Alright guys! I'm working a Fantasy Heartbreaker that is based on DnD 3e.
One of the first parts of my project was figuring out the RNG.
One of the problems with DnD 3e was the math, with oddly divergent progressions of saves and attack, as the levels went higher, the math got worse.
So, I'm starting with sorta starting with Frank's math the just works as the base.
So, we've got +1 level scaling on attack, armor, dc and saves.
Characters are expected to have attack and defense values between Level + 0 and Level + 10. Maybe those values will even be capped, but can be bypassed by a +2 weapon or armor for a +12.
So, a level 1 character with a +11 attack value, will have a 50% chance of hitting a level 1 character with a maxed defense value of 21.
So, a level 1 character with a +11 attack value, will have a 25% chance of hitting a level 5 character with a maxed defense value of 26.
Is that reasonable?
Designing a d20 RNG
Moderator: Moderators
-
deaddmwalking
- Prince
- Posts: 3594
- Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 11:33 am
Reasonable depends on many other factors.
Should a first level character be a threat to 5th level characters? What does 'hit' mean in this context?
If a 5th level character has 5x more hit points than a 1st level character and a hit by a 1st level character 'drops' another 1st level character, we would expect a group of 1st level characters to need 20 attacks to defeat the 5th level character. Assuming 1 attack per round, and assuming that the 5th level character drops one attacker per turn, 6 1st level characters would likely be a match for a 5th level character. Personally, I would lean toward the 5th level character being able to handle more opponents, but that can be addressed by more attacks, better attacks, denying enemy actions, additional defenses or some combination.
So, numbers can appear to be 'reasonable' in a vacuum. You can build your numbers and make the game fit them, but I'd posit it is better to decide what you think should happen and then build numbers that support that - but hit frequency isn't the place to start without regard to anything else.
Personally, I think a 50% hit rate is too low - you're ineffective half the time. I'd rather have hit point inflation with 75% hit rates on a mirror-match.
Should a first level character be a threat to 5th level characters? What does 'hit' mean in this context?
If a 5th level character has 5x more hit points than a 1st level character and a hit by a 1st level character 'drops' another 1st level character, we would expect a group of 1st level characters to need 20 attacks to defeat the 5th level character. Assuming 1 attack per round, and assuming that the 5th level character drops one attacker per turn, 6 1st level characters would likely be a match for a 5th level character. Personally, I would lean toward the 5th level character being able to handle more opponents, but that can be addressed by more attacks, better attacks, denying enemy actions, additional defenses or some combination.
So, numbers can appear to be 'reasonable' in a vacuum. You can build your numbers and make the game fit them, but I'd posit it is better to decide what you think should happen and then build numbers that support that - but hit frequency isn't the place to start without regard to anything else.
Personally, I think a 50% hit rate is too low - you're ineffective half the time. I'd rather have hit point inflation with 75% hit rates on a mirror-match.
-This space intentionally left blank
-
DenizenKane
- Journeyman
- Posts: 108
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2016 7:58 pm
Hit means confirm a level appropriate ability vs an opponent. It might play similar to Tome.
Alot of it still in the air, but its going to play similar to levels 1-10 in 3e with a fixed RNG and balanced classes.
For spellcasters this means spells, for martials this means maneuvers, etc.
Alright, so how about a model where most abilities must confirm a hit, and then bypass a save.
A martial character confirms their weapon hits, and then the character struck gets a fort save to avoid getting stunned or whatever the maneuver does.
Spells could potentially work the same way, making a spellpower or attack roll targeting touch AC or something, and then after that is confirmed, the character gets a save to lessen the effect.
Mostly everything would have some attack and save component, probably using a different stat for each.
With a mirror match at ~75% success, meaning you'd hit ~75% of the time, and then ~75% of your hits have a better effect.
So, with a 75% rate base, that means the AC starts at 5 instead of 10, and still allows a +10 mod, meaning max AC/Save at level 1 is 16, while max attack or DC is 21.
HP would follow some sort of exponential pattern:
Something like (Level x (HD + Str Mod + Level)).
Meaning that your HP includes Level Squared, and at level 10 that gives you 100hp, and at level 5 it gives you 25.
Alot of it still in the air, but its going to play similar to levels 1-10 in 3e with a fixed RNG and balanced classes.
For spellcasters this means spells, for martials this means maneuvers, etc.
Alright, so how about a model where most abilities must confirm a hit, and then bypass a save.
