Well with a poor definition of system types under my belt I think I'll move into an odd subject. Rewarding players.
Rewarding players is something that is done in most games, they do something, they get something whether it be a new item, a new contact, or the staple in rpgs the exp. Items and contacts are understandable but experience points is an odd mish mash of your character just making it through the world as well as acomplishing any task the DM deams worthwhile. Most of the time this is killing monsters but overcoming traps or moving plot seems to warent exp at times. This is done in a kind of positive reinforcment.
That is the strangeness of the practice, it is positive reinforcement for a game you should already be enjoying. A game where these sort of advancments and reinforcment being the only enjoyable thing about the game would be quite wrong. If the players are enjoying the game and you give these things to them you run into a problem for running the game, you just changed the dynamic of the characters. This sort of dynamic is understandable if the game is becoming predictable but when it's a common occurance it shows the problem of changing characters for the better, they just plainly get better, if the game doesn't scale properly or requires a lot of knowledge to do this bad things happen.
The characters might get overpowered and you start fighting some odd form of war to maintain a balance and give them a challenge, to once again they beat and becoming more powerful. The cycle doesn't end till you quit the game, which may happen to poor playing due to this rollercoaster of figuring out what to do with them.
Though an odd thing happens players tend not to like games that stay "static" and focus on just playing the character. There has to be something allowing the character to get "better" or else the game seems to lose it's playability in the long term. One shots are the best example of this, you make a character you play it and have fun with it then forget the character.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Saturday, April 11, 2009
diceless
The last basic mechanic for lack of a better term is diceless. No random factors, though this doesn't mean there isn't any hidden factors. On some level all games have this. Through using abstractions they determine how the charter or world works.
The most well used is the HP and the other names that is in the end health. It works on the principal that as long as you have X you are fine. When you get damaged you lose some of this resource (or in some case gain until you reach a limit) you have to trade it in until a number is reached the something happens. This is the diceless mechanic, it is as simple as that, you trade your resource for or because of an effect. Another example in DnD is the spell system where you are limited on how you can cast spells based on the max level you can learn and how many on any individual level. In some cases you can sacrifice any spell level for a certain type of spell as long as it is the same level or higher.
The key factor is there is no random chance. This does not prevent it from working with random chance, the HP example is reduced by a few dice roll. The roll may even be effected by a stat which is not random during game play and may help or hinder how a roll can go.
Almost all games, unless they are dedicated to diceless, use a combination of the three mechanics if not all.
The most well used is the HP and the other names that is in the end health. It works on the principal that as long as you have X you are fine. When you get damaged you lose some of this resource (or in some case gain until you reach a limit) you have to trade it in until a number is reached the something happens. This is the diceless mechanic, it is as simple as that, you trade your resource for or because of an effect. Another example in DnD is the spell system where you are limited on how you can cast spells based on the max level you can learn and how many on any individual level. In some cases you can sacrifice any spell level for a certain type of spell as long as it is the same level or higher.
The key factor is there is no random chance. This does not prevent it from working with random chance, the HP example is reduced by a few dice roll. The roll may even be effected by a stat which is not random during game play and may help or hinder how a roll can go.
Almost all games, unless they are dedicated to diceless, use a combination of the three mechanics if not all.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Dice pool
The next basic mechanic that I have seen used is the dice pool. The main difference between the dice pool and static dice is a variable amount of dice or cards being used. This produces some different probability and depending on how the pool is "read" allows for the possibility of someone with a lower amount of dice to win.
How the dice pool functions is up to the system in place. The most common is looking for dice that have rolled above a number and count them as a success this is the kind that allows the lower dice pool to win because it is possible for the higher one to not even roll a success. A variation is to look for matches in the pool or other such combination of dice such as a number of dice showing a sequential pattern (1,2,3 or 2,3,4 for example) this type also allows for the lower dice pool to have a chance to win. The last one I have seen just adds up all the dice this method after a point falls into a problem of the higher dice pool being unable to lose by virtue of it always at least rolling a 1 for each die and the lower dice pool unable to roll higher then it's max value multiplied by how many dice is being rolled.
