The Gaming Den

Yo. First post here. This place looks like exactly what I'm looking for.

I have a game that I've been working on, off and on, for the past several years. Only problem is that pretty much every other forum I've encountered has been pretty much next to useless in terms of helping me with mechanical issues with the game.

As a forex, at rpg.net, I posted a (rough) worked example of my exploration rules, and the first response I got was: "How is this supposed to make your players feel?" Needless to say, I'm not interested in those kinds of responses.

I've spent the last couple days lurking and reading quite a bit around here, and it seems like this environment is exactly what I'm looking for. This thread had exactly the kinds of responses I'm looking for: to the point, no bullshit, hard questions. Make me take a stand for what I've designed, call me on bullshit rationale for rules, find the loopholes that are obvious to someone who hasn't been staring at this stuff for years, maybe even help me come up with solutions to problems that I've been having.

My problem with doing this is that I'm not quite sure where to begin with explaining what I've got done thus far; I've got quite a bit of material, but not sure the best order to present it. I have a playtest document in the works, but it's far from finished and has a number of glaring issues, so I don't want to put that forward as the face of what I'm working on. Should I start with diving right into things by showing a subsystem like combat, or start at the beginning - like, defining what my goals are and core mechanics and such - and work from there?

GnomeWorks wrote:Y"How is this supposed to make your players feel?" Needless to say, I'm not interested in those kinds of responses.

While that question is certainly too vague to be in any way useful, there are a lot of parts of that question that could be important. IE, setting, genre conventions, they kind of play experience you want the PCs to have, ect. There is a difference between playing Morrowind, and Final Fantasy Tactics, and there are differences between playing 3.5 D&D, and FATE.

Not sure what you are going for, so can't be sure how to best present it, but what may or may not be helpful is this:

http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=31521

This is a rough sketch using the template from the linked post.

Step One: Name the PCs
I'll admit that I've been defaulting to "party," mostly because I'm most familiar with D&D and this game evolved out of many frustrations with 3e. However, I'm beginning to lean towards "caravan," particularly now that I've been acquainted with this notion that what you call a group of people influences the approach to the game.

Step Two: Six-Person Party

• Warrior: Clearly the combat-oriented character. This role can be fulfilled by the walking tank; a character who is lightly-armored but knows how to use a shield ridiculously well; a dual-axe wielder who goes berserk in combat; the dexterous fencer; or the man who uses the biggest chunk of vaguely-sharp metal he can find.
• Explorer: The role of the Explorer is to be the individual who can safely get the group where it wants to go. In essence, if you are at Point A and want to reach Point B, the explorer is the person you want to get you there, regardless of the distances or obstacles involved, be they huge tracts of trackless wilderness or even just a locked door. Explorers vary wildly, from the grizzled ranger who spends more time in forests than among people, to the sneak-thief who knows his way around a dungeon and a lock, to the sailor who can captain a ship in the stormiest of weather.
• Mediator: Much as a group wants to have a warrior to handle combats, so, too, would groups do well to bring a mediator to handle encounters of a more social - and civilized - bent. While the warrior fights with swords, the mediator fights with words, capable of convincing bandit chiefs to lay down their arms and haggling merchants' prices down to the cost of production. The high-and-mighty noble, the fast-talking grifter, and the ... well, damnit, the design space here seems significantly less varied.
• Artisan: The economic engine that keeps a caravan alive. Artisans vary wildly - from a goldsmith who specializes in making only a few pieces, but whose renown makes each of them worth a small fortune; to a weaponsmith who mass-produces weapons, manipulating economies of scale; to a tinker who knows how to stretch every last scrap of leather and chunk of ore. Artisans keep the caravan's gear and tools in shape, while also providing the core means of attaining wealth.
• Lorist: A character that focuses on the metaphysical aspects of the setting, like magic. Mages and priests fall into this category. The benefit of being a lorist is versatility: a lorist can choose to focus and essentially replicate another role, though she goes about it in a vastly different way, being able to do some things better while other things are simply beyond her; or, she can choose to be a generalist, assisting the group in any of the other four capacities while not really excelling in any, but making up for lack of depth with unmatched breadth.

A sixth individual - and beyond - could honestly be any one of these. The game is set up such that there are multiple jobs within each role: having two warriors in the party does not automatically mean they step on each other's toes.

For sake of this example, I'll assume that a group of six would use two lorists, one focusing on warrior/explorer stuff, the other on mediator/artisan, as that keeps the number of roles roughly balanced in the group.

It's also important to note that while an individual typically chooses a role to specialize in, that doesn't immediately make them useless in other tasks: a warrior could also have mediocre explorer skills, for instance.

