1KM1KT Free RPG Community

I hesitate a bit to add a new topic to an already extensive list. I don't think there's an existing "let's try out ideas for mechanics" thread, but if there is one, perhaps this discussion will be taken there. Otherwise, here goes.

I'm writing an entry for the called (currently) . When coming up with rules mechanics for it, I hit upon a novel idea that would greatly facilitate some aspects of gameplay while probably hindering others, and I'm not sure whether or not it's worth the hassle. I'd love to hear your opinions.

The situation is this: Action rolls are made against a character's ability value. That value may be modified by one or more skill values (which may be positive or negative), possibly from more than one character (if everyone in the group is kibbitzing). I could have them roll against each applicable value, with the margins of success stacking, but I'm really trying to cut down on the roll-playing here. So I thought of the following...

I'm a big fan of what I call pyramidal cost schemes (can any mathematicians out there inform me as to the proper word for this type of progression?) where the cost for a new level equals the level number, so the progression goes like this: 1, 3, 6, 10, 15, 21, 28, ... So maybe, I thought, instead of assigning points to a skill to get a level (say, 15 pts for a +5), just assign points and calculate the level during play. This way, multiple skills could be used by adding the assigned points and calculating the end level from the total. Theoretically, any number of modifiers could be used, with ever-diminishing returns.

For example, say you have two skills that apply to a given roll, both at 15p (worth +5). Add them and they give 30p, worth +7, not +10. Or three professionals are cooperating on a task, their skills at 28p, 30p and 33p (individually worth +7 each). Together, they have 91p, so the task is rolled at +13. Or a dozen guys are applying their big 1p expertises to something: a 12p total will get you +4, so while they are more likely to get something done, mostly they're just getting in each other's way.

Now, I consider look-up tables during play to be bad form, but if the values never went beyond the low tens, the table could be printed on the character sheet. And I know I've worked with such schemes long enough that I can spit out the most common results off the top of my head. The question is, would it work for other people, or would it just result in endless calculations and table referencing? (Also, has someone already tried implementing a system like this?)

And of course, if anyone is inspired to run with the concept and create something else based on it, then go for it! n__n

That is an interesting idea, and a good way to address that tasks in real life are rarely solved by one skill, but rather a school of knowledge. I don't particularly like looking up charts during play either, but some way to implement this is certainly worthwhile.

Part of my idea for the Lagrange game was a "Gestalt" attribute for acquiring gang members and a way to make team efforts. However I was actually working in the opposite direction - the more people means and exponential increase in how effective the gang can be. At least for tasks where multiple people don't start complicating things. After all, only so many people can huddle around an engine to fix it, but thousands can collaborate on a computer project.

Exponential scales like this are pretty common in point buy systems during creation, but keeping tabs during play I'm not too aware of. However there are a few ways to simplify it.

Rather than abstract skill scores, its based on the number of people - every doubling of the group is +1, in addition to some bonus granted by the most experienced individual/leader. Or for an individuals skill set, a simple every doubling equals +1 should suffice.

This is computers and cyberpunk - powers of two would be a perfect progression for the setting! Though five or six levels (64-128 points needed) is probably the upper limit. You could take this a step further by allowing machines/data banks/tools to simply be a pool working towards you're next power but otherwise be abstract about their capabilities.

Or perhaps provide some quick equation or linear progression for people to mind. For example, every 25 SP=+1 to task, those SP don't need to come from one person. Possibly with a degradation effect to account for the "bike shed problem" - so every person beyond the first two only provides half their normal SP.

The Bike Shed problem, in case you didn't know, is that in non-technical issues everyone has an opinion, while in advanced ones people tend to listen to those who sound knowledgeable. Hence a committee will take forever to decide on an aesthetic choice of what color to paint a shed since everyone has a valid opinion, but listen to an expert and quickly agree on the construction of a nuclear reactor. Certainly seems like a concept we should work into these games.

A good character sheet might list each skill entry as (Total)/(effective level)/(Excess)to keep things straight. An oddity might be to add excess together, but combining full skill has a limit due to aforementioned committee problem.

Hmm, something just occurred to me. This is one of those interesting problems I like commenting on, but at the same time, I'm usually asked to judge these contests, so I probably shouldn't be giving an undue amount of help to anybody. I'll bring it up in the judging forum, but please excuse me if I clam up after this.

I'm going to try and give this topic a better reply in the next few days. I just reviewed what I was writing about it, and realised that I wasn't making much sense. Lack of sleep'll do that to you.

I absolutely love discussions of rules mechanics, and want to give this one a proper go.

Regarding the math required, I suspect most common players aren't going to be familiar enough with triangular numbers to calculate them easy, thus a reference chart will be necessary. However, this may or may not require looking it up in the book. Incorporating it on the character sheet is a good idea, but a small reference card could work too, or incorporate this pyramid into the cover art. Or, if possible, actually integrate the chart into play as a means of resolving opposed actions (I love games that have a hands-on elements to them):

1) have an 11x11 hourglass of positions (or 15 by 15, or whatever, but odd numbers are important).
2) Each player starts at an opposite side and builds a triangular number pyramid thingy by placing tokens on this square.
3) This would result in a "tug of war" like situation, only in reverse, as each player attempts to "push" the point where the two triangles intersect towards the other player (this being done by overlapping points being negated).
4) Each skill or friend used in the battle might incur a "fatigue point" or some such that adversely affects the player later, so it is a battle of skill/determination/wits as each player attempts to force their pyramid the furthest towards their foe.

Did that make any sense what-so-ever? Perhaps a few images might help show what I mean (though I only have access to MS paint right now):

The grid might look like this:

The two opposing side would start creating their triangles in this manner:

Blue's skill is more impressive, and pushes the line towards Red:

Red recruits an additional skill and overlaps some of Blue's points (this overlap is in green):

The overlap is removed from the board (for both sides). The end result is that Blue is still winning, but barely:

Red recruits a friend to add their skill, bringing it up to a tie:

As a side note, if all these graphics are annoying, I'll change them to links.

The advantage here is that you sneak the chart, which they'd otherwise have to look up, into gameplay. Of course, the disadvantage is that moving tokens around can be time consuming (but, I think, fun).

Just a triangular,

Thought