My Lone Wolf RPG

[crymson]

Thought I would just share some of the rules I have been creating in order to start an online RPG. It is designed a s 'quick and dirty' game, based on the books themselves. I have no idea if it is even close to Mongoose's new system, but hopefully it will prove fun to play.

You can find a PDF of the basic rules here: members.wideband.net.au/crymson/Rules.pdf

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. I'll be posting character classes shortly. I am hoping to get the game started in a week or so; anyone interested please let me know.

[Maerin]

Couple comments, though it looks like you have a good start going:

1. Damage bonuses are a significant challenge to implement fairly and completely, as you yourself could probably go round and around considering them day in and day out…and never come to a satisfactory resolution or set of conclusions. Ask two or three other people for their opinion, and this discussion may be doomed many times over.

Although, I suppose, if one wants to spend hours discussing applied physics (including torques, penetration, protective/resistive factor, etc.) and all such related nonsense, far be it me to rain on their party.

Rather than allow yourself to be trapped into that however, I think it is in the spirit of the system you are assembling to suggest you just allow the damage to be dependent on the relative/comparative skill of the combatants alone. The guiding assumption here would be something along the lines of the following: a person that knows how to get the more out of a given weapon is very likely going to always over-match a person that does not know how to do so (or does but to a lesser extent), regardless of all other considerations. That is the general assumption that the Lone Wolf gamebooks make, and I suggest you adopt it here. It also makes it easy for you to introduce and implement a whole variety of different weapons with an equally largely variety of different (potential) fighting styles with those weapons (or without, for that matter) without tying yourself in a mental knot trying to quantify, however generally, which one might be “better” in comparison and contrast with another.

2. There may be some serious combat pacing problems because of the one hit, one target rule. Generally speaking, there will be one of two problems from a playability standpoint. The first problem will be combat substantially favors the “group” with the greater numbers. Even if one combatant is better than two lesser, the lesser will generally have the better odds of winning. In some cases, that might seem realistic, in other cases not so much (and it really has playability issues). The second problem arises if somehow the first is eluded: combat will take quite a while if everyone has to focus on only one single target at a time. That may work when the player characters are pretty unskilled, but it will be really hard to replicate skill in the game as they get more experienced (this is why we see Lone Wolf squaring off against multiple opponents in later books).

3. Your method for determining ranged accuracy is a bit hard to evaluate clearly without knowing how you might modify that random roll. Remember that, in a 1-10 range of basic results you do not have a lot of flexibility to work with in the way of results. Right now, it appears that accuracy is somewhat unrealistically difficult (4 out of 10 miss outright?). Accuracy also does not account well for what one might be shooting at. Give enough bonuses to the roll, and the result is automatic hits which, considering that number of bonuses amounts to only 4, does not give you a lot of flexibility in the system. Finally, the system as written does not particularly replicate the accuracy of specific weapons (for instance, a Bor rifle is described in the gamebooks as being a very inaccurate weapon, yet in this system it is easily the most effective weapon with no loss of accuracy at all).

In general, I think the “special” ranged rules set unnecessary, since you are using the Combat Results Table in the gamebooks for melee combat. There is little purpose in having two systems when one works just fine for you.

I would be interested in trying your game, if only as a play-testing exercise. The reference to "classes" is still one I find a bit dodgy, but I am willing to see what you come up with.

[crymson]

I'm not sure how else to do multiple combats if this system doesn't work. Any ideas?

The damage bonuses was something I pondered on am not particularly attached to; these can be dropped easily enough.

Ranged combat was what I had the problem with the most. Did I do it this way (and then mimic the books somewhat) or try to implement something using the CRT? I might go back and work something up for that instead.

Classes is something necessary, I think. I will post a couple shortly.

[crymson]

Actually, one thought I did just have for multiple combats: What if you had to split your Combat Skill amongst opponents?

For example, you have a Combat Skill of 18. You are facing two Giaks (CS 11). You decide to split your attacks, giving you CS 9 against each Giak.

