|
Post by Balgin Stondraeg on Apr 3, 2008 13:05:00 GMT -5
It was originaly intended for AD&D 1st ed (I was too poor to afford the brand new shiny 2nd ed books that had been about for 10-15 years) or possibly WFRP/RQ. So a single die type ruleset was what I had in mind generaly when I thought it up (about seventeen years ago ).
|
|
|
Post by Maerin on Apr 3, 2008 15:05:24 GMT -5
Not certain how well one might make that idea work for a percentage-geared rolling scheme like WFRP. If one only tracked one set of 1-10, then the highest "roll" a player would ever generate in such a game is a 59 (the worst possible combination of numbers any player is likely to use for that system in a single series of 1 to 10). The consequence of that would be an over-abundance of player success, which is not really in the spirit of a game setting like Warhammer. The other alternative is to require players to track two sets of 1 to 10, represented each of the two d10 rolls that make up a percentage check. The primary problem I see with that, aside from the obviously multiplication of complexity and number tracking on the part of players (which mostly undoes the merits of not having them roll dice) is that one would likely see players attempt a lot of calculated rolls for the purposes of purging the relatively large number of bad number combos they would be stuck with (considering most scores, at least in the first career or two, are lower than 50%).
|
|
|
Post by Sarra on Apr 3, 2008 15:15:59 GMT -5
Not certain how well one might make that idea work for a percentage-geared rolling scheme like WFRP. If one only tracked one set of 1-10, then the highest "roll" a player would ever generate in such a game is a 59 (the worst possible combination of numbers any player is likely to use for that system in a single series of 1 to 10). The consequence of that would be an over-abundance of player success, which is not really in the spirit of a game setting like Warhammer. The other alternative is to require players to track two sets of 1 to 10, represented each of the two d10 rolls that make up a percentage check. The primary problem I see with that, aside from the obviously multiplication of complexity and number tracking on the part of players (which mostly undoes the merits of not having them roll dice) is that one would likely see players attempt a lot of calculated rolls for the purposes of purging the relatively large number of bad number combos they would be stuck with (considering most scores, at least in the first career or two, are lower than 50%). Speaking of the Warhammer Fantasy RPG - has anyone else had the chance to play it? I've done a couple of games and really enjoyed it. I have the corebook and everything that goes with it. Quite a different system.
|
|
|
Post by Balgin Stondraeg on Apr 3, 2008 15:17:52 GMT -5
If one only tracked one set of 1-10, then the highest "roll" a player would ever generate in such a game is a 59 (the worst possible combination of numbers any player is likely to use for that system in a single series of 1 to 10). No I'd track from 1 to 100 (since a d100 roll). The idea was that, since the die theoreticaly has an equal probability of rolling any number, then it should roll each of them once before any turn up again. Turning that theory into a game mechanic (as long as there's no opposed rolls) could work quite well if people wanted to play a geussing/risk management kind of game. It could get tricky for npc's/monsters 'though as they'd either get to use real dice or a series of numbers would need to be specified as having already been used. The idea was to represent all numbers within a given range rather than base it on probability when rolling multiple dice. 2nd gives a slightly higher average than 1d12 (not to mention the fact that it's an 11 number range instead of 12 because you can';t roll a 1 and the probabilities are skewed because it's multiple numbers combining together). The idea was merely for single dice rolls when dice were not available (as opposed to the other famous method of allowing the player to pikc the number from the range but deciding beforehand if it would be reversed (so counting up instead of down). Recently or back in the 80's/90's? I used to play it quite a lot and thoroughly enjoyed it. I've only been able to play the second edition twice.
|
|
|
Post by Maerin on Apr 3, 2008 16:36:11 GMT -5
My experience is similar to Balgrin's, in that I ran WFRP for several years and up until about 8 years ago. I have picked up the 2nd Edition and played around with it involving a couple one-shot games, but I have never ran a sustained game of it (although I have swiped idea for other games).
*chuckles* As is somewhat usual, my experience is primarily that of a GM, rather than a player.
|
|
|
Post by zipp on Apr 3, 2008 17:36:50 GMT -5
I yearn for a system where you don't have to keep track of fifty skills. I'm down with most of the combat systems I'v encountered, and I enjoy the complexity magic and abilities usually add, but something always bungles it up, making things way too complex and involving too many seemingly ambiguous dice rolls.
Maybe it's skills?
