Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pedantic" data-source="post: 9592388" data-attributes="member: 6690965">I'm going to toss my two questions up here before I ramble out my initial design thoughts:<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Is there any game/supplement that does something like this I should be stealing from?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Does this sound appealing to anyone other than me? Am I just wrong, and gambling with dice is actually the core of the RPG activity?</li> </ol>I don’t like the fundamental 5e gameplay loop, which to my eyes reads something like this:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Player proposes action</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">DM sets difficulty and specifies modifier</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Player rolls</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">DM narrates success/failure</li> </ul>I particularly don’t like how little control (or often awareness) that players have over step 2, and how uncertain step 4 is from a player perspective. I’ve already got an unpopular solution for those, which is to write a lot of content about available actions and their outcomes thus that the DM is not involved outside of the most extreme edge cases, and an interested player could go read about resolution before engaging in it. It is fundamentally more important to me that players have completely information about the actions they can take, their chances of success and the immediate consequences of those actions, than it is they have a theoretically unlimited number of actions to take. If I had a pithy way to summarize this point, I'd put it into a + tag; please just assume that it is both possible to write specific case rules covering most of what players will attempt, and that it is desirable to do so.That’s already a lot of work I’ve got sitting in another document, what I want to focus on is step 3. The most important part of play, as I see it, is the specific choice of actions players put together. Stringing together climbing, hiding, stabbing and lying in that order, vs. lying, more lying, stabbing, then running, will lead to different situations and outcomes in trying to break into a castle, and I want players to be able to express a strategic preference for one over the other.So, my design goal then is to increase player agency as much as possible with regards to realizing those actions. I’d prefer they generally not be staked on uncertain die rolls, and when they are, that players know they are in a precarious position and be completely aware of the odds, and further make those odds manipulable, and something players opt into. I’ve been trying to iron out what the gameplay loop looks like in general terms for my idealized game, so I can puzzle out further design implications from there. Put simply, I think players should try to avoid rolling dice and when they do roll dice, should be either taking large risks, or responding to events outside their planning/control.Here's my initial rough outline:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Player proposes an action:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Check if this is a technique (spell, power, consumable item, etc), if so, resolve according to the internal rules of the technique.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Determine if this below the level of resolution of the skill system (walking across the room, picking up small objects, etc.), if so, the player does the thing.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If this is non-technique game action, continue.</li> </ul></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Derive the base DC of the action. This should be influenced by the following;<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The action itself</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Environmental factors</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The stats of an opponent for opposed actions</li> </ul></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Allow the player to modify the DC; generally, modifications to actions should include:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Doing it faster for a higher DC</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Doing it with less resources for a higher DC</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Doing it for greater effectiveness for a higher DC</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Insert class abilities/resources here.</li> </ul></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Determine time action takes.<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Should generally be specified by actions, subject to modification above</li> </ul></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Determine consequences for success/failure.<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Should be specified by each action, subject to modification above</li> </ul></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Determine if the player succeeds automatically<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Compare to an automatic success threshold (i.e. Mod+1)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Compare to a Take 10, if possible (barring class features, can’t be done under pressure)<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Resolve additional Take 10 consequences (+time generally, barring class features)</li> </ul></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Compare to a Take 20, if possible (barring class features, can’t be done under pressure or with disqualifying failure consequences)<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Resolve additional Take 20 consequences (+time, any failure consequences)</li> </ul></li> </ul></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If player has not succeeded already, roll.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Apply consequences of success/failure.</li> </ul>I've bolded the bit that I think has the most interesting design potential, outside of techniques. Players should have abilities that mess with when they can take 10, when they can take 20, that mitigate some parts of failure when doing so, and most significantly, should modify actions in ways unique to them. Immediately I'm thinking of class abilities that let you take actions faster, that let you combine some actions into a single action, that let you swap out which modifiers you use and so on. Beyond that, I think that bolded section is a prime place to put resources. Players should have limited stuff they can spend to push themselves into success. I'm starting to think that kind of limited resource pool should be defining for characters who don't generally have techniques; if you're not spending resources to avoid an action with a check entirely, you should have resources to spend inside that check.Outside of those two points, I think the scale of the RNG needs to be significantly larger than the die itself. Actions probably need to encompass a scale up to at least DC 40, maybe 50 or 60 depending on how much progression is desirable, and how much specialization is desirable.That's a little messy, but I've had the design thought kicking around for a while as I try to compile a skill system that doesn't make me want to tear my hair out, and I wanted some other eyes on it before I spun it out further in my own process. Here's my two questions from above again:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Is there any game/supplement that does something like this I should be stealing from?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Does this sound appealing/fun as the core gameplay proposition?</li> </ul></blockquote>

Verification