A martial character confirms their weapon hits, and then the character struck gets a fort save to avoid getting stunned or whatever the maneuver does.
Spells could potentially work the same way, making a spellpower or attack roll targeting touch AC or something, and then after that is confirmed, the character gets a save to lessen the effect.
Mostly everything would have some attack and save component, probably using a different stat for each.
With a mirror match at ~75% success, meaning you'd hit ~75% of the time, and then ~75% of your hits have a better effect.
So, with a 75% rate base, that means the AC starts at 5 instead of 10, and still allows a +10 mod, meaning max AC/Save at level 1 is 16, while max attack or DC is 21.
HP would follow some sort of exponential pattern:
Something like (Level x (HD + Str Mod + Level)).
Meaning that your HP includes Level Squared, and at level 10 that gives you 100hp, and at level 5 it gives you 25.
---
-
deaddmwalking
- Prince
- Posts: 3594
- Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 11:33 am
I'm going to assume that HD is 8 (because assuming is a bad life decision and I think bad life decisions are fun) and Str is 4, so hit points are equal to 12+level times level. So a 1st level character has 13 hit points, a 5th level character has 85 hit points and a 10th level character has 288 hit points.
If that is the case, and 5th level characters can one-shot 1st level characters (again, seemingly reasonable, but ultimately arbitrary), you would expect 10th level characters to be similarly superior to 5th level characters and this able to deal 85 damage per hit (instead of 13).
This would imply that the number of successful hits required in a mirror match probably increases. If you can defeat your double at 1st level with one hit and you need four hits at 10th level there is a point where you need two hits and one that requires three hits. If you want 10th level characters to require more or fewer hits to win a mirror match, you may need to adjust your numbers.
If that is the case, and 5th level characters can one-shot 1st level characters (again, seemingly reasonable, but ultimately arbitrary), you would expect 10th level characters to be similarly superior to 5th level characters and this able to deal 85 damage per hit (instead of 13).
This would imply that the number of successful hits required in a mirror match probably increases. If you can defeat your double at 1st level with one hit and you need four hits at 10th level there is a point where you need two hits and one that requires three hits. If you want 10th level characters to require more or fewer hits to win a mirror match, you may need to adjust your numbers.
-This space intentionally left blank
-
OgreBattle
- King
- Posts: 6820
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:33 am
How are hit points gonna scale, are you going to use damage reduction of some form
Figuring out the sort of story you want to tell will also help, either level lets a guy wade through his lessers unharmed or highest level dudes can still get a knife in the ribs and die.
Figuring out the sort of story you want to tell will also help, either level lets a guy wade through his lessers unharmed or highest level dudes can still get a knife in the ribs and die.
Last edited by OgreBattle on Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Giving everyone a hit roll followed by a rider sounds like 4e. Combat in 4e is notorious for making all the classes playing the same as each other. How do you intend to avoid that samey-ness in your system?
Also, Ogrebattle's suggestion seems like the most important thing to do. Emulating a genre is much easier if you know what you're emulating. I infer from your references to level 1-10 tome that you want to aim for fantasy hack and slash that stops just a little after the characters get superpowers.
Also, Ogrebattle's suggestion seems like the most important thing to do. Emulating a genre is much easier if you know what you're emulating. I infer from your references to level 1-10 tome that you want to aim for fantasy hack and slash that stops just a little after the characters get superpowers.
-
OgreBattle
- King
- Posts: 6820
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:33 am
Yeah this is something that, even if it makes gameplay sense, hurts 'flavor'/'class distinction'. I thought about this a lot when playing 4e, how I differentiated it was...pragma wrote:Giving everyone a hit roll followed by a rider sounds like 4e. Combat in 4e is notorious for making all the classes playing the same as each other. How do you intend to avoid that samey-ness in your system?
-standard action (roll)+rider: warrior types, the rider feels like an exploit or combo
-Deciding on action before roll: Mostly casters, it's a deliberate distinct action
-Action to go into stance, stance then modifies standard actions (roll): animal kungfu monk, spirit possession
Once you have this established you can 'break' your rules for flavor. Want to make a "I channel magic through my sword up close" caster feel different from a "I channel magic through my wand at range"? Have him cast magic in that "action+rider" format like a warrior.
