New system design: Ashkhar RPG

[doghead]

Glad to have been of assistance.

If I were to make a change to the system, I would probably do something like removing Melee Combat, Ranged Combat, and Movement. I would then create three new skills, Might, Coordination, and Tactics. Might would be useful for strength based movement, heavy melee fighting styles, lifting heavy stuff, etc. Coordination would be based around balance, lock picking, art, dancing, and of course ranged combat. Tactics would involve the other more ethereal aspects of the Movement skill, that of Tactical decisions, piloting, processes, efficiency, moving from cover to cover, etc. I think this way you could still keep those three skills applicable for various combat actions, just like Melee, Ranged, and Movement can now, but it opens up a slew of new options and makes a little better sense.

I like this. Tactics is sort of a spacial awareness, the ability to see the encounter as a whole, plan manoeuvres and assess the risks and rewards. In this way, Tactics would be a Requirement for the Manoeuvres that give bonuses to allies, with Influence the skill used to make it happen. The character's Tactics level could effect the number of allies that can be effected, or perhaps the range of the effect.

To your grohlkin fighter

Thanks for taking the time to make a character! I'm glad that it went pretty smoothly.

It seems to be a pretty typical "combat heavy" build that I've seen a lot in my playtests. This type of character can do pretty well in exploration and combat, but doesn't excel in social interaction. But all in all, well rounded and a pretty common build (with lots of variations of course.)

Also I noticed that you didn't pick a second trait, was there a reason for this? Combo attack goes well with this type of character build, and is one of the more favored for combat-heavy characters.

I initially had Defensive Expertise. But then I realised that it only really came into play if the weapon being used had a Offensive penalty to the dice pool. As the character's weapon didn't, I dropped the skill, but didn't get around to picking something else.

Yeah, I was trying to be clear with the math that it all either applies as a bonus or penalty to the number of d6s rolled. I can probably clarify that a bit more. The only exception to this is that there are bonuses to bonus damage, which is just a flat damage.

As to maneuvers like Perturb, that penalty is against the enemies, which have a static number, not dice. In combat or any kind of obstacle, the players make all of the rolls, not the GM. So for example, if a player used Perturb, he would roll his Influence dice pool (let's say it is 3d6). He rolls 3d6 and gets 2 successes. The GM notes that the bad guy he is trying to use Perturb against has a Resist Value (RV) of 1. This means that the player got 1 success over the enemy's RV, essentially dealing "1 Perturb Damage." This would then apply to the enemy's AV or DV for its next roll. So if this same character wanted to shoot a bow at the bad guy he just used Perturb against, the enemy's DV would be 1 less, in essence giving the player a +1d6 bonus to his ranged AV.

Ok. I get it now. The penalty could be -1D to a PC character who uses a dice pool, but -1 to an NPC who uses a static value. I would be inclined to use +/-nD as the standard descriptor, with an explanation that in the case of NPC's using static values, this is in effect a simple +/-n to the value.

The idea of "offensive" or "defensive" weapons is that while they excel in a particular field but suffer in another. It is designed to be the first modification available for basic weapons, and simply relate to the overall design/function of the weapon. The other modifications elevate the quality of the weapon.

When designing games, I always tried to ensure like things were grouped together, or things grouped together were alike. Hence the Fatigue (a negative) and Vitality (a positive) observation. Here, as you said, the Offensive/Defensive modification is more about purpose or function, while the others are enhancements. So I would be inclined to distinguish them.

I enjoy separating attack and defense, as I think it's simply easier to understand and mechanically manufacture. I've seen some of the playtest groups practically hand-wave combat, they make a few combat rolls, the GM counts the number of successes, and says "you guys defeat the enemy squad in such and such fashion, you all lose 1 Fatigue." Each to their own.

As you say, it largely a preference thing. I like the way a resisted combat roll allows a more skilful character to control an encounter preventing their opponent from hitting them while they drive home their attack. It gets more interesting when you have a one-on-many melee. This is also where the rules can get tricky to get right.

In game terms, there are abilities that encourage loss of limb. Even one of the maneuvers, hack and slash, specifically allows someone to lose a hand or foot. There will be some "beast maneuvers" that do similar things. Since "character equivalent enemies" can use these advanced maneuvers just like a PC can, it is a real possibility for the character to lose a limb.

I'm not a fan of specific injury outcomes. But if it is a possibility in the game, then the ability to regenerate would be a significant bonus.