Or, you are fighting two bandits (CS 12) and their leader (CS 15). You decide to concentrate on the leader and put 10 points against him, then split your remaining CS amongst the lackeys. So, you would be CS 10 against the bandit leader and CS 4 against both bandits.

Thoughts?

[Doomy]

Sounds like a good way to get killed.

[crymson]

Ok, then. Any suggestions on how to handle multiple combats?

[crymson]

An update:

Revised rules (though no change to multiple combats yet; still thinking on this one): members.wideband.net.au/crymson/Rules2.pdf

Kai Lord class: members.wideband.net.au/crymson/KaiLord.pdf

Brotherhood of the Crystal Star: members.wideband.net.au/crymson/CrystalStar.pdf

Border Ranger: members.wideband.net.au/crymson/BorderRanger.pdf

[Doomy]

Aug 19, 2008 3:05:21 GMT -5 crymson said:

Ok, then. Any suggestions on how to handle multiple combats?

Hmmm.... I was going to suggest the Fighting Fantasy method (you roll attacks for everyone, but can only damage one enemy at a time) but that seems to have been ruled out already.

[crymson]

You know, the second way I mentioned may not be as bad as you think.

In the first example against the Giaks, the character would be at -2 Combat Ration (CR) and still have a 7 in 10 chance of hurting them more than they hurt him.

In the second example against the bandits the character would be -5 CR against the leader and -6 against the bandits. This still gives him a 5 in 10 chance of hurting them more than they hurt him.

In each of these cases, the character would be able to deal damage to ALL opponents, in case that wasn't clear from my original post.

[Beowuuf]

I fail to see the problem with multiple combats if you ignore the enemy result for everyone. After all, does d20 not do the same and pit everyone versus everyone, each round unless you ahve the skills, you pick one opponent? And the FF system also did that as Doomy says.

The only difference is LW is geared to more damage being inflicted and less chance of missing. Then again, shouldn't combat be dangerous?

Perhaps a combat option for either side can be 'grouping'. Instead of making an attack yourself, you decide to aid a leader in combat. That 'leader' gains a CS bonus of your CS score / 4 (rounded down). Mounted opponents implicitly gain this bonus from their steads (horses, doomwolves, etc)

The disadvantage of this is that all members aiding the group leader take half the damage (rounded down) that the leader takes (you standing close together, you gunna get thumped!).

I don't know if this balances well - you can get up to the higher damage echelons, including the chance of an auto-kill, but at the risk of the group being taken out quickly by a skillful foe.

Which reminds me, perhaps something quick and dirty dealing with auto-kills when applied to a group. 0Ep or a K on the chart does not instantly kill the character, if he can be aided by another then there is a chance to bring him back. That would offset the vicious nature of LW combat!

Although I'd like to suggest something clver, I think the mechanics of ranged weapons staying the same as melee logically works well. I wouldn't penalise daggers, spears etc for damage though. I would simply add a CS penalty or perhaps a stricter range requirement.

[crymson]

A grouping rules is interesting, as it mimics the way Lone Wolf fights multiple enemies. However, the problem then is that individual combatants lose some of the special rules they may have from Disciplines and such.

It's an interesting problem, to be sure.

[Beowuuf]

In what regards? Seems fair that if you aren't concentrating on your opponent in a jostle, you can't bring specialist skills to bare - only the fighter at the front directly engaging you can, while the sideliners are making sneaky attacks around him or trying to flank

Edit: OH, i mis-spoke. I think that all NPCs should always use the enemy column in the combat ration, to limit the lethality of combat for the PC.

[Doomy]

In ranged combat, what happens if you get half of "K"?

[crymson]

True, but it could make for some boring combats for some of those combatants.

I think the grouping rule has some merit, however. Perhaps it is based on the person with highest Combat Skill, +1 or 2 for each person aiding him, just to keep things simple? Or +1 if your CS is 10-19, +2 if it is 20-29, etc. Then compare the two scores to get the combat ratio and work out damage as you mentioned.

[crymson]

Aug 19, 2008 8:21:54 GMT -5 Doomy said:

In ranged combat, what happens if you get half of "K"?

Fair point I'll fix that up