-
RobbyPants
- King
- Posts: 5201
- Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:11 pm
Re: Designing a d20 RNG
I'm probably being pedantic, but the chances of these two things happening are actually 55% and 30%, assuming you hit on a tie.DenizenKane wrote: So, a level 1 character with a +11 attack value, will have a 50% chance of hitting a level 1 character with a maxed defense value of 21.
So, a level 1 character with a +11 attack value, will have a 25% chance of hitting a level 5 character with a maxed defense value of 26.
In the first scenario, you'd hit exactly 21 on a natural 10, and there are 11 numbers from 10 to 20, inclusive. Similarly, the second scenario hits on a natural 15.
If you want to start with 50% as your base point, you want your default defense ratings to be eleven points higher than your default attack rating.
-
Username17
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 29894
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Deciding on to-hit chances is important, but something I think should be decided in light of other design decisions.
The big issues as far as setting to-hit bonuses and armor classes goes is that you want the level differences to matter, but you also want the game to not turn into a boring slog or frustrating fail parade. But those are contingent questions. The answer to "how often is it acceptable to miss your attacks?" is itself a question: "How many attacks do you get in 30 minutes of game time or one major encounter?" It's obviously a non-started to miss 45% if you only swing three times in an evening - that would leave one in eleven players totally useless for an entire night (slightly more than one disgusted player every three nights). IOn the other hand, that might be OK if characters were attacking 20 times, and looking at a one in nine million chance of not contributing anything.
The roughly 50% chance of success is popular withgame designers because it has the most "growth space" on either side. That maximizes the number of penalties or bonuses you could get and still not hit the end fo the RNG. But you have to ask yourself... do you care?
On attacks, there is genuinely more at stake than chancesd of missing. Higher level warriors do more damage and have more hit points. So getting to the end of the random number generator isn't necessarily a big problem. And while many skill checks are not going to involve a secondary effect roll, there's a genuine question as to whether you consider it a problem if people get to the end of the RNG when confronted with lower level obstacles. I would contend that it is not. If someone is confronted with a lower level climbing obstacle, I genuinely do not give a shit if them climbing it successfully is a foregone conclusion.
Which is a bit of a long walk to say that at this point I genuinely think that the average warrior should probably be hitting level appropriate opposition on a 7+ or so.
-Username17
The big issues as far as setting to-hit bonuses and armor classes goes is that you want the level differences to matter, but you also want the game to not turn into a boring slog or frustrating fail parade. But those are contingent questions. The answer to "how often is it acceptable to miss your attacks?" is itself a question: "How many attacks do you get in 30 minutes of game time or one major encounter?" It's obviously a non-started to miss 45% if you only swing three times in an evening - that would leave one in eleven players totally useless for an entire night (slightly more than one disgusted player every three nights). IOn the other hand, that might be OK if characters were attacking 20 times, and looking at a one in nine million chance of not contributing anything.
The roughly 50% chance of success is popular withgame designers because it has the most "growth space" on either side. That maximizes the number of penalties or bonuses you could get and still not hit the end fo the RNG. But you have to ask yourself... do you care?
On attacks, there is genuinely more at stake than chancesd of missing. Higher level warriors do more damage and have more hit points. So getting to the end of the random number generator isn't necessarily a big problem. And while many skill checks are not going to involve a secondary effect roll, there's a genuine question as to whether you consider it a problem if people get to the end of the RNG when confronted with lower level obstacles. I would contend that it is not. If someone is confronted with a lower level climbing obstacle, I genuinely do not give a shit if them climbing it successfully is a foregone conclusion.
Which is a bit of a long walk to say that at this point I genuinely think that the average warrior should probably be hitting level appropriate opposition on a 7+ or so.
-Username17
d20 is a game of iterative probability. How much they hit each attack really just determines how swingy the whole combat is, which determines how much better the PCs have to be on average to survive in the long run, and thus how few injuries they'll take in a typical fight.
So a 50% hit or save rate is the most wild event you can have. In an average fight with eight combatants, four a side, you'll have one guy hit three times and one guy hit zero times in the first three turns, on average, over half the fights they're on opposite teams, so one team is having a very bad day there.
A 70% hit rate for the PCs, and 40% for the monsters, that gives the PCs a big average advantage, they can get by with smaller damage and hit point totals, but also cuts out 80% of their opening 3xfail sets, and the events of PCs doing nothing or monsters hitting every time (half as common 3xhit sets) and thus killing characters can be much less common even if the fights are "closer" on average and thus feel more dangerous.