The main problem with this is while I do say there is a possibility of the lower pool wining this doesn't mean its common, it could even be lower then 1% and relies on the higher pool failing to roll whatever is counted up. This is desirable in a lot of cases but not when a few dice is meant to show little difference between levels of expertise. The one that shows this flaw the best is when the dice are just added up. I once suggested the use of such a pool as a simple system until we did some play testing and looked through the logs to find out that if the opposing roll had a larger dice pool they flat out won. I did some numbers and found what was an obvious flaw, the average of the larger pool was max range of the lower pool or close too it in most cases. Actual numbers placed a lower pool wining less then 20% at best when facing a pool just one die larger. Needless to say we have to rethink that problem.
In the end we also have to do a lot of work to know if we can do something, the only thing we do know is if we have more dice we just have a better chance. For most people this is fine, I would like to know and some Game masters would like to know beyond "this is a hard challenge" from the book. You can do a lot of crunching and generate as many tables as you could possibly expect to be rolled but another problem is hit. If your system is more complex then just counting success or combines methods you end up with something that is hard to calculate. In the Cthulutech system Framework I wanted to figure out how it worked but it combined matching and addition in an odd way. If you roll a straight you added it up same with matches. I was not able to figure out a formula or method other then going through every single possible roll, which I did through use of making a program. Oddly enough I found the average difficulty to be above what is probable but for a horror game it fits the them.
Now while there are flaws to the dice pool there are some advantages. One is a very natrual system of having a good bellecurve that differes between individual character abilities. Also as shown with ORE you can gain more then one value from these pools. With ore you look for matches and then have effects based off of how many you have in a particular match and what the match was. This produces some interesting things when utilized correctly, ORE even attempts to extract a third value based on how many are matched and what you are doing. There are possibly more things that could be done, such as using an ability to reroll a specific die in the pool which could be interesting though making figuring out what such an ability does harder to figure out.
Dicepools in the end have the most interesting possiblities for mechanics purely within the system but figuring out how such adition ultimatly effect how the pool works would be very hard. This makes planing encounters that much harder for game masters but ultimatly gives some intersting results in play.
How the dice pool functions is up to the system in place. The most common is looking for dice that have rolled above a number and count them as a success this is the kind that allows the lower dice pool to win because it is possible for the higher one to not even roll a success. A variation is to look for matches in the pool or other such combination of dice such as a number of dice showing a sequential pattern (1,2,3 or 2,3,4 for example) this type also allows for the lower dice pool to have a chance to win. The last one I have seen just adds up all the dice this method after a point falls into a problem of the higher dice pool being unable to lose by virtue of it always at least rolling a 1 for each die and the lower dice pool unable to roll higher then it's max value multiplied by how many dice is being rolled.
The main problem with this is while I do say there is a possibility of the lower pool wining this doesn't mean its common, it could even be lower then 1% and relies on the higher pool failing to roll whatever is counted up. This is desirable in a lot of cases but not when a few dice is meant to show little difference between levels of expertise. The one that shows this flaw the best is when the dice are just added up. I once suggested the use of such a pool as a simple system until we did some play testing and looked through the logs to find out that if the opposing roll had a larger dice pool they flat out won. I did some numbers and found what was an obvious flaw, the average of the larger pool was max range of the lower pool or close too it in most cases. Actual numbers placed a lower pool wining less then 20% at best when facing a pool just one die larger. Needless to say we have to rethink that problem.
In the end we also have to do a lot of work to know if we can do something, the only thing we do know is if we have more dice we just have a better chance. For most people this is fine, I would like to know and some Game masters would like to know beyond "this is a hard challenge" from the book. You can do a lot of crunching and generate as many tables as you could possibly expect to be rolled but another problem is hit. If your system is more complex then just counting success or combines methods you end up with something that is hard to calculate. In the Cthulutech system Framework I wanted to figure out how it worked but it combined matching and addition in an odd way. If you roll a straight you added it up same with matches. I was not able to figure out a formula or method other then going through every single possible roll, which I did through use of making a program. Oddly enough I found the average difficulty to be above what is probable but for a horror game it fits the them.