More preferable for me would be a system which combines a bunch of skills into one statistic. Like physical skills are all decided by a physical stat, and mental by a mental stat... World of Darkness uses this as a foundation, but then they go and add in skill points on top of it.
I know skills shouldn't be all that difficult to roll and figure out, but it rarely adds things to the games I've been a part of, and a lot of GMs complain about having to keep re-setting skill difficulties as the player grows.
Or maybe it's just playing games online. The online format is more geared towards role playing than roll playing.
|
|
|
Post by Maerin on Apr 3, 2008 18:05:04 GMT -5
In my experience, poor roleplaying comes about when a player lacks ideas more often than having too many. Skills serve a purpose in a roleplaying game, by providing a framework for the character that generates ideas for that player (generally along the lines of things that the character can do which the player cannot). Take that away, and too many players stop roleplaying entirely (or worse, start roleplaying themselves). I saw this happen more than once running various Tri-Stat games, and those are probably among the least mechanically-complicated game systems to actually run (at least among games that still have mechanics at all; there is always Baron Munchausen if one wants to water down mechanics even further).
No, the problem is not with one element or another of a given game design. I can say that even in light of my view that most RPG combat systems are waaaaayyyyy overblown when contrasted with their non-combat system counterparts. No matter how complicated or detailed a given game system might be, anyone suitably familiar with any given game design can make it fly and sing. I have even seen people do that with Rolemaster, if you can believe that.
Unfortunately, therein generally also lies the real problem. How much of a problem it really is, however, depends on the individual GM and his or her players.
|
|
|
Post by Balgin Stondraeg on Apr 3, 2008 19:06:52 GMT -5
World of Darkness uses this as a foundation, but then they go and add in skill points on top of it. Yeah but they blatantly just copied the shadowrun rules and changed it from a d10 dice pool to a d6 dice pool (or was it the other way round). Plus they've got a rubbish setting that only appeals to punks and fools who think they're an early germanic tribe that sacked the city of rome. Then don't. Seriously don't go down that path. This problem arises from the whole 3rd ed rushed advancement thing where everyone gets a "level" (or advancement of some kind) every two sessions, three at the most. For starters it's too steep a learning curve. No matter how familiar a player is with the system, they're likely to find themselves being granted new powers before they're fully familiar with what they gained last week yet . The d20 "default" skill checks (as listed in the PHb etc) are too low. By the time people are hitting 12th level certain skill checks become a joke (much earlier if they're thieves or really minmaxing). Simply raise all those default skill checks by about 5 and then keep them static. If the players characters do not grow in power so quickly you won't have such a problem with the world suddenly getting harder because they just got better at something. It's one of the weaknesses of level based systems. Skill based systems have a less linear mode of progression so it's rarely a case of having so suddenly make all the skill checks harder. Okay so someone's got a bit better at one skill but that didn't automaticaly make them better at fighting & taking damage . Hmm, it needs another two or three paragraphs but I'm not sure what to add to finish this post off really. I can believe it. Not my favourite system 'though (I played MERP a few times). I didn't like the abstract combat damage "oh you did so many points this round" where attacking was just a skill check opposed by armour & maybe a tiny defensive bonus that suddenly turned into the ultra highly detailed critical hits tables. I would've prefered a system where the hit location was determined before the result (like RQ, WFRP or even Elric/Stormbringer which is basicaly simplified RQ). Imagining striking an orc on the helm, having done a lot of damage, I don't suddenly want to be told I've hacked his leg clean off. I found the rolemaster critical hit (& fumble) tables could break the imaginative flow and disrupt it. The more logical WFRP/RQ method (you hit them then you do the damage) always made more sense to me than the RM "you do the damage then work out where you hit them" thing. I know what you mean 'though. In most games the combat rules are much more complicated than the rules for anything else. Unfortunately there's justification for that if you want it. I mean, if the party's engaging a guard in conversation (asking for directions or something) while one of them sneaks past while he's distracted, it needs a lot less game mechanics than a full blown fight. Okay, so you could get into the minutiae of how distracted he is, how well the person sneaks and if he notices etc. That'd make sense too. But that's still going to involve a lot less "stuff" than five hostile goblins attacking three or four player characters (who may or may not wish to fight). Maerin, have you looekd at Dogs In The Vinyard recently? It's got this crazy opposed dice roll system where you have a number of dice pools and you gamble dice (deciding how many you want to use on an action considering the fact that you won't be getting them back anytime soon). Occassionaly dice that roll really well get kept as carry over dice for an immediate follow up but only if it comes straight afterwards. Apparently it's very like poker but I've never played poker and wouldn't know how to. The main thing is that in opposed rolls, the winner gets to describe the result (based on the margin of difference and stuff like that). The loser then has to accept the result, and then they can go at it again. So asking an old man who doesn't like tourists for directions might involve your mind and heart dice against his. You'd ask for directions, maybe he'd tell you, maybe he wouldn't. And then you could question the directions he's given you or he could hurry you along before you have tome to stop and think, that sort of thing. Anyway, my point was that they do fights the same way and while it's still more complicated, it's a lot less more complicated than in most other systems.