You can sit the semi-warriors at 60% so they have way more bad days, and the non-warriors at 50% where they can be good or bad by coin flip each fight because their rare contributions can be fun for everyone and not matter when they fail anyway. Bosses for team monster should also be more on the reliable success side, so their unusual events are not killing the party, but rather missing a lot and failing to impress.
Enough graduation in numbers over levels gives you a smooth slide from reliable boss, to wildly unpredictable semi-boss (dangerous in numbers), to mooks who mostly fail but get those odd runs of success by sheer numbers to keep a little fear in the party.
Same for saves and everything else. If it's save or lose, and the monsters can drop it on the whole party turn 1, and then again turn 2, that needs an extremely solid defences so it's rare for more than 1 PC to be out already. Things can still feel very dangerous if they need an attack roll and two saves failed to work, because each step builds tension, but how much each character fails each thing doesn't matter, what matters is not having 3 PCs down in round 2, that just needs to be extremely unlikely in total.
--
As an aside, in AD&D the Fighters at higher levels basically made all their saves, were rarely hit, and only very rarely missed their attacks. Still not the best class, because being a great melee guy is still just a melee guy, but they were at least reliable fodder for the casters. Not that they started reliable, no one did in AD&D, but their armour generally worked well to avoid hit point bloat.
So a 50% hit or save rate is the most wild event you can have. In an average fight with eight combatants, four a side, you'll have one guy hit three times and one guy hit zero times in the first three turns, on average, over half the fights they're on opposite teams, so one team is having a very bad day there.
A 70% hit rate for the PCs, and 40% for the monsters, that gives the PCs a big average advantage, they can get by with smaller damage and hit point totals, but also cuts out 80% of their opening 3xfail sets, and the events of PCs doing nothing or monsters hitting every time (half as common 3xhit sets) and thus killing characters can be much less common even if the fights are "closer" on average and thus feel more dangerous.
You can sit the semi-warriors at 60% so they have way more bad days, and the non-warriors at 50% where they can be good or bad by coin flip each fight because their rare contributions can be fun for everyone and not matter when they fail anyway. Bosses for team monster should also be more on the reliable success side, so their unusual events are not killing the party, but rather missing a lot and failing to impress.
Enough graduation in numbers over levels gives you a smooth slide from reliable boss, to wildly unpredictable semi-boss (dangerous in numbers), to mooks who mostly fail but get those odd runs of success by sheer numbers to keep a little fear in the party.
Same for saves and everything else. If it's save or lose, and the monsters can drop it on the whole party turn 1, and then again turn 2, that needs an extremely solid defences so it's rare for more than 1 PC to be out already. Things can still feel very dangerous if they need an attack roll and two saves failed to work, because each step builds tension, but how much each character fails each thing doesn't matter, what matters is not having 3 PCs down in round 2, that just needs to be extremely unlikely in total.
--
As an aside, in AD&D the Fighters at higher levels basically made all their saves, were rarely hit, and only very rarely missed their attacks. Still not the best class, because being a great melee guy is still just a melee guy, but they were at least reliable fodder for the casters. Not that they started reliable, no one did in AD&D, but their armour generally worked well to avoid hit point bloat.
PC, SJW, anti-fascist, not being a dick, or working on it, he/him.
-
DenizenKane
- Journeyman
- Posts: 108
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2016 7:58 pm
Alright, thanks for the input guys.
So, unifying mechanics makes no sense and removes the ability to make abilities feel different. Got it.
So, 7+ Hit Rate. That has you missing about 30% of the time. 6 miss numbers also happens to be a standard deviation, so that works out nicely. So, that makes the base for AC and saves = 6.
Level 1 (+11) vs Level 1 (17 AC) = 70% Hit rate.
Level 1 (+11) vs Level 5 (21 AC) = 50% hit rate.
Level 1 (+11) vs Level 10 (26 AC) = 25% hit rate.
Level 5 (+15) vs Level 1 (17 AC) = 90% hit rate.
So, unifying mechanics makes no sense and removes the ability to make abilities feel different. Got it.
So, 7+ Hit Rate. That has you missing about 30% of the time. 6 miss numbers also happens to be a standard deviation, so that works out nicely. So, that makes the base for AC and saves = 6.
Level 1 (+11) vs Level 1 (17 AC) = 70% Hit rate.
Level 1 (+11) vs Level 5 (21 AC) = 50% hit rate.
Level 1 (+11) vs Level 10 (26 AC) = 25% hit rate.
