The Gaming Den

OK cool your jets, I didn't mention anything because i didn't see the point. As it goes i'm trying to design a system.

ghost whistler wrote: If other people like 3e they can tell me, that's the whole point of this thread. I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve telling me this discussion is a waste of time.

I approached 3E from having learned D&D with 2E. While 3E is a perfectly playable game at low levels on its own, a lot of what is good about it is how they moved away from some of the crap of previous editions.

The earlier editions tended to be largely add-on rules to previous editions with only some actual revision. 3E rewrote a lot of the core rules to streamline the mechanics and use the same mechanic throughout. So, the core mechanic in 3E is roll d20, add some modifiers, and check to see if that modified roll meets or exceeds a target number. This is used for pretty much any d20 roll in the system. These are the rolls typically used to check for success or failure. Compare this to the variety of ways these rolls were handled in 2E:

• Take an attack rating (lower is better), subtract the defenders defense rating (lower is better), and try to meet or exceed that number on a d20.
• Take a defense rating (lower is better) and try to roll that number or higher on a d20.
• Take an ability (higher is better) and try to roll that number or lower on a d20.
• Roll equal or less than a target number on d100.

There are probably some other core mechanics I'm missing from 2E, but you weren't always rolling a d20, but when you were, you might want to roll high or roll low, and if you were rolling high, it involved subtraction.

Another nice thing of 3E is that it took the unified mechanics and applied them evenly across the game. Monsters had the same ability scores as players and followed the same rules. They also got rid of some sacred cows of the older systems.

On a higher-level, the system seemed to lean more toward the DM working with the players rather than against them, and they got rid of a lot of the antagonistic "the DM is god" approach.


Of course, the system has plenty of faults, too. Skills don't work well outside of low level, magic becomes more and more important as you gain levels, high-level combats tend to become rocket launcher tag (typically, who ever goes first wins the combat), combats can take a long time to resolve, there are a lot of balance issues between classes, feats, and other options.

Other than that, it's largely a flavor thing. If you like complex character building rules, a system that rewards rules mastery, and combats with lots of moving parts and pieces, you might like this system. If not, you likely won't.

For dice pools, probability are hard to compute, but the good thing is that with a good dice pool based system they don't need to be.

A percentile system makes it easy to know the probability of success, but it doesn't help, because you can rarely guess how many % of the time an action should succeed.

The advantage of a dice pool system is that you can have threshold that represent the "difficulty" of a task, and a pool that shows how good the person is at doing it. Which are both things that are far easier to figure out.

The tricky part (figuring what are the chances of someone succeeding when attempting something) has to be done only once, and once decided is set in the system and will be the same for everyone.

One of the drawbacks of a dice pool mechanisms that rarely gets mentioned is that humans can only quickly (without having to count) assess the number of some things (for example dice) if it is under 7 (+ or - 2). So once you have more than 7 dice (+/- 2) in your pools, you'll have players who need to count them every time before a roll, and if you've got many rolls that slows down the game a lot.

But if you want to design your own game, your first question shouldn't be "what are the best mechanisms out there ?" but "what are the best mechanisms for the game I want?". A mechanism that's perfect for one game might be totally absurd or counter-effective in another one.

Lately I've been playing a fair bit of Deathwatch. In this game you play a Space Marine - elite warriors in the galaxy with the best equipment. The system relies on a d100 roll under system. For example, I'm a Devestator (ranged attacker) and my ballistics skill is 72. Fully 1/4 of the time, I miss, and I'm the best at ranged attacks. Even if I hit, the rules as written allow a target to evade the attack with a successful roll - if their dodge is good it doesn't really matter how good I am at shooting - they can negate my shot 100% of the time. I find the system very dissatisfying because I experience major cognitive dissonance regarding the fluff and crunch - badass warriors shouldn't fail more often than they succeed.

