Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Some Dice Mechanics Ideas to throw at the idea wall

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Some Dice Mechanics Ideas to throw at the idea wall

    Weapon Damage
    • Weapon type determines the flavour of dice (light[3d4], 1h[2d8], 2h[1d20])
    • Weapon does 2x damage on doubles, 3x damage on triples.

    With these weapon dice types and damage multiplier rules, the output is really close
    • 3d4 has average output of 12.66, median of 10. (Median is useful because the 3d4 with multipler distribution is between 4 and 36 and a really long tail)
    • 2d8 has average output of 11, median of 9.5
    • 1d20 will not get doubles or triples, average of 10.5, median of 10.5

    These damage rolls I think characterize the weapon types appropriately. You would be able to apply lightning attack equally to all of these with an stunt point cost of 4SP. There could be talents that could improve the multiplier damage to 1h and 2d weapons. 3d6 dice with the above multiplier rules does 15.5 average, 12 median damage and likely could be used as a master talent for 1h, 2h weapons. 3d8 does 19.5 damage with 16 median which probably is way too high unless you want to hand this out as a magic +3/+4 weapon.

    What to do about stunt points since I am putting doubles/triples into damage dice? Make stunt points generated equal to the amount you exceed on your attack roll versus their defense. Roll a 14 versus defense 10 enemy, generate 4 SP and do a lightning attack. This converts Accuracy/Fighting/Whatever stats into something that directly converts to more damage. You can create a stunt (for example) called murderous blow (+3d6 for 8SP) and totally one shot a ton. It would have a very low probability though since rolling triples sixes has about 0.5% probability. This makes it possible to easy move between using 3d6 and 1d20 as your attack roll / ability test die. This stuff could be used with spells too (assuming you try and put them in a similar frame work of light, 1h, 2h spells).
    [URL="http://herdingdice.tumblr.com/"]Herding Dice[/URL] - A tumblr where I put things about Adventure Game Engine design.

  • #2
    Re: Some Dice Mechanics Ideas to throw at the idea wall

    If I'm reading this correctly, and there would be SP generated with every attack, I think it would dramatically slow down combat.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Some Dice Mechanics Ideas to throw at the idea wall

      It's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure why you would want to have each type of weapon have almost the same average damage?
      But maybe for this I lack the knowledge of other changes you made. If every weapon has the same average, a rogue with pinpoint attack and eventually lethality will be completely brutal.

      So I guess if you do this you shift the damage differences from weapons into other things, such as the talent you mention.

      Now if you are to use this, it does seems a bit strange to me, to give the light weapons the 3d4 - it is the smallest dice, however amongst the 3 options it has the highest average and potentially the highest amount of damage. Basically making light weapons the best weapons (albeit more influenced by luck), unless I'm missing something entirely.


      Regarding the stuntpoints, I asume you would make every test-roll work like this.. unless you want the attack roll to become something "different" compared to a normal test roll. I personally dislike reworking stuntpoints this way, I don't think changing damage rolls would require you to also change the way stunting works, some stunts would require reworking.

      The reason for disliking it:
      • You start comparing stats, I personally, very much dislike doing this. I dislike the core pinpoint attack for the same reason - it requires knowledge of a value the character would not know about - since it's a game value, pretty much a made-up number. It takes some of the immersion away. And the core pinpoint attack is merely a "true" or "false" result so you don't have to give up the exact number - but when you compare the roll result to a stat to see how many stuntpoints you get you might as well just give the opponent's statsheet to your players.
      • It pretty much means that whenever you succeed you will stunt..
      • It would make defense (dexterity / defense actions) and hitting (acc/fighting / aim action) a LOT more valuable compared to other stats. Since they not only increase defense/% to hit, but also reduce/increase the amount of stunt points.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Some Dice Mechanics Ideas to throw at the idea wall

        Originally posted by shonuff View Post
        If I'm reading this correctly, and there would be SP generated with every attack, I think it would dramatically slow down combat.
        From my game experience stunt points have not slowed down the game for any bad reasons. Some of the time my players forget to check for SP. Yes SP would be generated every round, low amounts of SP would be more common than high amounts. SP every round turns it from an uncommon choice (~40% of turns) into a resource they can spend every round, and as such will become more accustomed to using it. It also makes the hit stat more apparently useful to a player. More hit ~ more SP ~ more damage/combat options.

        I know this quite a bit different than AGE rules. I am posting it because this forums can produce interesting conversation regarding rpg mechanics.
        Last edited by mdlthree; 2nd August 2016, 08:01 AM.
        [URL="http://herdingdice.tumblr.com/"]Herding Dice[/URL] - A tumblr where I put things about Adventure Game Engine design.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Some Dice Mechanics Ideas to throw at the idea wall

          Originally posted by Gerben View Post
          It's an interesting idea but ...
          We both do not like pin point attack. Balancing the weapon damage so all have similar averages is how I try and avoid the band-aid that is pin point attack.