Level 5 (+15) vs Level 1 (17 AC) = 90% hit rate.
---
Now that your question is hopefully resolved: I think it's a bad question.
As much fun as I had playing D&D 3rd edition, I think curved Random Number Generators are simply superior.
If you really want a number between 1 and 20, you can use 1D10+1D10+1D2-2 :
https://www.gmdice.com/products/twenty- ... -twice-red
+
https://www.gmdice.com/products/twenty- ... -twice-red
+
https://www.mathartfun.com/d6.html#906
Barring the annoyance of having special dice, that gives you a nice curve:
https://anydice.com/program/10fef
Where +1 is worth |10.5-newDC|%.
Curved random number generators mean that bonuses are worth more in absolute terms when the RNG is most-swingy (as Tussock said, at 50/50). I think that's desirable, if the characters are taking meaningful actions, where success and failure actually might impact the outcome of the fight - instead of just banging away in padded sumo matches where everything averages out over each combat anyway.
As much fun as I had playing D&D 3rd edition, I think curved Random Number Generators are simply superior.
If you really want a number between 1 and 20, you can use 1D10+1D10+1D2-2 :
https://www.gmdice.com/products/twenty- ... -twice-red
+
https://www.gmdice.com/products/twenty- ... -twice-red
+
https://www.mathartfun.com/d6.html#906
Barring the annoyance of having special dice, that gives you a nice curve:
https://anydice.com/program/10fef
Where +1 is worth |10.5-newDC|%.
Curved random number generators mean that bonuses are worth more in absolute terms when the RNG is most-swingy (as Tussock said, at 50/50). I think that's desirable, if the characters are taking meaningful actions, where success and failure actually might impact the outcome of the fight - instead of just banging away in padded sumo matches where everything averages out over each combat anyway.
Chaosium rules are made of unicorn pubic hair and cancer. --AncientH
When you talk, all I can hear is "DunningKruger" over and over again like you were a god damn Pokemon. --Username17
Fuck off with the pony murder shit. --Grek
When you talk, all I can hear is "DunningKruger" over and over again like you were a god damn Pokemon. --Username17
Fuck off with the pony murder shit. --Grek
-
deaddmwalking
- Prince
- Posts: 3594
- Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 11:33 am
I'm also in favor of a curved probability profile. I like 2d10 (2-20).
On a d20, if you need an 11 or better (50%) and you get a +1, it's worth 5% (you now need a 10 or better). If you roll 2d10 and you need an 11 or better (55%) and you get a +1, it's worth 9%.
If you need a 14 or better on a d20 (35%) a +1 is worth 5%; on 2d10 (28%) the +1 is worth 8%.
If you need an 18 or better on a d20 (15%) a +1 is worth 5%; on 2d10 (6%) the +1 is worth 4%.
Essentially, the closer you are to needing an 'average result', the more a +1 helps you using 2d10. If you're hitting on a 12+ and you get an additional +1 it adds 10% to your chance of hitting (equivalent to +2 on a d20). If you need a 20 to hit, a +1 triples your chances from 1% to 3%, but you're still much less likely to succeed than if you were using a d20 (10%).
While 10.5 is the 'average result' of a d20, you'll never actually roll it. More to the point, a 1, a 20 and a 10 (or 11) are all equally likely, so it is most likely that nobody actually gets 'average results'. Your game has to account for people getting an equal number of high rolls versus low rolls, not treating it as usually getting the average result. Changing to a 2d10 helps push things toward the average just enough. Getting a 10-12 in d20 is 15% likely; it is 28% likely with 2d10. Padding the 'sweet spot' costs you extreme results, but personally, I think that works better.
On a d20, if you need an 11 or better (50%) and you get a +1, it's worth 5% (you now need a 10 or better). If you roll 2d10 and you need an 11 or better (55%) and you get a +1, it's worth 9%.
If you need a 14 or better on a d20 (35%) a +1 is worth 5%; on 2d10 (28%) the +1 is worth 8%.
If you need an 18 or better on a d20 (15%) a +1 is worth 5%; on 2d10 (6%) the +1 is worth 4%.
Essentially, the closer you are to needing an 'average result', the more a +1 helps you using 2d10. If you're hitting on a 12+ and you get an additional +1 it adds 10% to your chance of hitting (equivalent to +2 on a d20). If you need a 20 to hit, a +1 triples your chances from 1% to 3%, but you're still much less likely to succeed than if you were using a d20 (10%).