Step Three: Three-Person Parties
Combo 1: Warrior, Mediator, Lorist (Mediator/Artisan)
This group is going to be strong in social encounters. They will be solid in combat and economic concerns; typically, if you're engaging in a situation relevant to a role, you should only need one person to be focused on it to not wind up flailing against relevant challenges. The lorist being split among two roles, however, means they may be somewhat less able in economics, but - I think - should be able to make do under good circumstances.

That said, exploration will be a problem for this group. The lorist may or may not have a few abilities related to exploration, but overall, getting anywhere and dealing with things like locks and traps will be problematic.

I see this particular caravan as having a number of different possible explanations: perhaps a prince in exile, with his bodyguard and court magician in tow; a con-man duo with dumb muscle; a wandering knight with a herald and minstrel; an artificer with a salesman and security.

Combo 2: Explorer, Artisan, Lorist (Warrior/Explorer)
This group is going to have no issues with exploration; they will have significant mobility options. Economics will largely not be a concern, given a dedicated artisan. Combat situations may prove to be more difficult, as the lorist is their only combat character, and s/he is split warrior/explorer; with solid mobility, though, this group may find itself attempting to bypass combats altogether, as that is a strong possibility.

Mediation, however, will be difficult for this group. Situations that call for interacting with people aren't going to be their strong suit.

This caravan could be... a Lewis and Clark sort of deal, bringing along a mender for their long treks into the wilderness; a pair of burglars with their own "chop-shop" and fence; a would-be master alchemist and a ranger and scout who help him find the rare plants he needs; some kind of self-sufficient super-stealth druid strike force, going around the world and assassinating people who disturb the natural balance.

Step Four: Outline an Adventure
The caravan shows up in town and is asked by the mayor or whatever to clean out a goblin warren in the forest nearby.

Town

• The mediator goes around town asking for more information.
• The artisan restocks the group, possibly picking up more raw materials or what-not.
• The lorist (mediator/artisan) may do one or both of those things, as well.
• Everybody else can choose to either assist in these tasks, or just hang out.

Travel + Dungeon

• The explorer makes the group more likely to succeed against exploration obstacles.
• The lorist (warrior/explorer) does much the same.
• Everybody else can assist in minor ways to make the travel less dangerous. If obstacles are met, they can assist in dealing with the challenge in the appropriate manner.
• Depending on distance, the artisan may help repair damaged equipment as they suffer encounters.

Combat

• The warrior provides the primary thrust of the group's combat abilities.
• The lorist (warrior/explorer) also provides a solid amount of combat ability.
• Everybody else can contribute and participate in combat, though probably not as effectively as the warrior(s).

Step Five: Write Out A Campaign
This may feel a bit like a copout, but this pretty well describes what I envision a potential campaign in this game being.

I reference that specifically because one of my playtest groups is planning on doing exactly that.

One red flag already. The Smash Bros problem. If you have a minigame where one character is The Best and could only be hindered by other PCs trying to assist, then that means everyone else will just wander off while that one PC acts. Examples of where the problem shows up in other games include Shadowrun hacking and D&D 4e Skill Challenges.

If your party has a dedicated Mediator, for instance, the other party members should still be able to positively influence a social encounter. Otherwise half your players will just pull out their smartphones and start playing Angry Birds when the talking starts.

Also, if the "high-and-mighty noble" is a character option, then they can just bring some vassals to do the fighting. A dedicated combat character of the same level has to be better than a half-dozen horse archers or a squad of heavy infantry.

Okay, I want to talk about scalability.

You have this caravan, and that sounds like a low level D&D concept.

so 1) How much more impressive are people going to get? Not at all? Extremely minor?

2) What kinds of opponents are they going to deal with. Like, whatever, goblins are basically just shitty people. But are they going to have to deal with teleporting fireballing demons? Flying Dragons who breathe fire? Big ass creatures that are really fucking big? Like, if they run into a bandit party of like, 6 guys on an elephant and their support staff of 10 other guys, is that like the most epic thing that will ever happen to them? Or just sort of... and event that occurs?

Once that is answered, I think I can start looking at mechanics with enough context to tell you what problems are going to exist.

Avoraciopoctules wrote:One red flag already. The Smash Bros problem. If you have a minigame where one character is The Best and could only be hindered by other PCs trying to assist, then that means everyone else will just wander off while that one PC acts. Examples of where the problem shows up in other games include Shadowrun hacking and D&D 4e Skill Challenges.

I see where you're coming from with that.

Essentially, the idea is that the role that corresponds with the current activity is going to be best at it. Other roles are not prohibited from joining in, they're just going to be less effective - but they can't hinder, either.

So even if someone has no clue what they're doing for a given "minigame," they can still function a little bit, and sucky rolls on their part don't punish anyone, they're just not awesome.

If your party has a dedicated Mediator, for instance, the other party members should still be able to positively influence a social encounter. Otherwise half your players will just pull out their smartphones and start playing Angry Birds when the talking starts.

Yep, and it's set up so that everyone can join in, they just won't be as effective.

