.  That sounds like a great next step.  I'm looking forward to it.
DarkLightHitomi
 member, 1497 posts
Mon 1 Apr 2019
at 09:47
Re: An expandable 2-page system, looking for feedback.
horus:
DarkLightHitomi:
{snippage:  player agency, railroaded games vs. those more collaborative in nature, etc.}

Tier is like someone's agency in life, their ability to make things work out according to their plans rather than following the plans of others. People who conform to society and do as they are told or remain stuck because they can't do what they need to do to get unstuck are people with low agency.


Okay, so Tier is the basis for a mechanic that compels a more collaborative game?

I got the example you gave of a real person with high agency acting for evil.  World War II and the Holocaust are areas of some personal interest for me, so you shot close to the mark.

A high Tier, if I'm getting it, makes it possible for a player to take some control of the narrative under certain circumstances, right?


It is descriptive of the character, not the player. A character with higher tier has a larger die on all their rolls, upping their results.

Also, some of the rules I'll be adding later will use Tier in things like contests of will (and of course, it is a perfectly acceptable stat for gms to select for resolving conflicts).

I never really cared for systems about narrative control, but for me, the gm is an author, the players are the readers. I much prefer playing in which I discover things as my character does and make decisions as my character, not so much being a shared authoring nor dictating things about the world.
horus
 member, 679 posts
 Wayfarer of the
 Western Wastes
Tue 2 Apr 2019
at 07:30
Re: An expandable 2-page system, looking for feedback.
I'm beginning to think we're conjuring with words too much.  I still look forward to seeing your mini-system, however many pages in winds up being.  Cut cooling water in to your keyboard and let's see how it goes.
DarkLightHitomi
 member, 1545 posts
Sat 27 Apr 2019
at 07:50
Re: An expandable 2-page system, looking for feedback.
Update.

I haven't forgotten this or anything. I'm multitasking at the moment, trying various organization concepts, but also building a custom setting and a couple standard fantasy/sci-fi sets.

The idea is that can show examples of the three settings using the mechanics to establish the settings.

I did come with a name as well,
ACE T

Adventurous Campaign Engineering Toolkit

Since it is really intended for the gm to mold it to each game, yet remain the same enough that players aren't learning entirely new mechanics for every game, just the details.