Rule mechanic design help. I need opinions.

[DanMcS]

Okay, some folks are taking the simplistic approach, which is fine, but I feel that lacks drama. I know that a simplification of chess (which is already a game) won't be as complicated as a simplification of combat, but I want the mechanics for chess and similar non-combat competitions to allow for a little give and take.

OK, so make it work like combat. You start off with X game hit points (pick a value of X, which will depend on how long you want this to take).

Probably no initiative, since going first is a negligable advantage.

A round is of indeterminate length, and represents an exchange of several turns apiece.

You attack with your applicable chess skill. Defense = 10 + Wisdom bonus.

If you hit, you deal Y damage, which is some fraction of X. Say X is 64 hit points, make Y 1d6 or 1d8. Add Int bonus to this damage (intelligent opponents see better openings?), but subtract your opponent's Wisdom bonus from it like DR (you perceive what he's trying to do).

In games which are more social than purely skill (poker instead of chess?) mix charisma in with int and wis for these checks.

You can shift skill to damage and defense, in the manner of power attack and combat expertise.

Or, instead of attack and defense, just roll opposed skill checks, whoever wins damages his opponent.

This is pretty much the equivalent of success counting, though, so maybe not worth the effort.

 

[Aus_Snow]

For what it's worth (I play chess, but I ain't no professional game designer), I really do think Int and Knowledge skills are the way to go, rather than Wis and Profession skills.

I'm sure it is possible to play chess very well and be completely oblivious to a lot of things. . . weak-willed even, for that matter. Whereas, if intelligence were lacking, I don't think one would get very far.

 

[jgbrowning]

Okay, some folks are taking the simplistic approach, which is fine, but I feel that lacks drama. I know that a simplification of chess (which is already a game) won't be as complicated as a simplification of combat, but I want the mechanics for chess and similar non-combat competitions to allow for a little give and take.

I think that extended periods of give and take actually make for less drama as there's less chance that, at the end of series, that both parties will be close enough to be actually competing. Making success dependent upon a single roll is much more dramatic than having someone "statistically win" (as in the other guy only has a 5% chance of winning) 6 rolls into the thing but still having to roll 4 more times.

And if you balance it out well enough that there is almost always going to be that final "OMG I have to win this one, guys!" roll, all you've really done is replicated the situation I've described above.

Soo.. why go to all the effort to try and make a system that will keep your party on the edge of their seats to the end of the match when you can just start them on the edge of their seats?

joe b.

 

[DanMcS]

I think that extended periods of give and take actually make for less drama as there's less chance that, at the end of series, that both parties will be close enough to be actually competing. Making success dependent upon a single roll is much more dramatic than having someone "statistically win" (as in the other guy only has a 5% chance of winning) 6 rolls into the thing but still having to roll 4 more times.

I think it's fairly common in chess for someone to resign when they recognize they have (effectively) lost, even though actually losing could take quite a few more moves by both players.

 

[jgbrowning]

I think it's fairly common in chess for someone to resign when they recognize they have (effectively) lost, even though actually losing could take quite a few more moves by both players.

Of course. Is that dramatic? Not in my opinion. The drama comes from the uncertaintiy of the outcome. It would be like someone who keeps playing, not to win, but to force a draw.

If the idea that two PC of equal skill are competing and that the players skill levels are not to be taken into consideration, a quick straight chance roll is better because the players cannot really influence the outcome.

If RangerWickett wishes to design a system of enough complexity to allow players to utilize various tactics (as opposed to simply rolling the dice based upon PC skills) this is a different matter. It would be like allowing a full-fledge D&D combat versus a "Lets stand next to each other and only swing and see who falls first" combat.

I don't know if he's that ambitious and considering he wanted a resolution system for a multitude of things, I don't think a complex system which allows player tactics to influence outcome is what he's looking for. So short and sweet—grab 'em by the privates at the beginning and don't let go until it's over.

joe b.

 

[RangerWickett]

Let's step away from chess for a moment. Consider a mechanic that works for other competitions/events that require you to work for a long time. A race, for instance. Or fortifying a location before the bad guys arrive.

Chess, even, could be made more competitive, by allowing the players to make checks to figure out their opponent's strategy. You might take a penalty to your check in exchange for getting more than one success at a time (a gambit, basically).

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Five opposed rolls (knowledge (chess) pr Knowledge (tactics) would be my choice), the person who wins the greatest number wins, in the event of a tie then the game ends in a draw. Allow Bluff or Sense Motive rolls to grant a +2 circumstance bonus. *EDIT* Or just give a synergy bonus for a Bluff or Sense Motive of 5 ranks or higher.

The Auld Grump

 

[Janx]

Let's step away from chess for a moment. Consider a mechanic that works for other competitions/events that require you to work for a long time. A race, for instance. Or fortifying a location before the bad guys arrive.

Chess, even, could be made more competitive, by allowing the players to make checks to figure out their opponent's strategy. You might take a penalty to your check in exchange for getting more than one success at a time (a gambit, basically).

I think the key lies in modeling "position" and thresholds. Hitpoints and # of successes is a form of threshold based modeling. And in most strategy games, position is what leads to victory. One could abstract position into a threshold, in the sense of "I am working to build a good position so I will win." That working to build is what suggests a threshold mechanic is enough.

Consider a race example: the 100 yard dash. Each round, you are working to add distance to your threshold meter. You're trying to get to 100 before anybody else does. A simple race mechanic might be that each round, you run a number of meters = 40 + 1d6 + CON bonus. This implies that most folks run at similar speeds, with some variance for being healthier. I set the base to 40, to approximate what a PC can do in 6 seconds (30' base, at quad speed = 120', div 3 to convert to meters).

In chess, you may want different thresholds, to represent the different strategies. You may also want to simulate the stalemate scenario. You might want a pieces threshold (starting at 16, and decrementing), and a position threshold, starting at 0. You might be able to sacrifice a piece to gain position, or to reduce the other player's piece threshold. You might make Will saves to gain position as well. If both player's pieces is reduced to 1, then the game is a draw (can't win when both players only have kings).

Even arm wrestling uses thresholds, though in this case, it is a shared threshold, and each player has a fatigue (or strength, depending on how you look at it) threshold. The goal in arm wrestling is not zero sum, it is to push one guy down. Thus, you could model it as Arm Position. It starts at 0. At 10, I win, and -10, you win. You can do interesting things with whether I try to hold my position, or burn strength to push you down.

Janx

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

Five opposed rolls (knowledge (chess) pr Knowledge (tactics) would be my choice), the person who wins the greatest number wins, in the event of a tie then the game ends in a draw. Allow Bluff or Sense Motive rolls to grant a +2 circumstance bonus. *EDIT* Or just give a synergy bonus for a Bluff or Sense Motive of 5 ranks or higher.

This is practically verbatim what I was going to suggest, with the exception that I would use Profession: Gambler rather than proliferate the Knowledge skills.

If you want, you could add a series of strategy/defense options. One strategy gives you a +4 on your checks versus another particular strategy, but a -4 against another. You could have opening gambits, and end-game strategies. I know nothing of chess, so I can't suggest any ideas.

 

[dcollins]

I want a mechanic to handle people playing chess. The way I'm doing this is Knowledge (nobility and royalty) checks.

I recommend a new skill, Knowledge (gaming), 1 new game per skill rank. A match is a "complex skill check", first person to 3 roll-offs wins.

See more here: http://home.earthlink.net/~danielrcollins1/dndgames.html