          Light weapons with 3d4 and the triple multiplier do have the highest average but like you said correctly it is is based on luck. The distribution is very skewed for this, with a very long thin tail towards the high side. That is why I also reported the median value which is a measure that is less influenced by outliers.

          Regarding the stuntpoints, I amuse you would make every test-roll work like this.. unless you want the attack roll to become something "different" compared to a normal test roll. I personally dislike reworking stuntpoints this way, I don't think changing damage rolls would require you to also change the way stunting works, some stunts would require reworking.
          This alternate way to stunt could be applied to all tests. For role playing and exploration, it improves the "degree of success" mechanic to be aligned with your abilities and focuses. You could change stunt points to success points really. Rewards for rolling high.

          The reason for disliking it:
          • You start comparing stats, I personally, very much dislike doing this. I dislike the core pinpoint attack for the same reason - it requires knowledge of a value the character would not know about - since it's a game value, pretty much a made-up number. It takes some of the immersion away. And the core pinpoint attack is merely a "true" or "false" result so you don't have to give up the exact number - but when you compare the roll result to a stat to see how many stuntpoints you get you might as well just give the opponent's statsheet to your players.
          Defence stat is something players will figure out very quickly anyway. The GM still has HP, stunts and other stats to keep secret. You end up waiting until the first successful hit to reveal defense. Given multiple enemies of different types, there is a lot of information players have yet to learn.

          • It pretty much means that whenever you succeed you will stunt..
          • It would make defense (dexterity / defense actions) and hitting (acc/fighting / aim action) a LOT more valuable compared to other stats. Since they not only increase defense/% to hit, but also reduce/increase the amount of stunt points.
          You haven't said how these two points are to your disliking. You are correct in how they are different from the current rules. Except that if you roll a 10 versus 10 defence, you hit but generate 0 SP. There could be room for some balance where SP generation only starts if your hit is 2 or higher than defense, IE roll a 12 on defence 10, generate 1 SP... and up from there.
          [URL="http://herdingdice.tumblr.com/"]Herding Dice[/URL] - A tumblr where I put things about Adventure Game Engine design.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Some Dice Mechanics Ideas to throw at the idea wall

            Originally posted by mdlthree View Post
            We both do not like pin point attack. Balancing the weapon damage so all have similar averages is how I try and avoid the band-aid that is pin point attack.
            I see, that makes sense in a way, by making all weapons have an about equal average damage (a part from being lucky) you sort of have a clean slate in damage. I guess this can work if you rework the other parts where damage comes from, it does justify getting rid of (or reworking) pinpoint... tempting .

            Originally posted by mdlthree View Post
            This alternate way to stunt could be applied to all tests. For role playing and exploration, it improves the "degree of success" mechanic to be aligned with your abilities and focuses. You could change stunt points to success points really. Rewards for rolling high.
            Tying the result of a roll directly to the degree of success is nice, but that doesn't necessarily have to affect stunting. As it is advanced tests already use the stunt die for their degree of success, so if you change the way this works you would still need a stunt die for this.. or rework the way advanced tests work.

            Originally posted by mdlthree View Post
            Defence stat is something players will figure out very quickly anyway. The GM still has HP, stunts and other stats to keep secret. You end up waiting until the first successful hit to reveal defense. Given multiple enemies of different types, there is a lot of information players have yet to learn.
            Well yes, giving the sheet was a bit of an exaggeration, but the result remains that you have to break the narrative to compare stats. If it's up to me this should be avoided as much as possible.

            Originally posted by mdlthree View Post
            You haven't said how these two points are to your disliking. You are correct in how they are different from the current rules. Except that if you roll a 10 versus 10 defence, you hit but generate 0 SP. There could be room for some balance where SP generation only starts if your hit is 2 or higher than defense, IE roll a 12 on defence 10, generate 1 SP... and up from there.
            Good point, I just mentioned them, but not why.

            I dislike the always stunting (apart from hitting the exact TN mark) for a couple of reasons.
            As mentioned, combat will get dragged on, sure stunting CAN go fast - but choosing what to spend stunt points on is, in our games at least, is still the thing that takes up the most time. If you would stunt more often, get more stunt points on average and have more stunt options this would only prolong the amount of time it takes. Besides that, it sort of removes the idea of stunting, since you don't need a requirement it will almost always happen making it feel less like an actual "stunt".

            Making defense/hitting more important is, in my opinion, a problem because it takes away from players who focus more on the other non-combat abilities, like communication. By adding value to dex/acc it means they might become more 'mandatory' to keep up with the other players in combat, since things would be reworked to be balanced around the new values. This could go the other way around, but generally combat stunts influence combat a LOT more than roleplaying/exploration stunts influence their respective parts.
            In addition you'd have to rework a lot of little things so they don't become skewed. Like aim might be too good for a minor action, stunt point reductions might become less valuable, things like expert strike suddenly have a penalty of not only a -1 to hit but also a -1 SP penalty since they are intertwined.

            I just don't think the juice is worth the squeeze on the stunt rework, there's so much to rework and I personally don't see many benefits.