That, and most things can be tried "untrained," as it were. Individuals focused on a particular role have access to abilities that give them greater functionality and options within their space, so people who are clueless are at an intentional significant disadvantage, but they're typically not straight-up prohibited from trying things.

Also, if the "high-and-mighty noble" is a character option, then they can just bring some vassals to do the fighting. A dedicated combat character of the same level has to be better than a half-dozen horse archers or a squad of heavy infantry.

Was just throwing descriptors out there... that is probably not a tenable character concept straight out of the gate, to be fair. And if you're starting with a group of sufficient "level" that it is, then the warrior you're bringing along probably is sufficiently badass to be of at least equal quality to a bunch of normal guys. That said, equipment also counts for quite a bit: you could have a wuss of a warrior with you, but if he's decked out in fantastic gear, it makes a world of difference.

Kaelik wrote:You have this caravan, and that sounds like a low level D&D concept.

Yep! About spot on. When I describe starting characters to people familiar with 3e, I usually say that -3rd level (yes, that's negative third) or so would probably be the right feel.

The phrase I use for starting a game is "the farm is ten feet behind you." Think Traveller but start with no terms served in prior history. Your sword is a sharpened fence-post. Your shield is a rotten barn door. You're a teenager with more guts than smarts.

That said, you can start a game with more experienced characters than that. But that's our baseline assumption.

1) How much more impressive are people going to get? Not at all? Extremely minor?

In theory, the scalability is such that it doesn't have an upper bound. But I think the main conceits of the system probably starts to break down around 3e equivalent of probably 8th or 9th level. So: quite impressive, but perhaps not earth-shatteringly so.

If you're familiar with Final Fantasy Tactics, I think that probably fits what I'm gunning for best, in terms of scale, if you just play through the game normally and don't power-level.

are they going to have to deal with teleporting fireballing demons? Flying Dragons who breathe fire? Big ass creatures that are really fucking big? Like, if they run into a bandit party of like, 6 guys on an elephant and their support staff of 10 other guys, is that like the most epic thing that will ever happen to them? Or just sort of... and event that occurs?

I... hrm. I guess it depends? These all sound like combat-centric encounters to me, and a group's ability to handle a given aspect of the game is dependent on their makeup. A group of all warriors will handle combat stuff a lot easier than a well-balanced group.

However, I will say that I want the game to have dragons. I like the mythology of dragons. But I don't want to have the 3e approach of... dragons goddamn everywhere. They should be fucking terrifying, and something a group - even composed entirely of combat-centric people - should think about long and hard, and extensively prepare for, before trying to take one on. If a dragon just shows up out of nowhere, the response from a group should be to run the fuck away, or else it's TPK time. On the MC side, if the dragon doesn't have a name and a history and a reason for being, you're abusing dragons and should probably not do that.

In terms of encounter size... I think numbers are less important than difficulty. A bunch of random-ass bandits in the woods, even with an elephant, might not pose too much of a challenge to an experienced group (though the elephant is probably going to be the most challenging aspect of that encounter).

But a teleporting fireballing demon would probably tear most groups apart. That sounds to me like a major encounter, or perhaps part of an endgame dungeon run or something.

Most encounters in our playtests have been 1:1 for monsters to PCs (usually a group of 3 or 4), and they've worked out pretty well, even with only one warrior in the group - dangerous, but not an auto TPK.

Once that is answered, I think I can start looking at mechanics with enough context to tell you what problems are going to exist.

Alright, let me know if that was sufficient. If it was, let me know what part of the mechanics I should start with.

GnomeWorks wrote:I... hrm. I guess it depends? These all sound like combat-centric encounters to me, and a group's ability to handle a given aspect of the game is dependent on their makeup. A group of all warriors will handle combat stuff a lot easier than a well-balanced group.

Those are all combat centric encounters, because I am relatively confident that I understand the scope of your mediation and artisanry. If I knew they types of questions to narrow down exploration I'd ask them, but I don't.

GnomeWorks wrote:In terms of encounter size... I think numbers are less important than difficulty. A bunch of random-ass bandits in the woods, even with an elephant, might not pose too much of a challenge to an experienced group (though the elephant is probably going to be the most challenging aspect of that encounter).

Well my main point with each monster type was to figure out the kinds of things that you wanted players to deal with. Like that Riddle of Steel knockoff game, it was clear that all his mechanics instantly break down when fighting elephants and dragons and big old giants. I'm trying to feel out the opposition for this sort of stuff to see what kinds of opposition they might reasonable face.

GnomeWorks wrote:Alright, let me know if that was sufficient. If it was, let me know what part of the mechanics I should start with.

Well, the way I look at it, to borrow from 3e D&D as an example, there are all the rules for making characters, there is the combat chapter, describing actions you and monsters take, and there is the monster manual describing your opponents (and the DMG part describing CR/EL). Any two of those alone is useless in analyzing the game.