3.x (especially at low-levels) establishes that characters can generally succeed on tasks that they're good at. While failure is a possibility, it doesn't feel like 'Keystone Cops' where you fail more often than you succeed. Since the game allows stacking a fair number of bonuses, you can become good at things that are important to you. It tends to play well at low-levels (up through 7), though there is certainly room for mechanical improvement. Some abilities are overrated (like Feats) so having more of them wouldn't break the game, but overall, you can make interesting, mechanically distinct characters and have fun.

Roll under is a nice idea, but it fails horribly IMO at opposed actions.

ghost whistler wrote:Roll under is a nice idea, but it fails horribly IMO at opposed actions.

Roll under systems are actually shit. There is no benefit to using roll under in a d100 system when you could just roll the die, add your bonus and compare it to a target number of 100. Not only does this make circumstantial bonuses and penalties make sense- bonuses would make your number larger, penalties make it smaller- but you can also make opposed rolls easily. Plus, people naturally conflate larger numbers with better results, so it feels more satisfying. There is no reason to ever use roll under when you have the better alternative of rolling over.

Games should do what they say on the tin. 3e was broadly very good at that, at least for the first half of the advertised playable range, partly even up to three-quarters, and then not at all.

The things people don't like about 3e D&D (for instance) are where it says Fighters getting more basic feats at 12th level is a useful choice to give, but it isn't at all. Where it gives you a lot of freedom (and thus busy work) to buy various skills right up to 20th level and actually they stopped mattering back at 6th level. Where it says Monk is an adventuring class and really it isn't one at any point.

Where it says Elves make good Wizards, but they don't. Or probably quite important rather than just annoying bullshit, where it said one of any monster was an appropriate challenge at a certain level, and it usually wasn't one at all, because they only work right in small groups and in fairly tight confines, the way the game was fucking playtested.

And also how particular activities within the game don't work as advertised when you try to use the actual rules, like Grappling, or Stealth, or multiclassing, or playing as a monster unless you're polymorphed into one (which you really should be), or the secret healing tricks that radically changed the overall play of multiple encounter structures and ultimately pushed the game toward pure rocket-tag territory out in the real world.

What about the system used in ICONS? The d6-d6 variant of Fate.

That seems a good idea. Opposed actions can be conducted relatively easily and intuitively and everything can operate on a single scale. So an attack can be made using Fight vs Defence, stats that are fairly transparent.

deaddmwalking wrote:Lately I've been playing a fair bit of Deathwatch. In this game you play a Space Marine - elite warriors in the galaxy with the best equipment. The system relies on a d100 roll under system. For example, I'm a Devestator (ranged attacker) and my ballistics skill is 72. Fully 1/4 of the time, I miss, and I'm the best at ranged attacks. Even if I hit, the rules as written allow a target to evade the attack with a successful roll - if their dodge is good it doesn't really matter how good I am at shooting - they can negate my shot 100% of the time. I find the system very dissatisfying because I experience major cognitive dissonance regarding the fluff and crunch - badass warriors shouldn't fail more often than they succeed.

3.x (especially at low-levels) establishes that characters can generally succeed on tasks that they're good at. While failure is a possibility, it doesn't feel like 'Keystone Cops' where you fail more often than you succeed. Since the game allows stacking a fair number of bonuses, you can become good at things that are important to you. It tends to play well at low-levels (up through 7), though there is certainly room for mechanical improvement. Some abilities are overrated (like Feats) so having more of them wouldn't break the game, but overall, you can make interesting, mechanically distinct characters and have fun.

I tried Dark Heresy and tbh the basic system i was ok with. It's just all the stupid situational stuff that for some reason the writers thought you'd not only need but fully remember all the time, such as rules for leaping across gaps.

Blade wrote: But if you want to design your own game, your first question shouldn't be "what are the best mechanisms out there ?" but "what are the best mechanisms for the game I want?". A mechanism that's perfect for one game might be totally absurd or counter-effective in another one.