|
|
|
Post by Maerin on Apr 3, 2008 20:31:51 GMT -5
Well, I think the justification for the increased page count of most RPG combat systems boils down to, "we have more complicated combat rules because we have always have had more complicated combat rules". In reality, there is nothing inherently more complicated about two people swinging swords at one another over two people, say, debating game design on an online forum. Add two or three more people to both hypotheticals equally, and the level of complication remains largely the same. You could resolve either hypothetical with a single die roll, five dice rolls, or twenty dice rolls, with virtually no difference at all. And, realism aside, one can further see that demonstrated in game systems where someone actually designed the entire system on a relatively even footing between all various resolution systems (which admittedly only happens in game settings that justify that even footing, i.e. game systems where combat is NOT the end-all-be-all of the game). You can also see it in cases (mostly alternatives/options to main rules sets) where someone has designed, say, a social system that functions basically exactly like a combat system.
Yeah, I have tried Dogs In the Vinyard, along with a few other game systems of its ilk. It is definitely an acquired taste, and also a good example of a game system that is only not clunky if everyone at the table is all familiar with it. In the end though, I think it did not work for me for various game design-philosophy reasons (one can definitely say that no one can play RPGs for years and years without developing a set of principles defining their preferred philosphy of game design).
I pulled out Rolemaster as an example because I figured it would be one you and I would have in common (it is not a game I am fond of either, to say the least), as an example of a system with an insane amount of detail but one that I have nonetheless seen run very well IF the person running it (and, admittedly, the people playing) knew the system well enough for that to happen.
|
|
|
Post by zipp on Apr 3, 2008 23:24:47 GMT -5
World of Darkness uses this as a foundation, but then they go and add in skill points on top of it. Yeah but they blatantly just copied the shadowrun rules and changed it from a d10 dice pool to a d6 dice pool (or was it the other way round). Plus they've got a rubbish setting that only appeals to punks and fools who think they're an early germanic tribe that sacked the city of rome. I'm not sure what your comment means, as WoD's setting really has nothing to do with a germanic tribe mentality. Unless you're subtly refering to the goths, in which case I cannot help but agree and must also applaud your witticism. But even so, I give them a lot of credit for really delving into the myths and legends surrounding the supernatural to create huge histories for their characters. I have fun just reading the WoD setting books. I've yet to actually play a game of it, though.