Now, your game is significantly less combat focused, but that framework can just as easily be extrapolated to other aspects.

So before I can judge anything at all I would need those three elements of at least that subset of the game, e.g.:

1) Explorer and Lorist (Explorer) abilities, as well as what other people are doing.
2) The general method of adjudicating actions and/or success in exploration based challenges.
3) All the rules for creating Exploration Challenges, and/or a sample list of Exploration challenges.

And then comparable sets for Mediation/Combat. Presumably Artisianry and Lore interact with all three speheres, but don't actually do anything on their own.

Kaelik wrote:Those are all combat centric encounters, because I am relatively confident that I understand the scope of your mediation and artisanry. If I knew they types of questions to narrow down exploration I'd ask them, but I don't.

That's fair. Was just pointing it out.

Well my main point with each monster type was to figure out the kinds of things that you wanted players to deal with. Like that Riddle of Steel knockoff game, it was clear that all his mechanics instantly break down when fighting elephants and dragons and big old giants. I'm trying to feel out the opposition for this sort of stuff to see what kinds of opposition they might reasonable face.

I see.

Ya, the mechanics at this point theoretically support larger entities, like elephants and dragons and the like. I say "theoretically" because they're written, but never been tested, and I'm not quite sure they'll function as intended.

words and stuff

I uh... I'll admit, I read what you wrote there at the end of your post, and you kind of lost me with the terminology. I'll also admit that I'm a bit tired at the moment, which may be factoring into that.

I'll also point out that the artisan role has its own set of mechanics, and is a separate system from the other "big three." So we have: combat, exploration, social, and crafting.

Lorists aren't written at all yet, ironic as that's where we started with figuring out role differentiation. But yes, lorists have their own little sub-game that they attach to the top of the processes for the other roles, which filters their abilities to it and such... or at least, that's the plan.

I'm unsure if negative 3rd level characters are conceptually possible or in line with what you've told us about characters so far. For instance in D&D a first level warrior would have the hp to survive a single attack. I don't know if you can get lower than that and still describe your warrior as a "walking tank".

If this is not a miscommunication then I think your concepts need reworking or your mechanics need reworking. Because low level D&D is already mocked for being almost unplayably low powered.

I'm going to make a radical suggestion here:

You do not need a separate combat mini-game.

This appears to be a game where combat for the sake of combat does not occur. You murder the bandits because you want to take their swords for your caravan to sell, you do it to keep them from robbing you. If war is diplomacy by other means, then stabbing the bandit is just the part of negotiations where you follow through after they call your bluff. For most of the negotiation, the warrior's job is to look intimidating and to threaten people.

That puts us at three major mini-games:

Navigation: Getting from where you are to the next stop on your caravan swiftly and safely. Avoiding natural disasters, road hazards and wild animals. Equal parts ranger guide and pith-helmeted explorer.
Negotiation: Dealing with people on the road. Getting the bandits to avoid your caravan (or to surrender), town guards to let you in without a bribe and the tax inspector to give you a low rate. Combat and diplomacy.
Merchantry: Obtaining and selling wares. The obtaining end can involve buying them, making them or providing some valuable service. The selling end is all the same though: you're trying to convince people that what you're offering is valuable enough to give you their money.

deanruel87 wrote:I'm unsure if negative 3rd level characters are conceptually possible or in line with what you've told us about characters so far. For instance in D&D a first level warrior would have the hp to survive a single attack. I don't know if you can get lower than that and still describe your warrior as a "walking tank".

That may have been a touch hyperbolic, I'll admit. I mean... it's really hard to do a straight comparison between two games, especially when they pretty much have no mechanics in common and one is still in the process of being written and designed. "-3rd level" sounds good to me because it gets the point across, in my head: in D&D, 1st level characters are often depicted as having some measure of skill, some idea of what they're doing. Starting characters here - are typically pretty much clueless, by design.

I did fail to point out that roles aren't something you necessarily start off with, as a character, and even if you have one, you're probably not going to be good at it.

I would also point out that a lot of your explanation here is dependent upon precise combat mechanics.

Because low level D&D is already mocked for being almost unplayably low powered.

That is certainly an interesting position.

I will agree that low-level D&D tends to be low-powered compared to the rest of the game; by which I mean that low-level characters against low-level threats is more "swingy" and risky than, say, mid-level characters against mid-level threats, and has fewer options available.

However, I am aiming for lower power, here. I've gotten tired of 3e's over-the-top antics at higher-level play; I want a game that avoids the absurdity, without losing the possibility for feeling like a badass towards the end of a given campaign's life (hence my response regarding dragons and demons, earlier).

But in my experience, I have not found low-level D&D to be unplayable, by any stretch of the imagination. More difficult, sure, but after having dealt with 4e for a bit, I'm okay with a game being a bit more "difficult."