I agree, but for now I'm just interested in finding inspiration.

ghost whistler wrote:Roll under is a nice idea, but it fails horribly IMO at opposed actions.

You can do opposed checks in roll-under, but it's going to start involving subtraction, and that's where it becomes a pain in the ass.

ghost whistler wrote:OK cool your jets, I didn't mention anything because i didn't see the point. As it goes i'm trying to design a system.

With your vast experience, solid understanding of math, self-awareness and communication skills, I'm sure it will be a smashing success.

deaddmwalking wrote:Lately I've been playing a fair bit of Deathwatch. In this game you play a Space Marine - elite warriors in the galaxy with the best equipment. The system relies on a d100 roll under system. For example, I'm a Devestator (ranged attacker) and my ballistics skill is 72. Fully 1/4 of the time, I miss, and I'm the best at ranged attacks. Even if I hit, the rules as written allow a target to evade the attack with a successful roll - if their dodge is good it doesn't really matter how good I am at shooting - they can negate my shot 100% of the time. I find the system very dissatisfying because I experience major cognitive dissonance regarding the fluff and crunch - badass warriors shouldn't fail more often than they succeed.

You are doing it wrong. Take a bolter, shoot full-auto - that's +20. Wear a motion predictor - that's +10. Be in close range - that's another +10. Now your skill is 112 and you can't miss. Ever. Since you are shooting full-auto you make a number of shots equal to the degree of success, which is something like 5-6 for you, on average. To completely avoid your attack the enemy will have to dodge with the same degree of success, which is really damn hard.

Or you roll a 97 and you jam your gun.

Ultimately, I don't really care. My character should have died over TERRAIN mishaps. It feels very Keystone Cops.

Edit - And there are seven different erratas that all say how things ought to be different, so even figuring out which rules I should be looking at is beyond me.

rasmuswagner wrote:

ghost whistler wrote:OK cool your jets, I didn't mention anything because i didn't see the point. As it goes i'm trying to design a system.

With your vast experience, solid understanding of math, self-awareness and communication skills, I'm sure it will be a smashing success.

What was the point of posting that? Get a life.

ghost whistler wrote:

rasmuswagner wrote:

ghost whistler wrote:OK cool your jets, I didn't mention anything because i didn't see the point. As it goes i'm trying to design a system.

With your vast experience, solid understanding of math, self-awareness and communication skills, I'm sure it will be a smashing success.

What was the point of posting that? Get a life.

The points was to emphasize that you are a failure in literally ever aspect and that you suck dick, and that you are going to fail because of your tremendously shitty attributes.

Kaelik is not only right, he's extremely right. Not nice, but right.

Here's the thing - you can't really ask the question you've asked and hope to get anything out of it. Well, I mean, you could, but it'd be us designing a game for you to use.

If you want to design a game, you want to seek feedback on the decisions you're already considering. Rather than asking 'what makes a game good' you can say 'I want to include x in my game. I've considered mechanic y, but it doesn't seem to work because reason z. Is there another mechanic that is better suited to what I'm trying to do?

Example: I want to include cinematic combat in my game. I've considered allowing a character to use hero points for an additional action during a turn, but it doesn't seem to work because instead of resolving faster, it takes extra time. Is there another mechanic that is better suited to what I'm trying to do?

Not only does that explain what design problem(s) you're considering solutions for (narrowing the responses to things that would be helpful to you), it also indicates that you've already considered the problem and done some work - therefore people will be more likely to provide assistance since it is more likely it will be used. Providing design solutions for someone that doesn't even know what kind of game they're creating is pissing into the wind. There are lots of ways we can waste time. Personally, if I'm wasting time on purpose, I like to play browser games on my phone.

Kaelik wrote:

ghost whistler wrote:

rasmuswagner wrote:
With your vast experience, solid understanding of math, self-awareness and communication skills, I'm sure it will be a smashing success.

What was the point of posting that? Get a life.