|
|
|
Post by Balgin Stondraeg on Apr 5, 2008 10:24:05 GMT -5
Unless you're subtly refering to the goths, in which case I cannot help but agree and must also applaud your witticism. See, people do get my jokes. Seriously 'though, those punks need to stop pretending to be something that doesn't exist anymore (all that identifying with 19th century stuff and the gothic architectural revival, neither of which were anything the goths had anything to do with). If they want to be goths they should jolly well act like goths and since they don't, they aren't. My comment means that if you've ever played Shadowrun you'll know it uses 3 or 5 stats and a number of derived skills (which have ranks from none to 5 or something like that). You then accumulate dice pools which slowly wither away. The World of Darkness series of games (which came out later than Shadowrun) use exactly the same rules but they left out the rules for all the internet stuff (shadowrun had really complicated rules for surfing the internet via neural interfaces a bit like Lawnmower Man). So basicaly the world of darkness games seriously ripped off Shadowrun (changing the die type used and renaming some skills & ability scores) but otherwise all the core mechanics remained the same. They then added a load of "werewolf rules" and stuff like that to hide the fact that they'd blatantly just copied another company's game (possibly without permission too since they didn't put a big thankyou in the front of their books and you could always mock Werewolf The Forsaken since they often abbreviated it to WTF). One of the great things that I like about WFRP & RQ is that fighting is so lethal it's almost actively discouraged (thus allowing the players to focus on other things). I also like the general "human" style of WFRP adventures. Maerin, do you remember back when AD&D adventures were justa dungeon with a list of what lived in which room and what loot it had for people to take after it was killed? At the same time WFRP adventures were a list of what lived where, what it's motivations were and a timeline of probable events that would happen if the pc's didn't interfere. This timeline would then be modified at the GM's discretion based on the player's actions. I suppose some bad gm's used the timeline as railroading but I always used it as a very loose guideline (as it was intended). I also lik the "human" aspect of WFRP where npc's can be afraid or corrupted or influenced. I like the whole "better get out of town before" or the whole "probably wise not to bear weapons openly in public" aspect of play. One of the funniest moments I've seen was a new WFRP player walking up to a city guard in the marketplace and his openning line was "hello mate, I don't suppose I could bribe you by any chance?" The guard's responce was "what do you want to bribe me to do?" "Oh," said the new player, "I hadn't thought that far ahead really." Classic gold . WFRP occassionaly has it's silly moments. I've once seen a dwarf kill a goblin with a hand hurled raw potato at twelve or thirteen yards. Death occurred from a blow to the arm (so we reckoned the goblin but his hand up to catch it, a few fingers broke and he died from system shock). It's normaly pretty down to earth 'though and I like the setting & playstyle although with the way it's written it'd be easy to use it as a historical rgp (as is evidenced by the WFRP/RQ ripoff, Maelstrom).
|
|
|
Post by Agrarvyn on Apr 13, 2008 18:36:02 GMT -5
WFRP occassionaly has it's silly moments. I've once seen a dwarf kill a goblin with a hand hurled raw potato at twelve or thirteen yards. Death occurred from a blow to the arm (so we reckoned the goblin but his hand up to catch it, a few fingers broke and he died from system shock). I think that one fails the credibility check, Balgin!
|
|
|
Post by Maerin on Apr 13, 2008 23:31:56 GMT -5
I think that one fails the credibility check, Balgin! WFRP doesn't even play in the same league as Rolemaster, when it comes to outcomes that fail all possible conception of credibility. In WFRP, things like that are lightning-strikes-twice sorts of deals; in Rolemaster, it can be every third roll of the dice...
|
|
|
Post by Balgin Stondraeg on Apr 18, 2008 17:49:01 GMT -5
I think that one fails the credibility check, Balgin! WFRP doesn't even play in the same league as Rolemaster, when it comes to outcomes that fail all possible conception of credibility. In WFRP, things like that are lightning-strikes-twice sorts of deals; in Rolemaster, it can be every third roll of the dice... Yeah, do you remember the pole vaulting lance fumble or the "you stumble across an imaginary deceased turle" fumble result? It had some really rediculous stuff on those tables. At least in WFRP critical hits tend to put the victim out of the fight (or put them on a losing streak). In RM/MERP minor criticals can (and often do) happen every round so you'll have lots of hit points but you'll often die before losing most of them. In WFRP minor criticals can be somewhat debilitating but they aren't so open ended as to always have the opportunity of becoming huge (thanks to the open ended d100 system where if you roll a 96+ you roll and add again and if you roll a 5 or lower you roll and subtract, it can get some rediculously huge numbers like the bruised knuckles that actualy chopped your head off). If you've seen the Hackmaster critical hit & fumbles tables you'll tell they're a spoof of the RM ones (in fact they're almost copied word for word, one of the appealing traits of Hackmaster). And on the failed credibility check: the player actualy carved the dwarven rune of might into a potato and brought it along to our gaming session for the next two or three months to celebrate such a rare occurrence. If it had been RM/MERP it would've been "oh, just another normal combat round".
|
|
|
Post by Maerin on Apr 18, 2008 17:55:30 GMT -5
Yeah, I remember. Rather well, actually, as I pull those old Rolemaster tables out on occasion just to give myself a good laugh.
'You trip over an invisible, imaginary, deceased turtle. You are very confused. Stunned one round.' I don't remember if that was the exact wording, but it's close enough; and just one example of outcomes that still provoke a snicker...so long as one doesn't do something silly like actually run a Rolemaster game (in which the first challenge is Surviving Character Creation).
|
|