Grek wrote:You do not need a separate combat mini-game.

This appears to be a game where combat for the sake of combat does not occur.

Why does combat occur in D&D? "Kill things and take their stuff," ya? With significantly less emphasis on dealing with said stuff, and more on the killing part. I'm just putting both elements on a level playing field. The archetypal "go kill a bunch of $humanoids" is still a thing, here, and I don't want to remove that as a possibility.

Combat is another form of conflict resolution. I've found that most gamers like being able to stab things to sort out their problems. I see nothing wrong with that.

GnomeWorks wrote:Starting characters here - are typically pretty much clueless, by design.

This says to me that you should be doing something like the WHFRP Careers advancement scheme, except not shit. You start out with a background that gives you a pile of useful skills and also some abilities that are largely irrelevant to adventuring or life on a caravan, and then you advance by getting levels in stuff that is actually useful as an adventurer.

An example might be Bruno the Blacksmith's Apprentice, who starts the game with big muscles, the ability to forge nails, knowledge of how to chop wood without hurting himself, skill at sweeping up with a broom and the ability to pump bellows at a steady rate. Some of these are more useful than others, and that is intentional. As he advances, he can either study further as a blacksmith (and gain more artisan/item creation abilities), learn to use that axe properly (and become more warrior like) or do something totally unrelated like discover that he's secretly a prince in exile or whatever.

Combat is another form of conflict resolution.

Yeah, that's pretty much my point. If fighting and talking are both options, then the fighty guy should be able to (indirectly) contribute to situations were the party has decided to talk and the talky guy should be able to (indirectly) contribute to situations where the party has decided to fight. Nobody should be sitting on the sidelines or taking an action that's like the specialist does except not as good.


Or, to put it another way, if the party never actually decides to fight anyone, the Warrior shouldn't feel sad about playing a Warrior.

Grek wrote:This says to me that you should be doing something like the WHFRP Careers advancement scheme, except not shit.

Yep!

We have two ways to make a character, initially: either through a lifepath system, which will probably wind up looking pretty similar to Traveller's terms thing; or, you get some small amount of points to distribute amongst things, giving you a baseline of stuff to work with.

In theory, the first one will take longer, have potential drawbacks, but may also result in a slightly stronger initial character; while the second is faster, can specifically specialize in ways that might not work out with the lifepath, but will be overall slightly weaker. The first one gives you a character that you may not have been expecting; the second one gives you exactly what you were looking to build.

It is probably worth pointing out that you advance by doing. That is, the more you try to do a thing, the better you will get at it. You can literally wake up one day and decide to try to be a fighter, and one of two things will happen: you'll either die, or you'll get better.

Or, to put it another way, if the party never actually decides to fight anyone, the Warrior shouldn't feel sad about playing a Warrior.

Because of how our advancement works, this shouldn't be a problem. If you decided to roll a warrior, and then the party just talks its way out of fights all the time, you will gradually become a better mediator just through that participation. You're not locked into a role, by any means, nor are you locked out of any.

GnomeWorks wrote:It is probably worth pointing out that you advance by doing. That is, the more you try to do a thing, the better you will get at it. You can literally wake up one day and decide to try to be a fighter, and one of two things will happen: you'll either die, or you'll get better.

GnomeWorks wrote:Because of how our advancement works, this shouldn't be a problem. If you decided to roll a warrior, and then the party just talks its way out of fights all the time, you will gradually become a better mediator just through that participation. You're not locked into a role, by any means, nor are you locked out of any.

If you roll to see if you get better at climbing every time you climb a tree, that's going to produce some degenerate mechanical incentives. Especially if you only get better for doing things on-camera.

Your locksmith's player will get annoyed every session that doesn't involve a bunch of locks. Your caravan guard will constantly suggest "why don't we just stab him?" when the party is talking to someone. And your navigator will plan convoluted and messy travel routes that pass through as many hazards as possible.

Character effectiveness can diverge dramatically in this kind of system, and it will be difficult to add a new player to a game in progress without some balance issues.

Avoraciopoctules wrote:If you roll to see if you get better at climbing every time you climb a tree, that's going to produce some degenerate mechanical incentives. Especially if you only get better for doing things on-camera.

Well, advancement doesn't require extra rolls, it's based upon the result of the task resolution.

Advancement is not just through what occurs on-camera, but can also be undertaken off-camera, as well. There are a few things that can only be gained through "off-camera" actions, though I'm not sure if telling the MC that you're doing those things counts as being off-camera... but it's not something that actively takes up time at the table.

But I'm also not sure if it's degenerate or a useful emergent property. If somebody who is really good at something wants to try to create a challenge for themselves by making something that would be simple into something more complex... that seems like the kind of thing that sometimes happens in the real world. Some people would do that, some wouldn't. I don't see that as a negative.

