Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 3247698" data-attributes="member: 3192">SWBaxter - DM fiat for me is the enemy.&nbsp; For me, it tells the players their choices don't matter; that I say who dies and who doesn't die in Cops &amp; Robbers.&nbsp; I prefer dice weighted to the skillful play of the players.&nbsp; Chance is essential in almost every RPG, this makes them actual games.&nbsp; IMO, winning and losing shouldn't be arbitrary.&nbsp; At some point, PCs will become powerful enough to be leaders of other people.&nbsp; For me this is at first level, but it is going to happen at some point for every DM, no?&nbsp; The orders the PCs give to others do affect their odds, the world, and the chance the PCs might ultimately succeed at their plans.&nbsp; So I'm looking for a quick and easy method to simulate these out-of-sight challenges.I understand your two points.&nbsp; For me, the world is dynamic.&nbsp; Nothing is set in stone, so nothing needs a complete overhaul because of a quick roll or two.&nbsp; Dynamic worlds are not nearly as hard as they sound.&nbsp; (one simple element is wandering encounters and plenty of DMs use those)&nbsp; As for the &quot;won't see the light of play&quot; philosophy, I am right there with you.&nbsp; I probably wouldn't have statblocks for the guys in the examples.&nbsp; A very quick roll is all I desire to resolve the situation.&nbsp; What I think that gives me is a another option for broader play where the PCs can influence events outside their own line of sight without that influence being arbitrary.Nifft - yeah, I'm willing to play these out sometimes when it won't reveal anything into Player knowledge.&nbsp; But my players have even refused to play hitch along NPCs.&nbsp; I'm for whatever makes people happy.S'mon - Warmachine in the Cyclopedia is pretty detailed.&nbsp; McFarland is automated and I would almost prefer to use that. Too many factors would really slow play.&nbsp; But really, mass combat for me is something I've been working on some months now.&nbsp; I see it as central, but that's a style of play I leave up to each group.&nbsp; I just want to have the option handy, if and when.&nbsp; Here's what I have so far for a d12 methodology.&nbsp; (I have such a player mentality.&nbsp; You come up with a good idea and I just have to use the one I modified off it. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> ) [code][b]Roll&nbsp; &nbsp; Result&nbsp; &nbsp; Self&nbsp; &nbsp; Foe[/b]&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 12&nbsp; &nbsp; Blowout&nbsp; &nbsp; 0%&nbsp; &nbsp; 100%&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 11&nbsp; &nbsp; Success&nbsp; &nbsp; 10%&nbsp; &nbsp; 90%&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 10&nbsp; &nbsp; Success&nbsp; &nbsp; 20%&nbsp; &nbsp; 80%&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 9&nbsp; &nbsp; Edge +2&nbsp; &nbsp; 30%&nbsp; &nbsp; 70%&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 8&nbsp; &nbsp; Edge +1&nbsp; &nbsp; 40%&nbsp; &nbsp; 60%&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 7&nbsp; &nbsp; Draw&nbsp; &nbsp; 50%&nbsp; &nbsp; 50%&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 6&nbsp; &nbsp; Draw&nbsp; &nbsp; 50%&nbsp; &nbsp; 50%&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 5&nbsp; &nbsp; Edge +1&nbsp; &nbsp; 40%&nbsp; &nbsp; 60%&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 4&nbsp; &nbsp; Edge +2&nbsp; &nbsp; 30%&nbsp; &nbsp; 70%&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 3&nbsp; &nbsp; Success&nbsp; &nbsp; 20%&nbsp; &nbsp; 80%&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 2&nbsp; &nbsp; Success&nbsp; &nbsp; 10%&nbsp; &nbsp; 90%&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 1&nbsp; &nbsp; Blowout&nbsp; &nbsp; 0%&nbsp; &nbsp; 100%&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; [/code]EL difference per level&nbsp; &nbsp; =&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; +/-2Minor advantage / disadvantage&nbsp; &nbsp; =&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; +/-1Major advantage / disadvantage&nbsp; &nbsp; =&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; +/-2The whole system is generic, so a situation has to be placed into it for any of it really to make sense.&nbsp; Edges and Draws can optionally be rerolled until one winner is determined.&nbsp; Losses are cumulative and represent hit points, casualties, resources, or whatever else may be at risk. It's pretty fluid, but I like it well enough.&nbsp; I also am partial to opposed rolls like they use in Warmachine.&nbsp; That way I can just roll 3 dice, if 3 groups face each other instead of the standard two.A means of including win/win or lose/lose outcomes might be helpful too.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="howandwhy99, post: 3247698, member: 3192"] SWBaxter - DM fiat for me is the enemy. For me, it tells the players their choices don't matter; that I say who dies and who doesn't die in Cops & Robbers. I prefer dice weighted to the skillful play of the players. Chance is essential in almost every RPG, this makes them actual games. IMO, winning and losing shouldn't be arbitrary. At some point, PCs will become powerful enough to be leaders of other people. For me this is at first level, but it is going to happen at some point for every DM, no? The orders the PCs give to others do affect their odds, the world, and the chance the PCs might ultimately succeed at their plans. So I'm looking for a quick and easy method to simulate these out-of-sight challenges. I understand your two points. For me, the world is dynamic. Nothing is set in stone, so nothing needs a complete overhaul because of a quick roll or two. Dynamic worlds are not nearly as hard as they sound. (one simple element is wandering encounters and plenty of DMs use those) As for the "won't see the light of play" philosophy, I am right there with you. I probably wouldn't have statblocks for the guys in the examples. A very quick roll is all I desire to resolve the situation. What I think that gives me is a another option for broader play where the PCs can influence events outside their own line of sight without that influence being arbitrary. Nifft - yeah, I'm willing to play these out sometimes when it won't reveal anything into Player knowledge. But my players have even refused to play hitch along NPCs. I'm for whatever makes people happy. S'mon - Warmachine in the Cyclopedia is pretty detailed. McFarland is automated and I would almost prefer to use that. Too many factors would really slow play. But really, mass combat for me is something I've been working on some months now. I see it as central, but that's a style of play I leave up to each group. I just want to have the option handy, if and when. Here's what I have so far for a d12 methodology. (I have such a player mentality. You come up with a good idea and I just have to use the one I modified off it. :D ) [code][b]Roll Result Self Foe[/b] 12 Blowout 0% 100% 11 Success 10% 90% 10 Success 20% 80% 9 Edge +2 30% 70% 8 Edge +1 40% 60% 7 Draw 50% 50% 6 Draw 50% 50% 5 Edge +1 40% 60% 4 Edge +2 30% 70% 3 Success 20% 80% 2 Success 10% 90% 1 Blowout 0% 100% [/code] EL difference per level = +/-2 Minor advantage / disadvantage = +/-1 Major advantage / disadvantage = +/-2 The whole system is generic, so a situation has to be placed into it for any of it really to make sense. Edges and Draws can optionally be rerolled until one winner is determined. Losses are cumulative and represent hit points, casualties, resources, or whatever else may be at risk. It's pretty fluid, but I like it well enough. I also am partial to opposed rolls like they use in Warmachine. That way I can just roll 3 dice, if 3 groups face each other instead of the standard two. A means of including win/win or lose/lose outcomes might be helpful too. [/QUOTE]

Verification