Malckuss on Japanese RPG Mechanics

[Malckuss]

I haven't got anything more concrete than this at the moment, but I thought I would show where my thought process is at the moment.

I think that the basic idea is still sound, but I need to split up the dice provision, the number reduction, and the value adder mechanisms. I'm thinking of having the dice come from several sources, based on your action, the reduction come from a skill of some sort, and the adder come from your attribute, so I can keep the value low. I also thin I need ones to remove dice, starting with your highest first. I did some test rolls last night, and this seemed to curb things nicely. I am gaming with my crew tonight, but I will have time to throw my mind against the issue tomorrow.

[Onix]

I'd like to throw this out there, I'm sorry I haven't been able to sit down and think this through 'till now*, I'm not specifically objecting to the system**. It does get complicated, and I do endorse simplicity, but 80% of fixing the problem is in the presentation.

When you're introducing a new term, stop, make a bolded heading with the term as the title and then a paragraph or two to describe it. Explain why that term is being introduced, the reason behind it, what it's modeling.

Instead of trying to pack the description of a mechanic into a single concept description, realize that there are several concepts there and break them up. If you can't describe the core of it in one or two paragraphs then it's more than one concept. When you do this, it helps the reader absorb one distinct part of the mechanic, then once they're good with that, move on to the next block.

Now I know you're just formulating the ideas here, but you have to understand, we are a pretty good model of your target audience. If they would have a hard time slogging through the text, so will we. This gives you the opportunity to really hone your writing skills. If you throw out an idea and someone says "Okay, that's simple enough" you did a good job.

In the future if I say that something is too complicated, the first thing you*** should do is look to improving the writing. I'm fine with really outrageous probabilities if that's the feel you want for the game. Once the text is clear and compartmentalized it's much easier to evaluate and address each individual concept. I don't want anyone walking away and saying that I said their ideas were no good. I'd rather have it so that I can give constructive criticism, so I need a way of saying all this in a shorter space of text.

*We were getting our costumes ready for Star Wars night at our local baseball franchise.
**Although if you found something that you want to change, don't let me stop you.
***Or anyone else here. Rubbermancer, I tried saying this to you earlier and failed.

[Malckuss]

That seems to me like a good piece of advice. I will give it a try with the next pass. I'm pretty sure Rob hit on an issue though, with too much "weight" of the system resting on what the skills are doing. They have two jobs, while the other rules only have one. I think breaking the system's tasks up a bit also lets me add more critical thinking options. The key is options; I'm trying to compartmentalize the rules so those who like a rule and those who don't can make use of it or discard it as they like without it affecting the rest of the group or the flow of play. I think of it sort of like individualized house-ruling.

[Malckuss]

I really liked the core ide I came up with, as I have another system (using d10s) that already works (pretty awesomely, too) using it. I am fully confident I could have banged my noggin against it for a week or two and have fixed it up to fit the d6.

I was in the midst of doing that very thing last night, actually. I was looking over my notes on the various systems I like, and then the list of suggestions that had been given to me in regards to this little project. on more than one board, I was told I should look over the One Roll engine.

I have a love-hate relationship with the ORE. It is fast, it has some interesting permutations, but it still feels clunky to me, in play. I know that my major issue involves the way that it handles Initiative. There are however two variants of the system that I like more. One is the Wuxia Action series' system (first seen in the now-defunct Weapons of the Gods, which was streamlined and fixed into Legends of the Wulin) that has a solution to only having single dice come up, and Cthulhutech's Framewerk system (which came -> <- close to using the ORE engine itself) which uses poker-style mechanics.

That is when the new idea hit me like a bolt of creative lightning. I was thinking of those poker-style dice mechanics, and an image of a hand of cards (used for another system I have) came into my brain, and the following system exploded into my brain. Note that all of the specifics aren't nailed down, but I'm doing that on purpose ATM; I'm thinking that this system could applied differently to different games, like Cortex +, and think I may release the system as an Open game eventually

I like to include the though/design process when I design, but it's making this post long, so I shall start a second post with just the mechanics.

[Malckuss]

I call this system dice chaining. You start with a 2-die base, as previously. Dice can come from various traits as needed by the setting and genre, similar to Cortex +. I wouldn't suggest adding more than 10 dice to this base, as it would be unwieldy. Once the dice hit the table, players may sort the dice to form chains, either linking the dice by sequence(x, y, z) or by set (# of a kind; x, x, x). If you cannot chain any dice together, you may form a "link" of one die, as long as it isn't a 1. You do not total up the dice (unless there is a tie or some other situation the GM feels it could aid in), but count the number of dice in the chain. This is the chain's length; i.e.: "I have a chain of four."

Th highest value in the chain is the important number, and is known as a chain's Impact. So, for example, if the last number in the sequence is a 5, or you made a set with multiple 5s, you have a chain with an Impact of 5.