Your locksmith's player will get annoyed every session that doesn't involve a bunch of locks. Your caravan guard will constantly suggest "why don't we just stab him?" when the party is talking to someone. And your navigator will plan convoluted and messy travel routes that pass through as many hazards as possible.

Advancement off-camera carries no risk. Advancement on-camera specifically requires that there be risk of some kind in order for the advancement to occur; so yes, the warrior might be itching to stab everybody all the time, but if they decide to do so... well, there's always the possibility that somebody loses an eye (that may or may not literally be a thing yet, we're working on it).

Character effectiveness can diverge dramatically in this kind of system, and it will be difficult to add a new player to a game in progress without some balance issues.

Given that we haven't gotten to the point where we're doing that, we haven't really covered how to do that just yet... but it is something to keep in mind, definitely.

GnomeWorks wrote:Advancement on-camera specifically requires that there be risk of some kind in order for the advancement to occur; so yes, the warrior might be itching to stab everybody all the time, but if they decide to do so... well, there's always the possibility that somebody loses an eye (that may or may not literally be a thing yet, we're working on it).

Have you looked at this recent thread? Literally this exact mechanic was turned over and identified as a problem. You said you wanted hard questions at the start of this thread, there's a bunch for you to answer straight away.

Note that the key phrase there is "at risk". Having characters advance in skill by practicing that skill is obviously a good thing. Having characters advance in skill by practicing, but only in dangerous situations, is not since it promotes people artificially inflating the danger of their training sessions with fires and live steel and tightropes to get extra skill points.

Yeah; any "advance by doing" scheme I've seen has either:
A) Produced weird results, where the players do things that don't make a lot of sense within the fiction because that makes them advance more.
B) Penalized some players in an uneven way, just based on how the adventure works out.

Or sometimes both. I think if you want the concept of that, without the negative effects, you could use something involving downtime - which you'd already want to be tracking because artisanship and merchantry are major character activities.

So possibly something like this:
1) Every [time period], characters can advance one of their skills.
2) If they used that skill in a critical situation during the last [time period], then they just go ahead and do that.
3) Otherwise, they pick "training in X" as their downtime activity for that [time period].
4) If the group just went through some major event, you could go ahead and give them all a free advancement in whatever skill is appropriate. It should be the whole group in that case.

So there's a bit of incentive to advance things you're actively using, but you don't get screwed in the other case, and there's no push to do stupid tricks for skill points.

Related: You definitely want a robust downtime system.

Red_Rob wrote:You said you wanted hard questions at the start of this thread, there's a bunch for you to answer straight away.

I did, and I appreciate it. It is incredibly refreshing to have found a group of folk who treats mechanics with any seriousness.

To start, I want to outline my advancement rules, so it doesn't look like I'm just saying random things.

Everything has its own dice pool. The task resolution mechanic is stat + skill. Lockpicking is keyed off of Dexterity, so: if a character has a d6 Dex and a d8 Lockpicking, their dice pool for using that skill is d6+d8.

Any time dice are rolled, if you roll higher than the average, you get 1 XP towards the skill; success or failure is irrelevant, so long as you roll higher than average, you get XP. So in this case, if Bob the Locksmith rolls a 9 or higher, he gets 1 XP towards Lockpicking. If you roll max, you get 2 XP, unless you're human, in which case you get 3. The note that "any time you roll" is important, because anyone can "take average" on any roll, at any time, for whatever reason they feel like. The benefit is that you know what you get, with the drawback that you have 0 chance to get XP for that action.

The notion is that you cannot gain XP towards a skill if there is no penalty for failure. I'm kind of trying to base that notion off of how it's used in 3.5 with climb and similar: you fail a roll by 5 or more, you fall. If it's a situation in which you could "take 20," in d20 terms, you can't gain XP.

Off-camera, you can train any skill, stat, whatever, anything that has a dice pool associated with it (which would be pretty much anything other than passive, static abilities). Some skills require training before gaining XP, but nothing is the other way around. I think right now the idea is that one day of training a skill gives you 1 TP towards it, and our current exchange rate is 10 TP = 1 XP, which can be cashed in pretty much whenever. Alternatively, if you hang on to your TP, when you gain XP, you can also convert that much TP into XP (so if you have 4 TP for a skill, and would gain 1 XP, you can - at the same time - convert 1 TP into 1 XP, for a total of 2 XP, and having 3 TP left).

There are a few things that explicitly can only be trained, which are things you never roll, like... your base ability in an ability list (like a spell list), and your stats. Some things also specifically have static, passive abilities that don't have dice pools, which can be purchased through expending TP for them (so Dex has Ambidexterity tied to it, which costs like 60 or so TP, which means if you train Dex a bunch, you can buy it instead of turning them into XP towards Dex).

One other important thing to mention is that at the end of each in-game month (or so - still working on that), there is a chance that any skills you have that you did not put XP or TP towards in that month will decay, and you'll lose XP for them. This puts them into a weird state where it's easier to bring them back up, but we're still working on the precise mechanics for that.

