Let's Talk About Core Game Mechanics

[Reynard]

Doesn't make me accept it just because the GM liked it. If they can't explain what purpose doing these things serve being different in a way that I think is credible, its just a bad design as far as I'm concerned (as contrasted with a choice that's serving purposes I don't share, which is not "bad" so much as "aimed at someone else").

Do you interrogate every mechanic of every game you play? How do you find out whether it was a "pet mechanic" or one they really thought did the thing, but failed?

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's how Dragonbane works and I'm really liking it.

So are my kids. My 12 year old son just rolled up an ogre bard:

View attachment 430340
(AI generated...)

I had to fudge character creation rules to give a new characer a greatclub and bagpipes, but it's worth it. For the story. (Sorry, @Micah Sweet...)

Hey, it's your game. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[JohnSnow]

It's always amused me that so many people talk about percentile-based systems as if they're somehow non-linear, or different from a d20 resolution, which they absolutely are not, except in terms of their granularity.

This is not to say "d20 resolution as it's applied in 3e-5e D&D," just the concept in general. A 50% skill check is just "Roll 11 or higher" (or 10 or less) on a d20. The only thing you can't model is granular levels of under 5%, or skill values greater than 95% or less than 5 percent.

 

[Reynard]

Let me posit a question: all other things being equal, what is wrong with, say, percentile roll under skills while using a d20 Price is Right for combat?

 

[JohnSnow]

I’m playing around with a lower-“power” DH hack. I really like the Duality Dice / Hope / Fear / HP + Stress + Armor core, but I’d prefer a stronger class identity instead of shared domains…

Thinking of code naming it Shadowheart

My biggest issue with Daggerheart (beyond worrying its themes are as prone to debate as those in Legend in the Mist) is one of tone and scale. I really don't want winged angels as a default class archetype.

 

[payn]

Let me posit a question: all other things being equal, what is wrong with, say, percentile roll under skills while using a d20 Price is Right for combat?

Nothing. Universal resolution mechanics have become popular and some folks just prefer them.

 

[zakael19]

My biggest issue with Daggerheart (beyond worrying its themes are as prone to debate as those in Legend in the Mist) is one of tone and scale. I really don't want winged angels as a default class archetype.

Yeah, it's pretty much all "epic fantasy" or similar stuff all the time. I think that's great and fine, and it's working very well for my uhh 3 tables now that are using it; but I have an affinity for slightly older feeling D&Disms that I find it doesnt do a great job of recreating (which it doesnt set out to! so that's fine!).

And at the same time I think I want a tiny bit more complexity to the combat teamwork and tactical decision making without going full 4e / Draw Steel! / PF2.

Interestingly, I think that by playing around with starting characteristics you can make something that feels more fraught without walking into "oops your dead" thanks to how thresholds & armor work; but fun stuff like "Lose a hope, if you can't do that mark 2 stress" and "if you can't mark stress, mark hp..." means that you can flag "stuff is getting fraught" pretty easily!

 

[JohnSnow]

Let me posit a question: all other things being equal, what is wrong with, say, percentile roll under skills while using a d20 Price is Right for combat?

It deliberately sets combat up as being "different" from other skills, and also sets things up that if a player wants their character to do some form of stunt requiring a skill check during combat, they're going to have to pull out a different set of dice and shift their brain to a different resolution mechanic to accomplish their stunt. That may be a feature or a bug, depending on your perspective, as I can make arguments for and against both.

I think the important question to ask is whether the granularity is worth it, as "d20 roll under" is exactly the same system as percentile roll under, just in 5% increments. This was an observation I made while playing Green Ronin's version of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, which was "percentile roll under" - but operated entirely in 5% increments.

 

[JohnSnow]

Yeah, it's pretty much all "epic fantasy" or similar stuff all the time. I think that's great and fine, and it's working very well for my uhh 3 tables now that are using it; but I have an affinity for slightly older feeling D&Disms that I find it doesnt do a great job of recreating (which it doesnt set out to! so that's fine!).

And at the same time I think I want a tiny bit more complexity to the combat teamwork and tactical decision making without going full 4e / Draw Steel! / PF2.

Interestingly, I think that by playing around with starting characteristics you can make something that feels more fraught without walking into "oops your dead" thanks to how thresholds & armor work; but fun stuff like "Lose a hope, if you can't do that mark 2 stress" and "if you can't mark stress, mark hp..." means that you can flag "stuff is getting fraught" pretty easily!

I've been noodling over some of the conditions that exist in various games and think you could probably boil most of them down to a manageable list that is inherently obvious: Fatigued, Sickened, Frightened, and something like "Shaken" or "Rattled" feels like a good start.

I don't think we need a never-ending list like Legends in the Mist has, but I can imagine a few things that could be done.

I'm noodling on a system to let actions have synergy, and to give players just enough actions they can take on or off their turn (similar to Draw Steel but maybe scaled back to 3?) to keep them engaged throughout the combat.

 

[Staffan]

I mean you can attach various conditions to the result of an action based on the overall damage roll. You could have an ability that says "If you do at least 5 damage on the attack, X condition also occurs." Or you could have another ability that says "If this attack does 0 or less damage, the defender gains X benefit."

Not that you can't do this with confirmation rolls, of course; PF2 does this with their success/critical success/failure/critical failure results. But I like it attaching to damage more because damage measures the magnitude of the final result, and you can tie the magnitude of the consequence directly to the magnitude of that result.

Draw Steel does something similar. Attacks are resolved using a "power roll" of 2d10+stat (which usually starts at 2 and hits 5 at max level). On an 11 or less you get a poor result, on 12-16 you get an OK result, and at 17+ you get a really good result. In many cases, attacks inflict various conditions and they are often based on "potency": on an 11- you use your Weak potency which is your main stat-2, on 12-16 you use your Average potency which is your main stat-1, and on 17+ you use your Strong potency which is your main stat. This is then compared to one of the target's stats and if your potency is higher the condition gets inflicted.

So a power may look something like this:

Assuming you have Reason 2 (which is what a level 1 talent would have), that would mean:
11-: 8 damage, if target has Might less than 0 they are prone.
12-16: 12 damage, if target has Might less than 1 they are prone.
17+: 16 damage, if target has Might less than 2 they are prone and can't stand (save ends not being able to stand).

So essentially, instead of the target rolling to resist the effect, the resistance is included in the attack roll.