While 10.5 is the 'average result' of a d20, you'll never actually roll it. More to the point, a 1, a 20 and a 10 (or 11) are all equally likely, so it is most likely that nobody actually gets 'average results'. Your game has to account for people getting an equal number of high rolls versus low rolls, not treating it as usually getting the average result. Changing to a 2d10 helps push things toward the average just enough. Getting a 10-12 in d20 is 15% likely; it is 28% likely with 2d10. Padding the 'sweet spot' costs you extreme results, but personally, I think that works better.
-This space intentionally left blank
Personally I'm fine with having a 50% base chance for dude A hitting Dude B and then allowing for, as Frank points out, the extra room you give yourself on either end to elevate the percentages from there. From that base 50% chance I'd look for Dude Warrior to be able to hit his best kinds of attacks at a rate of 70%+ against regular defenses and significantly better than 'that' if he's aiming at someone's weakest defense. From there, if you have different attacks aiming at different defenses which have different numbers you encourage people to diversify their attacks to be able to adjust to the various weaknesses that they should be aiming to exploit.
So Dude Warrior's best auto attack maybe hits at less than or equal rate of 50% against Dude Turtle so Dude warrior has to use a secondary attack, his Intimidating Glare, to target Dude Turtle's Will defense which is significantly lower than average. So despite maybe Intimidating Glare not being Dude Warrior's 'best' attack it hits at 70% or so because he's targeting Dude Turtle's lowest defense.
So Dude Warrior's best auto attack maybe hits at less than or equal rate of 50% against Dude Turtle so Dude warrior has to use a secondary attack, his Intimidating Glare, to target Dude Turtle's Will defense which is significantly lower than average. So despite maybe Intimidating Glare not being Dude Warrior's 'best' attack it hits at 70% or so because he's targeting Dude Turtle's lowest defense.
Last edited by MGuy on Mon Aug 06, 2018 2:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
DenizenKane
- Journeyman
- Posts: 108
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2016 7:58 pm
I like the idea of a 2d10 RNG. I'll look into it more.
And, you make a good point on strong and weak defenses MGuy. Something to think about.
And, you make a good point on strong and weak defenses MGuy. Something to think about.
Last edited by DenizenKane on Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
---
Re: Designing a d20 RNG
You really need to figure out your system's tone before stressing over the RNG or specific leveling issues.DenizenKane wrote:Alright guys! I'm working a Fantasy Heartbreaker that is based on DnD 3e.
One of the first parts of my project was figuring out the RNG.
Is this a tale of superhuman heroes who can easily do a lot of tasks? Or is this a hellscape where multiple players will have to draw up a new character regularly in most sessions?
RNGs serve the game's tone and theme; on its own it's just soulless dice-rolling. You need to ask yourself what kind of stories your players want to tell first when they use your system before determining your RNG principles.
Some games in fact only work and are fun because they have hilariously broken RNG; and indeed so many designers go for a "balanced" RNG is also a big reason why a lot of gamers are finding many new games to be rather stale and boring.
Last edited by Zinegata on Mon Aug 06, 2018 8:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
DenizenKane
- Journeyman
- Posts: 108
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2016 7:58 pm
-
OgreBattle
- King
- Posts: 6820
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:33 am
Can a street urchin pick the pocket of a paladin king? Can the paladin king be laid low by the knife of his own traitorous brother?DenizenKane wrote:It's going to be a hero's journey high fantasy Level based game, and I want it to be able to simulate lots of different fantasy classes/tropes, and provide lots of player agency. Every class will have its own fiddly resource mechanics, and the players are exceptionally powerful characters.
Last edited by OgreBattle on Mon Aug 06, 2018 10:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
No offense meant - but you need to realize that only the "hero's journey" portion here actually conveys an actual experience with identifiable player emotions - which is that you start off weak, go through some struggle (but most likely survive it), and then beat a really strong foe that may have done wrong to you at the start.DenizenKane wrote:It's going to be a hero's journey high fantasy Level based game, and I want it to be able to simulate lots of different fantasy classes/tropes, and provide lots of player agency. Every class will have its own fiddly resource mechanics, and the players are exceptionally powerful characters.
===
"I want it to be able to simulate lots of different fantasy classes/tropes, and provide lots of player agency" is basically just saying you want lots of options, which is inherent in any RPG. It doesn't really help much in design because it lacks specificity.