So... the issue in BRP where you have people doing crazy shit towards the end of a week just to "check" that skill for training purposes, that doesn't occur because we're advancing skills at the moment they're used, rather than doing it later. It's possible our decay mechanism might invoke it... but I'm not sure that it will result in weird-ass things happening in-game. Because we tied it to in-game time and not something abstract like "end of an adventure," it's a lot easier to predict when it will happen, which gives players time to plan for it and proactively deal with it, which is kind of the point.

It would seem to me that the only real problem here is the "under stress" requirement for gaining XP... and I can't, off-hand, come up with a solid solution that (1) makes sense, and (2) doesn't require revamping this mechanic from the ground up.

If there's anything I missed from that post you linked, that you feel applies here, let me know. But that's about all I caught from it.

Still pretty much the same issue. You don't have a checklist, but instead you have an incentive to repeat things for credit as much as you can. Even if blatantly setting up situations is disallowed, it still encourages kind of a stupid way of doing things.

For example, there's a guard. I could sneak past him (once), get the thing I was here for, mingle with the crowd inside, and leave. Which gets me possibly 1 XP.

Or I could sneak in, check if there are other guards, sneak back out to tell people, sneak back in to check the layout, sneak back out to tell people, sneak back in to grab the item, sneak back out with it, then decide that the guard might have seen me after all, sneak up on him, then slit his throat. Then sneak back inside the building to hide the body, and sneak back out again (just in case there's a second guard). Which earns me up to 10 XP.

So basically, making your plan as convoluted as possible gets you the prize, anything that actually works efficiently screws you up. Probably you want to have your party be a bit non-cooperative and antagonistic too, so that you can each roll for tasks separately or even get the big bucks by rolling against each-other.


Also! I think you really don't want the skill decay, because it turns those "everybody else does whatever" parts in your gameplay description into "everybody else loses skill points and gets pissed about it".

Normally, if we're in town, and the swashbuckler says "I'm going to take a couple weeks, make my name known in high society," then fine, he just does that. Even if other people have nothing to do, it doesn't hurt them any, and it can be resolved in a small amount of real-time if desired.

With the decay system, the rest of the party is like "Fuck that, not unless this town also has an underground fighting league, a library of forbidden arcane lore, and some high-stakes gambling on trade shipments. We're not going to sit here burning skills so you can feel fancy."

Although I guess depending on how many skills people have, they could just spend 1 day/month/skill on training and be fine. But in that case, the rule is just wasted space.

Ice9 wrote:Still pretty much the same issue. You don't have a checklist, but instead you have an incentive to repeat things for credit as much as you can. Even if blatantly setting up situations is disallowed, it still encourages kind of a stupid way of doing things.

Okay, I guess I was a bit afraid of that, but wasn't sure how to articulate it. We haven't fixed the apparent problem, just shifted it.

So basically, making your plan as convoluted as possible gets you the prize, anything that actually works efficiently screws you up. Probably you want to have your party be a bit non-cooperative and antagonistic too, so that you can each roll for tasks separately or even get the big bucks by rolling against each-other.

This... I'll admit, it almost makes the problem sound insurmountable.

I guess having only really tested our combat system so far, we hadn't encountered this problem in playtesting yet, since - well, things are trying to kill you, so you're not really going to take time to screw around for more XP.

Though, I wonder: we have a system in place for dividing days into discrete measurements of time, and use that for our exploration rules. If we extrapolated them out so that the MC is always sort-of tracking time, and we did a "you can only get XP towards a skill once per X time-unit," would that work, or does that become too fiddly? We're trying to avoid the game becoming too fiddly like 4e, as that game was just a massive pain in the ass to deal with all the things going on...

Also! I think you really don't want the skill decay, because it turns those "everybody else does whatever" parts in your gameplay description into "everybody else loses skill points and gets pissed about it".

Although I guess depending on how many skills people have, they could just spend 1 day/month/skill on training and be fine. But in that case, the rule is just wasted space.

Core functionality of a role requires exactly 2 skills. Those skills each come from separate lists for each role (so each role has a column A and a column B, A + B = now you're a functional member of the role). However, most roles function better if you have more, so it'd probably wind up looking more like 6-10.

So I don't think it'll come up most of the time; it's mostly there to (1) prevent people from doing everything equally well, (2) allow for characters that actively make a switch from one role to another, while maintaining that they used to be good at stuff, and (3) I like the idea of having characters that are older who came out of retirement, who used to be badass at something, and are able to "get back into the swing of things," as it were, which this mechanic would help enable.

Also, needing training facilities is not a thing except for specific skills that would make no sense without it (so knowledge-type skills, yes; swinging a sword better, no).

I guess having only really tested our combat system so far, we hadn't encountered this problem in playtesting yet, since - well, things are trying to kill you, so you're not really going to take time to screw around for more XP.