To determine the effectiveness of an action, you take the length of your chain and add the Impact to the total. So, using the values in the short examples, you would have a chain of 4, with an Impact of 5, for a total result of 9.

Due to the way the dice work, there are multiple values that could be determined at once, similar to ORE. My brain hasn't processes all of the different applications it could be put to use just yet, but I'm excited enough by the prospects to embrace this as the core of my project. It fits two of my design goals: It's interesting, and it's simple.

I have to admit I'm pretty happy right now. I can get back to the fun design stuff instead of flattening my forehead on a wall.

Funny thing is, I don't think I can take credit for it. It was just my weird brain that made the associations.

[Onix]

Seems simple enough, So the majority of the time, the best a character could do is to get a 12 (1,2,3,4,5,6) unless they just happen to roll a whole mess of one number which becomes vanishingly unlikely.

It might take players time to get used to the system because just rolling is a bit of a mini-game in itself (like Yathzee actually).

[Malckuss]

I was just working out the action economy. You can take multiple actions by way of forming multiple chains. You don't have declare them first, though I'm going to create some abilities to make it easier to have multiple chains. For this project, since I'm emulating Japanese console RPGs as well, you have an action charge count in between rolls; after your initial roll, you place a die off to the side, on the character sheet, or write it down, etc., starting at 1. As each player takes their turn, you up the number by one (or faster if there aren't many people in the combat; still working the math for this), and when you get to 6, you can roll again.This way multiple people can go at once, though I would still have a declaration order, and run that as initiative is handled in the MHR game (whomever went last decides who declares next).

Here's a short example of how conflict is working out so far (work in progress, and all that):

Two players are facing off against a chimera. They roll their dice for their initial turn. (for this example I rolled 6 dice for them and 8 for the chimera as I haven't nailed down how I'm establishing character frames yet) Player 1 got a chain length of 4 at an impact of 5, a chain of 2, impact 1, and a link with an impact of 2. Player 2 formed a chain of 4, with an impact of 3, and a link with an impact of 6 (his last die was a 1, which cannot form a link). The chimera has two chains with a length of 2, impact 2, a chain of 3, impact 6, and a link with an impact of 6.

Player 1 goes first as he has the chain with the highest Impact, and it's longer than the chimera's. He uses his short chain of 2, impact 1 to lead his assault, meant to wear down the chimera's defenses. The Chimera easily defends with one of it's length 2, impact 2 chains; it's impact can wipe out any impact of 2, and it has two dice so player 1's chain is negated; however, that uses up the dice. Player 1 continues his assault with his length 4, impact 5 chain. the Chimera uses it's length 3 impact 6 chain to defend. However, the chimera's last die in that chain is only a 4, so it can't negate a die, and is eliminated. This leaves player 1 with a chain of 2, impact 5, inflicting 7 damage on the chimera. Player 1 decides to hold on to his link at 2 for a meager defense, and cedes the turn to player 2. He sets his action die to 1.

Player 1 softened the chimera up nicely. Player 2 hopes to finish it off or at least prevent it from acting this turn. Player 2 leads with his bigger chain; length 4 impact 3. The GM spends the chimer's link of 6 to negate one of the dice, but won't waste the shorter chain as it wouldn't have any effect. Player 2 is left with a length 3, impact 3 chain, inflicting 6 more damage to the chimera. He decides to hold onto his last die to use for defense. Player 1 moves his action die to 2 while player two sets his to 1.

The chimera only has one chain left, a length 2 impact 2 chain. It will lose a die from either player's defense, so the GM decides it will attack player 1, who inflicted slightly more damage. It inflicts 2 damage on player 1, and the GM sets the chimera's action die to 1, while player 1 sets his to 3, and player 2 sets his to 2...

With only the three characters involved in combat, the GM could accelerate the process, and let player 1 go again, but the chimera has an ability that lets it's action charge at a quicker rate. The chimera gains two charge for every one the player's get, so the Chimera and Player 1 roll their dice for their actions at the same time.

I'm thinking of having actions affect the action charge mechanic. If you use your full action, it takes the full 6 count, but if you hold part of your chain, you charge faster based on how many dice you are still holding. I also think some kind of speed mechanic could let you act faster. Still pondering. Suggestions are more than welcome.

I just realized, that you could easily simulate a large mob of minion-style NPCs by giving it a great deal of dice, and as a player eliminates the dice with offensive actions, you eliminate a member of the mob; the following turn, the mob has fewer dice to roll, and you have less statistics to keep track of for them, as well.

[Malckuss]

No thoughts, comments or feedback?
I can wait.
In the mean time, I'll press on.

[Onix]

Sorry, just a busy couple of days. I read part of it but had to run. Looks interesting but haven't had a chance to work on it, been trying to get a giant pile of aluminum to the scrapper.

[Malckuss]

I fully understand busy. No worries, Onix. I'm a little surprised Rob hasn't stopped by for a little bit and poked at something until a question popped into his mind. He's really good at seeking out loose ends and odd angles.