A more useful statement would be "This is a world with a small number of core disciplines - e.g. Fighter, Mage, Cleric - but players can pick and choose different skills from each discipline to create their own unique character" - which is essentially a mission statement for an RPG that's very into multi-classing.
===
"Every class will have its own fiddly resource mechanics, and the players are exceptionally powerful characters." is also a bit problematic. The latter implies players who can effect great changes in the world, but that could simply imply changing the scale of the game - e.g. if every character starts as a demigod then they're all going to be parting the sea or doing some Moses-level thing.
Fiddly resource mechanics moreover must have a purpose. Ask yourself - why exactly do you want players to spend a large amount of time doing math and playing with themselves?
If the game is about demigods creating their own little webs of influence and conspiring to take over a pantheon, then I can understand that the fiddly resource mechanics can be a stand-in for this. Alternatively you can have a world where magic is complicated and puzzle-like, so the players "solving" the fiddly resource balancing represents their growing mastery over the magic system. In both of these cases though - the machinations / magic system must become central elements of the world and define to a large extent how it works.
Again, the mechanics must ultimately serve what kind of story the game is trying to tell. A hero's journey about a swordsman trying to beat a great evil that destroyed his village for instance isn't necessarily served by making the player solitaire a stamina balancing game. It may however be very well-served by something like _Darkest Dungeon_ "stress trigger" mechanics, where the hero may suddenly go all super-powered (or a quivering wreck) when faced with a moment that reminds them of their tragic background.
Last edited by Zinegata on Tue Aug 07, 2018 2:25 am, edited 2 times in total.
-
DenizenKane
- Journeyman
- Posts: 108
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2016 7:58 pm
Under the right conditions, maybe. If the king is distracted or vulnerable. It depends on the level difference we're talking, and the perception of the king and his guard.OgreBattle wrote:Can a street urchin pick the pocket of a paladin king? Can the paladin king be laid low by the knife of his own traitorous brother?DenizenKane wrote: It's going to be a hero's journey high fantasy Level based game, and I want it to be able to simulate lots of different fantasy classes/tropes, and provide lots of player agency. Every class will have its own fiddly resource mechanics, and the players are exceptionally powerful characters.
I'm thinking a skill system where its Level Mod (could be different between skills) + Rank + Ability Score for trained skills.
Ranks are +3/+6/+9 for Trained, Expert, Master. Upgrading to the next one probably costs a skill point. That way you could seek out a low level Master of Arcana and have him be able to provide valuable information. Or have the difference between a decent and amazing blacksmith be more than level or feats. Also, characters could spread out their points and get basic use of a good number of skills groups, or go deep into a few skills groups.
The skill system is skill groups. Similar 3e skills, but grouped into 12 different groups. You put skill points into groups, but not individual skills.
So there might be groups like Arcana, Society, Nature, Stealth, Deception, Perception, etc. that would include a few different uses each, that would be gated by rank and level. Some uses might have prerequisites like "Must Be Level 5 and Master Rank."
Each use of a skill group would involve different check from "skills" within the group. For instance, using Acrobatics could involve doing a Tumble or an Escape Artist check.
---
-
deaddmwalking
- Prince
- Posts: 3594
- Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 11:33 am
That's something I really don't like.DenizenKane wrote: So there might be groups like Arcana, Society, Nature, Stealth, Deception, Perception, etc. that would include a few different uses each, that would be gated by rank and level. Some uses might have prerequisites like "Must Be Level 5 and Master Rank."
If I'm Level 5 and Master Rank (+9) and I have a really bad attribute modifier (let's say -4), I have a +5 on the skill, but I can do 'stuff' that someone with Expert (+6) and a really good attribute modifier (say +8) can't do.
If one person with a +14 can't do the things that someone with a +5 has, I think that's a problem with your system.
3.x isn't a perfect system, and while it may be better than any other version of D&D, there are still valid criticisms to be leveled against it. One of the biggest is that the creation of 'everything is a feat' really limited what people could do. If you say 'you can't do that because the DC is 35 and you have a +14 bonus - the only way you can succeed is if you find an additional +1 or more', that's completely different than saying 'you can't try - I don't care how good your raw attributes or skills are, only 10th level players can try to jump from airborne griffon to airborne griffon to tackle the flying dragon'.
If you care about player empowerment, you generally want to go with the first option. Anyone can try anything, but if you don't have the relevant abilities, it might not be possible or optimal.