If sandbagging a fight so it drags out longer gives more XP, don't be surprised if your swordmaster shows up to every duel with a oar in case it turns out to be easy enough to turn into a grindfest. Have you played a Fire Emblem game, or Final Fantasy Tactics? The things players are encouraged to do to advance the power of their tiny men can get pretty ridiculous, and it's a direct consequence of awarding XP for individual combat actions.

Figure out the stories you want your game to tell. Then figure out how you can mechanically incentivize them. Personally, if I was doing a caravan game I'd probably award build points at plot milestones and for successful journeys from one hub of civilization to another.

Nitpick: Why do you need a training facility for knowledge skills? Why can't you just exchange letters with experts on the subject or study the scrolls in your travel chest in between steering the caravan wagons? Mandatory training centers might be harder to justify for certain skills than you think.

Hehe. RPG players tend to try to stay in character, but if they don't ...

In UFO: Enemy Unknown, an ancient-but-famous computer game from before time, every stat was raised by using that stat, and the harder you pushed it the better.

So the sniper got better by sniping holes in distant walls every turn. The throwers threw all their grenades far away from the aliens to improve throwing. The strong people weighed themselves down so heavily they could barely move and just danced in place. And all your reactions/breach guys at the end stood outside the crashed alien spacecraft and relied on mass reaction fire to shoot anything that stepped out. Anyone who needed speed or endurance randomly ran from end to end of the map on a clear part as that went on.


Hell, in 3e D&D, players IME will just hunt down random animals for XP. Because monsters are XP and random animals are monsters. Players really like XP, and they'll find an excuse for whatever they're doing to earn some, so it sounds like it's "in character".

tussock wrote:Hehe. RPG players tend to try to stay in character, but if they don't ...

In UFO: Enemy Unknown, an ancient-but-famous computer game from before time, every stat was raised by using that stat, and the harder you pushed it the better.

So the sniper got better by sniping holes in distant walls every turn. The throwers threw all their grenades far away from the aliens to improve throwing. The strong people weighed themselves down so heavily they could barely move and just danced in place. And all your reactions/breach guys at the end stood outside the crashed alien spacecraft and relied on mass reaction fire to shoot anything that stepped out. Anyone who needed speed or endurance randomly ran from end to end of the map on a clear part as that went on..

You are trying to be cute, but you are full of shit. There is a long history of games with mechanics of use, and people grinded in all of them. In Xcom, you did run people around to gain X, or drag out pointlessly easy fights to farm up your people.

In Morrowind you do travel by jumping. In Oblivion you do Sneak walk into a corner and leave the room. Those are all things people actually do, because having a better character is better than having a worse character, and if all you have to do is not solve the problem immediately, but just bring it really close to being solved, and then putz around to grind stats, then that is what people will fucking do.

Avoraciopoctules wrote:If sandbagging a fight so it drags out longer gives more XP, don't be surprised if your swordmaster shows up to every duel with a oar in case it turns out to be easy enough to turn into a grindfest. Have you played a Fire Emblem game, or Final Fantasy Tactics? The things players are encouraged to do to advance the power of their tiny men can get pretty ridiculous, and it's a direct consequence of awarding XP for individual combat actions.

I'm familiar with FFT, ya. And I see your point.

Sandbagging can give more XP, at the moment. I initially justified this by saying to myself that, well, if a fighter wants to practice his combat skills by intentionally dragging out a fight - that sounds like a thing that would actually work... but that might also indicate that the fighter probably won't learn jack from that encounter, thinking about it now.

Perhaps if we use some kind of CR equivalent to handle it. Like... say a random goblin is CR 3. If your average for a given roll is higher than 3, you can't gain XP for it from that goblin, it just doesn't provide enough of a challenge. Obviously we'd have to figure out a way to generate that number, and preferably in a way that doesn't immediately make it obvious to players what the CR of things they're fighting is, but it sounds - off the cuff - like it might work.

Figure out the stories you want your game to tell. Then figure out how you can mechanically incentivize them. Personally, if I was doing a caravan game I'd probably award build points at plot milestones and for successful journeys from one hub of civilization to another.

The "caravan" term was something I just came up with in response to the realization that "party" may not be the best term, but I'd been using "party" as a default because I come from a primarily-D&D background. It wasn't intended to imply that it is a game about a caravan in the real-world sense of the word.

That said, the reason I went with it is because part of my vision for this game was inspired by FF Crystal Chronicles. I like the notion of a party using a wagon or small wagon train as a base of operations.

Nitpick: Why do you need a training facility for knowledge skills? Why can't you just exchange letters with experts on the subject or study the scrolls in your travel chest in between steering the caravan wagons? Mandatory training centers might be harder to justify for certain skills than you think.

That is a very fair point. I will try to keep that in mind in the future.