A lot of the playtest GMs, now that they've gotten used to the system and typical values for most of the character's skills, they don't even play with any bad guys/difficulties written down. I try to make it as intuitive as possible, and GMs can hit that expert level in the matter of a few sessions.

Which is a significant plus.

thotd

 

[doghead]

There is an interesting thread here about the implementation of an alternate action system that you might find interesting.

I think that it would make a good fit with your system. It maintains the distinction between attack and defence. It does however allow for multiple attack actions.

thotd

 

[Ashkhar Ben]

There is an interesting thread *snip* about the implementation of an alternate action system that you might find interesting.

I think that it would make a good fit with your system. It maintains the distinction between attack and defence. It does however allow for multiple attack actions.

thotd

The specific injury outcomes are completely optional, and more story specific. I like the option being available, as I think it can make the game more gritty. Grohlkin are considered to be a relatively rare species as well, as are the circumstances for limb loss, but I think that it is a powerful enough ability (and specific to their culture) to be included as a mechanical bonus. Also within the system, Vitality loss is meant to represent extreme physical damage. If you get hacked with a sword, you're going to be in serious need of medical attention. But, as with everything in Ashkhar, it is really simple to just *poof* those thing's away into nonexistent rules smoke.

Regarding the thread you linked, it is definitely an interesting premise and discussion, one that I'd been following prior to your link. But, I think that it is too complicated and rules-heavy for a system that is supposed to resolve conflicts in under 10 minutes 90% of the time. If I was designing a very in depth combat simulator I might think of something more like that, but I would redesign the whole system to accommodate that. Ashkhar Basic is meant to play more along the speed of Fate or Savage Worlds while still having a good amount of mechanical crunch and tactics to satisfy d20 players.

 

[doghead]

I have always disliked having characters maimed more than killed, which probably makes me something of an outlier. And as you said, a hand wave this aspect of the game can be gone. It does make the Grohlkin a good option, if getting maimed is a possibility.

I am not sure that the multiple action system would be more complicated. And I think that it offers some nice tactical elements to actions. But the difference between the two approaches is fairly minor I think.

There is another thread that I think you might find interesting. Essentially it is system for allowing a skilled character to changes the attributes of a weapon. The essential premise is that its not so much the the weapon that dangerous, its the person wielding it. I love this idea.

Your weapon enhancement system reminded me of it, and I think that it would be fairly easy to implement . Off the top of my head:
1. Weapon User: By changing grip or stance the character can wield a weapon more offensively (+1D Attack / -1D Defence) or defensively (-1D Attack/+1D defence).
2. Weapon Expert: By changing grip or stance the character can wield a weapon more effectively (add one enhancement). This trait can be taken multiple times, each time allowing an additional enhancement to be added. Requires Weapon user trait.

The thread has some great descriptions as to how this "looks'. Jackie Chan makes an appearance.

thotd

 

[GMMichael]

Good looking system, Ben. I have some curiosity about the core mechanic, which is very similar to a White Wolf system.

Why did you decide to use three types of dice - great, good, and okay?

As I understand it, one White Wolf system uses a d10 pool, with a certain level meaning success (higher than 6 or 7), and oftentimes you need more than one "success" to succeed. Right there, my mind is boggling. And it seems that your system introduces a new factor - differing success levels.

 

[Ashkhar Ben]

I have always disliked having characters maimed more than killed, which probably makes me something of an outlier. And as you said, a hand wave this aspect of the game can be gone. It does make the Grohlkin a good option, if getting maimed is a possibility.

I am not sure that the multiple action system would be more complicated. And I think that it offers some nice tactical elements to actions. But the difference between the two approaches is fairly minor I think.

There is another thread that I think you might find interesting. Essentially it is system for allowing a skilled character to changes the attributes of a weapon. The essential premise is that its not so much the the weapon that dangerous, its the person wielding it. I love this idea.

Your weapon enhancement system reminded me of it, and I think that it would be fairly easy to implement . Off the top of my head:
1. Weapon User: By changing grip or stance the character can wield a weapon more offensively (+1D Attack / -1D Defence) or defensively (-1D Attack/+1D defence).
2. Weapon Expert: By changing grip or stance the character can wield a weapon more effectively (add one enhancement). This trait can be taken multiple times, each time allowing an additional enhancement to be added. Requires Weapon user trait.