Two-Weapon Fighting is a good example of how this could work at Level 1. If you don't have any Feats, you can attack with two weapons at -4/-8 (assuming a light off-hand weapon). That's a pretty good reason for most character not to do so without taking the feat, but it is at least possible. On the other hand, all of the other two-weapon fighting feats are unbelievably bad. If you already invested a feat at 1st level to fight with two weapons, you shouldn't have to take another feat for a secondary and tertiary attack. One extra attack at -10 is not worth a feat!
So, if you want to empower players, you probably don't want to level gate skill uses. It's perfectly reasonable to level-gate class abilities. It's also quite possible that level-based abilities may supersede skills. Most characters won't care how far they can jump if they have the ability to fly.
Level gating and rank gating isn’t necessarily the devil. We tolerate level gating for spells, no?
-Edit : I missed the bit about level gating being ok, but not for skill uses. I blame phone-foruming. I’m more on board with that assertion so long as skills aren’t being used for things that you’d want to level gate. If you can use skill to do mass suggestion (diplomancy) then you probably do want to level gate it like spells.
And having something like a master rank prevents someone from rolling up with max Int and suddenly being the best at everything. Some games are fine with all geniuses being polymaths and some want people specialized.
-Edit : I missed the bit about level gating being ok, but not for skill uses. I blame phone-foruming. I’m more on board with that assertion so long as skills aren’t being used for things that you’d want to level gate. If you can use skill to do mass suggestion (diplomancy) then you probably do want to level gate it like spells.
And having something like a master rank prevents someone from rolling up with max Int and suddenly being the best at everything. Some games are fine with all geniuses being polymaths and some want people specialized.
Last edited by erik on Tue Aug 07, 2018 2:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
Username17
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 29894
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
There are lots of tasks and abilities that can and should be mastery gated that have little reason to be level gated. The reverse is very rarely the case.
Knowing how to identify a Xixecal, disguising yourself as the prince, climbing a slippery wall, or even flying around are all things that could be plausibly done by 1st level creatures. Or even less than 1st level creatures, since many of those tasks could be done by children or pet chickens.
The purpose of your level system is to make sure that characters who are a specific level have enough breadth and depth of abilities that they can pass level appropriate challenges. But the skill system is under no equal and opposite compulsion. The skill system isn't there to make sure that sages have to be 9th level to answer questions about 9th level quests or to make sure that the blacksmith is 5th level to make equipment for a 5th level character. The skill system is there to make sure that you aren't playing 4th edition and that characters can interact with the world in a comprehensible fashion.
The skill system is there to make sure that sages can answer questions about shit they are supposed to know and blacksmiths can make weapons to order in a reasonable timeframe and street urchins can pick pockets and minstrels can sing songs and engineers can design siege towers and carpenters can make them. The skill system is there to make sure that characters can do things in the game that they are supposed to be able to do in the fiction. That's it. That's 100% of what the skill system is for.
Which means that level gating really any task that the normal skill system outputs is probably a bad idea. 1st level and 8th level rangers probably shouldn't have especially different modifiers to track wild animals.
-Username17
Knowing how to identify a Xixecal, disguising yourself as the prince, climbing a slippery wall, or even flying around are all things that could be plausibly done by 1st level creatures. Or even less than 1st level creatures, since many of those tasks could be done by children or pet chickens.
The purpose of your level system is to make sure that characters who are a specific level have enough breadth and depth of abilities that they can pass level appropriate challenges. But the skill system is under no equal and opposite compulsion. The skill system isn't there to make sure that sages have to be 9th level to answer questions about 9th level quests or to make sure that the blacksmith is 5th level to make equipment for a 5th level character. The skill system is there to make sure that you aren't playing 4th edition and that characters can interact with the world in a comprehensible fashion.
The skill system is there to make sure that sages can answer questions about shit they are supposed to know and blacksmiths can make weapons to order in a reasonable timeframe and street urchins can pick pockets and minstrels can sing songs and engineers can design siege towers and carpenters can make them. The skill system is there to make sure that characters can do things in the game that they are supposed to be able to do in the fiction. That's it. That's 100% of what the skill system is for.
Which means that level gating really any task that the normal skill system outputs is probably a bad idea. 1st level and 8th level rangers probably shouldn't have especially different modifiers to track wild animals.
-Username17
-
DenizenKane
- Journeyman
- Posts: 108
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2016 7:58 pm