Let's Talk About Core Game Mechanics

[Reynard]

A core mechanic I am considering for my game that I will have to test is kind of a bastardization of the Ironsworn one: when doing something the player creates a pool from one of the list of their approaches, and one from the list of their stats (kind of like Two Column Fate Accelerated) and rolls against a Difficulty Die, counting zero, one or two success. Raw die vs die feels weird, so maybe a set difficulty based on action type (or versus a opponents Parry or whatever).

 

[Staffan]

As a GM, I prefer systems where I'm not required to set the difficulty of a task of players according to some arbitrary number of difficulty. So I appreciate roll-under systems (BRP, Dragonbane, etc.) or "systems" like Powered by the Apocalypse and Forged in the Dark, where players know what they need to succeed.

IMO, roll-under systems work best when dealing with relatively grounded characters. Characters can improve, but they'll always be fundamentally normal humans. No matter how good a boxer you are, you're not going to win a fistfight against a 20' tall giant.

If the game does want an experienced character to be able to win a fistfight against a 20' tall giant, and be able to do deeds of similar magnitude, roll-over systems usually feel better as they allow you to be arbitrarily good at things.

 

[Xamnam]

As an example of my own, I really like the core mechanic from the Ironsworn games: roll a d6+mods, then compare to 2 separate d10s as target numbers. You can get no success, partial success (beat one of the d10s) or a full success (beat both of the d10s). I do not really if there is a critical system, but I don't think so, nor do I think it needs one. I like that the systems is a little chaotic and unpredictable, as well as the built in multiple degrees of success. One think that could be interesting is to add a Daggerheart "Hope and Fear" style "tenor" element. You could designate the d10s as a Complication die and a Opportunity die. Any time you get a partial success, you further interpret and impact the result based on whether you bet the Complication die or the Opportunity die.

This is actually already partially an idea in the Sundered Isles expansion for Starforged! (though more about theme than success)

THE MOONS AND THE TIDES
Two moons—Cinder and Wraith—hang over the world of the Sundered Isles. Cinder is the red of cooling flames. Wraith is silver-blue. The intricate dance of these moons create tides that vary dramatically by hour, day, and season. These tides are the rhythm of the isles, but it is a complex and discordant beat. Skilled mariners learn to anticipate and adapt to these forces. The unlucky and careless find themselves amid rocky shallows or struggling against fierce currents

THE TWIN FATES
The people of the isles often refer to the moons as the Twin Fates. Want to give your playscape a thematic boost? Treat your challenge dice as manifestations of the Fates. Designate one D10 as Cinder, and the other as Wraith. Choose colors which evoke the light of each moon.

When helpful, use these challenge dice to reveal the nature of a situation, either by adding nuance to a move result or as a standalone oracle. Let the higher of the two dice decide. Cinder is hot: aggressive, passionate, resolute, physical. Wraith is cool: careful, mysterious, cunning, unearthly. On a match, choose which has the most influence.

Edit: Ah, sorry, I see someone beat me to it.

 

[Umbran]

A core mechanic I am considering for my game that I will have to test is kind of a bastardization of the Ironsworn one: when doing something the player creates a pool from one of the list of their approaches, and one from the list of their stats (kind of like Two Column Fate Accelerated) and rolls against a Difficulty Die, counting zero, one or two success. Raw die vs die feels weird, so maybe a set difficulty based on action type (or versus a opponents Parry or whatever).

So, have you read Cortex? Because you're approaching Cortex - they generalize that kind of dice-pool creation.

Varying the target by action type rather than action difficulty sounds weird.

There are cases in which a game has asymmetry by action type - Gumshoe has a separation between Investigative skills and other skills, for example. So, if you generally have larger dice for combat stuff than legwork/research stuff, okay, then higher targets for combat seems okay.

 

[Reynard]

So, have you read Cortex? Because you're approaching Cortex.

I haven't because I am slightly intimidated by its total toolkit nature without having a solid example Cortex game that is easily accessible. (because licensing).

 

[Umbran]

I haven't because I am slightly intimidated by its total toolkit nature without having a solid example Cortex game that is easily accessible. (because licensing).

They have their example game, "Hammerheads" right on their website.

Cortex Tabletop Roleplaying Game | Dire Wolf Digital

Cortex is a multi-genre, modular, session-centered tabletop roleplaying game system. Build your own custom tabletop RPG game with Cortex - all of the tools and resources are yours. Check out our first Spotlight Game, Hammerheads, for free.

www.cortexrpg.com

 

[Reynard]

They have their example game, "Hammerheads" right on their website.

Cortex Tabletop Roleplaying Game | Dire Wolf Digital

Cortex is a multi-genre, modular, session-centered tabletop roleplaying game system. Build your own custom tabletop RPG game with Cortex - all of the tools and resources are yours. Check out our first Spotlight Game, Hammerheads, for free.

www.cortexrpg.com

I will look into it.

 

[Reynard]

Another system I appreciated a lot back in the day was Brave New World -- mostly because it was the first major game I remember seeing where doing "cool stuff" was a choice made after the roll, using extra successes. Prior, it seemed like most systems penalized trying to be cool by imposing penalties. Instead, in BNW you rolled your dice pool against a static difficulty, and if you succeeded and has successes left over, you could use them to power stunts (general ones, or ones based on your powers).

 

[Retros_x]

Me.

If all you care about is binary success/failure than a linear distribution (e.g. d20 vs. DC) is fine.

But if you want degrees of success, then a normal distribution gives you the ability to have extreme outcomes that are much less likely than 5% (which isn't that unlikely). For example, with 3d6 the two extreme ends (3 and 18) are a little less than 1/10th as likely as 1 or 20 on a d20.

One way that sometimes gets replicated with d20 is "exploding dice". E.g., roll a crit and roll again. Or roll max damage and roll again. But that's really just a dice pool with a normal distribution...in multiple steps.

That's why.

What you want (extreme outcomes being less unlikely) has nothing to with degrees of success, you can have those with linear distribution too.

And again, I dont understand wanting to have dramatic outcomes hidden behind less than 1 percent outcomes and every player rolling the same range of values for most of the time. It feels for me completely against exciting storytelling.

 

[Micah Sweet]

What you want (extreme outcomes being less unlikely) has nothing to with degrees of success, you can have those with linear distribution too.

And again, I dont understand wanting to have dramatic outcomes hidden behind less than 1 percent outcomes and every player rolling the same range of values for most of the time. It feels for me completely against exciting storytelling.

Exciting storytelling isn't the most important part of gaming for everyone, even if you present it as if that were obviously true. To me for example, verisimilitude is more important. If something is less likely to occur, I want the mechanics to reflect that. I don't care how cool that thing happening would be. Games and stories are different things.