The points was to emphasize that you are a failure in literally ever aspect and that you suck dick, and that you are going to fail because of your tremendously shitty attributes.

Why am i being attacked?

deaddmwalking wrote:Kaelik is not only right, he's extremely right. Not nice, but right.

Here's the thing - you can't really ask the question you've asked and hope to get anything out of it. Well, I mean, you could, but it'd be us designing a game for you to use.

If you want to design a game, you want to seek feedback on the decisions you're already considering. Rather than asking 'what makes a game good' you can say 'I want to include x in my game. I've considered mechanic y, but it doesn't seem to work because reason z. Is there another mechanic that is better suited to what I'm trying to do?

Example: I want to include cinematic combat in my game. I've considered allowing a character to use hero points for an additional action during a turn, but it doesn't seem to work because instead of resolving faster, it takes extra time. Is there another mechanic that is better suited to what I'm trying to do?

Not only does that explain what design problem(s) you're considering solutions for (narrowing the responses to things that would be helpful to you), it also indicates that you've already considered the problem and done some work - therefore people will be more likely to provide assistance since it is more likely it will be used. Providing design solutions for someone that doesn't even know what kind of game they're creating is pissing into the wind. There are lots of ways we can waste time. Personally, if I'm wasting time on purpose, I like to play browser games on my phone.

He's right in being a massive misogynistic abusive asshole? Please explain

Your initial question is very nebulous and doesn't really help at anything let alone on game design. Then even with that clarification there is no point of reference to go from. You didn't describe anything that you want the game to achieve or what you can considered good games already or even bad game that had some good things in them.

--

Also Kaliek has not said anything misogynistic.

Leress wrote:Your initial question is very nebulous and doesn't really help at anything let alone on game design. Then even with that clarification there is no point of reference to go from. You didn't describe anything that you want the game to achieve or what you can considered good games already or even bad game that had some good things in them.

--

Also Kaliek has not said anything misogynistic.

It's just a question. It's not a justification for childish abuse. If that's beyond you people then by all means don't answer. Anything else is trolling.

the expression 'suck a dick' is meant to belittle based on the notion that the person to whom you're talking is to be emasculated and feminised - in other words, it's inferior to have that quality. It's no different than calling someone a pussy.

Honestly, if people need that explained to them then perhaps they should be a little more cautious in shouting abuse.

I am saying your question is not very good. It's not beyond anyone it's just that it looks very vague and didn't serve no real purpose but to just take space.

Also your start this thread by being dickish so people have been dicks back.

You could have look around the site to see what people think about various games and or systems. Just look up OSSR in the search bar or other thread that people have started on critiques of systems or what games they are making. There are plenty and that is why people start with just brushing this thread aside since it seem you didn't really just do some searching on this forum yourself.

ghost whistler wrote:

Leress wrote:Your initial question is very nebulous and doesn't really help at anything let alone on game design. Then even with that clarification there is no point of reference to go from. You didn't describe anything that you want the game to achieve or what you can considered good games already or even bad game that had some good things in them.

--

Also Kaliek has not said anything misogynistic.

It's just a question. It's not a justification for childish abuse. If that's beyond you people then by all means don't answer. Anything else is trolling.

the expression 'suck a dick' is meant to belittle based on the notion that the person to whom you're talking is to be emasculated and feminised - in other words, it's inferior to have that quality. It's no different than calling someone a pussy.

Honestly, if people need that explained to them then perhaps they should be a little more cautious in shouting abuse.

So... Instead of learning anything when people aren't calling you mean names you're going to try and shame people for being mean to you on the internet? You realize you came here for advice right? No one is going to care about your tears.

Honestly, focusing on the 'feels' is just going off topic.

Leress wrote:Honestly, focusing on the 'feels' is just going off topic.

You made the statement that there was no misogyny, i explained how there was. Feels has nothing to do with it.

This topic went off topic when the abuse started. You seemed to ignore that.