            If you feel like rolling high should matter more and you don't mind having your players know exact defense scores, you could also make the excess of the roll simply be added in damage. This would still make defense/hitting more important but less so since it won't ALSO affect stunting.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Some Dice Mechanics Ideas to throw at the idea wall

              Originally posted by mdlthree View Post
              From my game experience stunt points have not slowed down the game for any bad reasons. Some of the time my players forget to check for SP. Yes SP would be generated every round, low amounts of SP would be more common than high amounts. SP every round turns it from an uncommon choice (~40% of turns) into a resource they can spend every round, and as such will become more accustomed to using it. It also makes the hit stat more apparently useful to a player. More hit ~ more SP ~ more damage/combat options.

              I know this quite a bit different than AGE rules. I am posting it because this forums can produce interesting conversation regarding rpg mechanics.
              As long as players keep it simple, I don't see it adding much drag, but I don't see players keeping it simple. Things like Mighty Blow and Pierce Armor are relatively light add-ons, but Lightning Attack, Dual Strike, and Fast Cast are much more intensive. Furthermore the mental paralysis that comes with is it better to spend 4 SP on Dual Strike, or 3 SP on Lightning Attack (and then what else....) can really extend a combat turn without much to gameplay.

              With more frequent lower costing stunts, you also run the risk of combat extenders being more frequent - Knock Prone, Disarm, etc., will see more usage, but IMO they also will delay resolution. They are useful stunts, and should see usage, but knowing you'll stunt every time means they will be more viable, and combat will see more running around and picking up weapons than finishers.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Some Dice Mechanics Ideas to throw at the idea wall

                I like what you're proposing with damage rolls, and I've used something similar in one of my campaigns. Personally, however, I prefer the normal 3d6 for the attack roll. At least for me, stunting seems more meaningful (and perhaps more fun) when they occur about a third of the successes instead of nearly every success.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Some Dice Mechanics Ideas to throw at the idea wall

                  Originally posted by shonuff View Post
                  With more frequent lower costing stunts, you also run the risk of combat extenders being more frequent - Knock Prone, Disarm, etc., will see more usage, but IMO they also will delay resolution. They are useful stunts, and should see usage, but knowing you'll stunt every time means they will be more viable, and combat will see more running around and picking up weapons than finishers.
                  This is a good point. I have not looked at these very much as they are hard to quantify with numbers. They are related to how much a major/minor action is worth. IF weapon damage can be equalized then I might have a place to start. As it stands I really don't have anything except lightning attack (should be worth 4SP assuming weapons are standardized to a 3d6 roll with a 50% hit chance). If I assume knock prone is priced correctly, and uses up half a movement (or half a minor action) to negate, then a minor action is also worth 4SP.

                  Maybe there should only be actions (not minor/major) and each is worth 4SP of "doing stuff" plus a modifier. A round can have two attacks if no moves are taken. Both attacks can generate stunt points. Lots of minor action would need to be rebalance. Aim would then provide +4 hit stat. Some lame minors like ready could be demoted to free actions. One that just employ trade offs (guard up) would need to boost their worth plus the trade offs.

                  Two full attacks with lightning stunt as 2h weapon could theoretically deal 20+20+20+20 = 80 damage (not as hit as I was expecting...). Two full attacks + lightning on light weapons could deal 36+36+36+36 = 144 damage.
                  [URL="http://herdingdice.tumblr.com/"]Herding Dice[/URL] - A tumblr where I put things about Adventure Game Engine design.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Some Dice Mechanics Ideas to throw at the idea wall

                    Personally, I allow stunts like Knock Prone and Disarm to be carried out as written with regular actions with successful attack rolls. These attacks cause no damage, but then allow the stunt to be executed (with an opposed roll if necessary). If the attacker stunts, they have access to a special 2 SP stunt that allows for normal damage.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Some Dice Mechanics Ideas to throw at the idea wall

                      I like you using a standard damage baseline, and I find it greatly simplifies some aspects I personally don't like.

                      That said I have a different point of view and don't believe in weapon balance, so I go with a 1d6-2d6-3d6 model (+1d6 for modern firearms). Then I add or subtract a fixed number to represent some exceptions, like a dagger that is 1d6-1 instead of 1d6, that makes up for it with its other characteristics (small profile, throwing etc).

                      And instead of double and triple damage I use exploding damage, but that won't work on your model because you want to use different dice. That said shouldn't you try to stay within some aspects of the core mechanics, or at least separate it into smaller, optional chunks? You see, you are introducing different dice, changing how stunt works and toying with the idea of adding full attacks, and together they turn your version into a very different game. That's not necessarily bad, but it surely makes it harder for us to PEACH your homebrew.
                      DiBastet's Homebrew - My own homebrew. Use them, mine them for ideas, change them, as you see fit.
                      AGE of Darkness - Converting World of Darkness to Fantasy Age.
                      AGE of Wacraft - Playing AGE in Azeroth.

                      Age of Homebrew - Links to other homebrew. Feel free to add more.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X