The thread has some great descriptions as to how this "looks'. Jackie Chan makes an appearance.

thotd

Cool idea! It actually is pretty similar to an idea I had about stances being included in the Advanced Maneuvers section. They would require a certain number in Tactics or Might (I went ahead and pulled the trigger on those rules, 100% of the playtesters thought it was a great idea. Speaking of which I'll want to PM you to get your details.)

But yes, stances are something that are included in the complete version of Ashkhar under "Techniques," which are sort of like a combination of traits and maneuvers. Anyhow, for basic I think it could be easy to make a few stances, with the "drawback" being a penalty on certain actions. Opens up a slew of possibilities.

Really appreciate and love the feedback so far. Keep it coming

 

[Ashkhar Ben]

Good looking system, Ben. I have some curiosity about the core mechanic, which is very similar to a White Wolf system.

Why did you decide to use three types of dice - great, good, and okay?

As I understand it, one White Wolf system uses a d10 pool, with a certain level meaning success (higher than 6 or 7), and oftentimes you need more than one "success" to succeed. Right there, my mind is boggling. And it seems that your system introduces a new factor - differing success levels.

Hey Mike! I've looked over your system as well on your blog, very clean and easy to understand.

Thanks for the feedback and compliments, always highly appreciated.

Long Answer

The three different levels of success came about during when I was making, believe it or not, a system for Adventure Time (an awesome show, by the way.) I had a few of my friends and their kids come over and play, as they're all huge fans of the show. I wanted character creation to be very quick and easy for the kiddies to understand. In my AT RPG, there were no skills. Instead, there was just Body, Mind, and Spirit actions. Traits were included, but you only got to pick one, and your species (candy person, marauder, human, animal, robot, etc) got an extra trait as well. So for example Marauders got a bonus to melee fighting, and got to use Body for other actions that some of the other races had to use Spirit for.

This created enough mechanical complexity, and a binary success system. You rolled 1d6-3d6 (depending on traits and species), and if any of the dice came up as a success, then your character succeeded.

After that short campaign ended (which was a blast to play) the adults and some of the older kids were interested in expanding options. I had my regular game going at the time using a heavily hacked version of PF in Ashkhar, and I was in the process of making my sci fi rules. So, I started making Ashkhar from the ground up for fantasy. When I went back a year or so later to start implementing Ashkhar Basic, I returned back to the Adventure Time RPG I had made and started building off of that.

What it does mechanically is that it allows players to have less skill investment, but still be better than other players at the same task. For example, a character with Great Spirit will be twice as likely to succeed at a Resistance roll than someone with Okay Spirit. Even if the guy with Okay spirit has 3d6 into Resistance, the guy with great spirit is about on even footing.

This creates a nice dichotomy and complementary system between innate abilities and training, which ties into the character's personality. Also, as most tasks in Ashkhar are between 1 and 3 Difficulty, and it is assumed that the average character will have between 2d6-6d6 in every Skill after a few levels, it would be pretty easy to just smash through everything if it was all 4+ or 3+. Using only three attributes has its own difficulties (the tradeoffs are still very positive in my opinion) and so making them feel different was important to me mechanically.

Short Answer

Attributes create mechanical advantages for players that have the same amount of investment into a dice pool. 3+ on a 1d6 roll is about equal to a 5+ on a 2d6-3d6 roll; this makes it important to differentiate between innate ability/talent and training.

Re: confusing dice mechanic

The reason for dice pool mechanics is to nearly eliminate any math. I have a lot of playtesters for the Ashkhar Complete system, and many close friends who have played various d20/d100 games with me over the last decade, and there are a surprisingly large number of very intelligent people who find multiple number arithmetic very challenging.

In Ashkhar complete, it uses a 3d6 (in place of d20) + modifier. So a common roll is 3d6 (sum) + Skill mod + Specialty mod + Assets + Techniques + Weapon + Misc/Circumstances. For the average player, this isn't a problem, but I'd say anywhere between 10-20% get near paralysis when adding these numbers. Even just 3d6 + mod. While I'm sort of inclined to say "tough" to these people, even I have a hard time keeping all of the numbers straight after playing a few hours (and arithmetic is something I have no problem with.)

Thus, using a d6 dice pool does two things: eliminates any math beyond counting and create pretty easy to understand probability. Trying to explain to a 12 year old that a +1 bonus on 3d6 + mod nearly doubles that character's chance of success against a specific TN is confusing to them, as it doesn't feel like that much. But saying you get to roll 2d6 instead of 1d6, they get it. Inherently.

Being able to simply say "roll these five dice, and anything higher than a 3 is good" makes it a lot easier to explain the rules and easier for the GM to keep track of everything.

 

[doghead]

Another thing I like about this attribute system is that there is no "negative" attribute. Compare, for example, to a system that uses the same three attributes to which are allocated a +2, a +0 and a -2. Taking that -2 two would irritate me in a way that taking the 5+ for success does not.

In addition, while the probability of achieving X successes with an Okay attribute is lower than with a Good attribute, it is still possible. Which is also cool. Down go the four dice, up come four 5's and 6's. Yeah baby!

"You shall not pass!" roars the normally quiet and hesitant scribe at the unruly mob outside the doors of the library, before berating them soundly for their greed and stupidity. The cowed crowd slink away shamefaced. The battered and exhausted fugitives hiding among the shelves breath a sigh of relief and gratefully lower their weapons. They may just survive this madness long enough to escape.

thotd

 

[GMMichael]

I'm fully on board with keeping it simple and eliminating math.

Provided I didn't screw anything up, this is how SUCCessful each die type would be at increasing pool sizes.

Great
1 pool = 1 succ = .67
2 pool = 0 succ = .10, 1 succ = .45, 2 succ = .45
3 pool = 0 succ = .02, 1 succ = .23, 2 succ = .45, 3 succ = .30
Good
1 pool = 1 succ = .5
2 pool = 0 succ = .25, 1 succ = .5, 2 succ = .25
3 pool = 0 succ = .125, 1 succ = .375, 2 succ = .375, 3 succ = .125
Okay
1 pool = 1 succ = .33
2 pool = 0 succ = .45, 1 succ = .44, 2 succ = .11
3 pool = 0 succ = .29, 1 succ = .45, 2 succ = .223, 3 succ = .04

I'm thinking (not calculating, I don't have the math skills) that getting more than two successes is all but hopeless for the Good and Okay dice, even if their pools get up to decent sizes. If I'm right (not sure that I am), you might want to curve the Number of Successes table down a bit.

I like the system for keeping die pools small. White Wolf die pools can get pretty big, but I seem to recall their success requirements (number of successes) staying pretty low as well.

 

[Ashkhar Ben]

I'm fully on board with keeping it simple and eliminating math.

Provided I didn't screw anything up, this is how SUCCessful each die type would be at increasing pool sizes.

Great
1 pool = 1 succ = .67
2 pool = 0 succ = .10, 1 succ = .45, 2 succ = .45
3 pool = 0 succ = .02, 1 succ = .23, 2 succ = .45, 3 succ = .30
Good
1 pool = 1 succ = .5
2 pool = 0 succ = .25, 1 succ = .5, 2 succ = .25
3 pool = 0 succ = .125, 1 succ = .375, 2 succ = .375, 3 succ = .125
Okay
1 pool = 1 succ = .33
2 pool = 0 succ = .45, 1 succ = .44, 2 succ = .11
3 pool = 0 succ = .29, 1 succ = .45, 2 succ = .223, 3 succ = .04

I'm thinking (not calculating, I don't have the math skills) that getting more than two successes is all but hopeless for the Good and Okay dice, even if their pools get up to decent sizes. If I'm right (not sure that I am), you might want to curve the Number of Successes table down a bit.

I like the system for keeping die pools small. White Wolf die pools can get pretty big, but I seem to recall their success requirements (number of successes) staying pretty low as well.

No that looks about right. There are ways to increase your pools pretty easily. Traits, leveling, items, and breaking obstacles down into smaller tasks all make it easier. Also, outside of combat, party members can pool their successes together. Even if the scrawny controller can't lift much, his one or two successes still help lift the 1000 pound boulder.

Most of my players do focus more on their stronger attributes and related skills, but aren't completely helpless at their off tasks. It means that they can handle most average tasks out in the wilderness, as most tasks are under 3. Bear in mind too that there are ways to give others or yourself a temporary boost.

For example rolling a knowledge can provide a bonus +1d6 or more to your action, couple that with an assist from an ally and you get another +1d6. Burn a little stamina, get another +1d6. Bam, you went from 1d6 to 4d6, effectively quadrupling your chances.

Now in the same token, a player well suited to a task, with a great attribute, can do the same thing and be WAY stronger than his less suited comrade. If the difficulty to do really amazing or supernatural stuff was any lower, you would have level 3 or 4 characters hitting those levels regularly.