Now while there are flaws to the dice pool there are some advantages. One is a very natrual system of having a good bellecurve that differes between individual character abilities. Also as shown with ORE you can gain more then one value from these pools. With ore you look for matches and then have effects based off of how many you have in a particular match and what the match was. This produces some interesting things when utilized correctly, ORE even attempts to extract a third value based on how many are matched and what you are doing. There are possibly more things that could be done, such as using an ability to reroll a specific die in the pool which could be interesting though making figuring out what such an ability does harder to figure out.
Dicepools in the end have the most interesting possiblities for mechanics purely within the system but figuring out how such adition ultimatly effect how the pool works would be very hard. This makes planing encounters that much harder for game masters but ultimatly gives some intersting results in play.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Three basic mechanic systems: static dice
What I mean by basic mechanic systems determining through some predetermined way a result. This is generally but not always done through use of a randomization device like dice or cards but sometimes it is done with resource depletion or completely social context. In the end not all systems adhere to this but they will take one as it's core mechanic.
To try and talk about this I chose 3 names to associate with them, static dice, dice pool, and diceless. Static dice is done with randomization done by a constant value, this may be the top card of a deck, the roll of a d20, or the combination of a dice. The similarity is that this method never changes having a higher stat does not effect how you get the result, you always draw one card, you always roll 1 die or the same combination of dice. Dice pool uses a variable amount of dice or cards to give your result. Diceless is just as it sounds, no random factor.
For this Blog I'm going to focus on the static dice.
Static dice has one great feature. No hard math for probability with only 1 object used (1 die roll, 1 card drawn) and only slightly harder when it's more then one of these. The key factor here is that you have the same probability space between all contested rolls. For the sake of ease I will stick with 1 die, a d20.
Rolling a d20 has a chance of 5% rolling on any number, none of these have any weight. We just place the weight on the high or low end. If we have modifiers this increases the result that would by 5% per 1 as long as we just use the number and not care if it is a 1. What this leads to is everyone knowing what they can hit and their probability. If you need a 6+ you havea 75% chance of doing this each additional bonus increases it by 5% so +1 gets you to 80% and a +2 gets you to 85%. Granted this may be meta gaming but after a few tries a preson may figure out if they should withdraw or not if they are constnatly getting hit but not doing anything.
The problem that arises from this is the bonuses that are given, after a certain point you will never fail something that was average before or you may never pass something unless you have bonues. Sometimes this is wanted in a system, this leads to a problem where this aspect is a major part of the game yet not all options allow you to get to the level needed to pass this at all. Some systems take a dice pool idea and make certain numbers mean something, the 1 means you automaticly fail and the 20 means automatic sucsess and call it balance as everyone has a chance of doing something.
This may be an oppinion but that is a poor form of balance for the a very basic reason, If you are profficent under the system to do something and roll a 1 you fail, if something even if it is ludicrious and you attempt it and roll a 20 you sucseed. It makes it more exciting in some cases and I can see it's draw but it is just odd, if you wanted some to always have a chance to succeed or fail why do you have to put in this single rule rather then designing the system entire to fit it? In books or enteratainment the 1 in a million shot happens all the time because it is written, it wont' change, attmepting to incorperate it into the game with this is worthless for producing such scenarios without dm intervention. How to solve this I do not know as any other design based around static dice runs into the same basic happens on this percent solution.
The good of this when done in moderation is that everyone has a decent chance to do something, this facilitiaes some games well. If the threashold is low enough that untrained can do it without arbatrary rulling and gaining specific bonuses only increases this chance without making it automatic then things are alright. This limits the "growth" of a character based on the range involved but it seems to be a decent trade off.
With such knowledge the person running the game with knowledge of the characters and such can easly tell what falls into impossible terratory. They would not mistakenly have something that requires a total roll of 30 to hit when the best the group can do is +5 to a d20 and think that this fight will be a fair challege. Even with multiple dice summed you can still generate a table without much math and have that table be valid, although shifted in the cases of bonuses, for every match up.
To try and talk about this I chose 3 names to associate with them, static dice, dice pool, and diceless. Static dice is done with randomization done by a constant value, this may be the top card of a deck, the roll of a d20, or the combination of a dice. The similarity is that this method never changes having a higher stat does not effect how you get the result, you always draw one card, you always roll 1 die or the same combination of dice. Dice pool uses a variable amount of dice or cards to give your result. Diceless is just as it sounds, no random factor.
For this Blog I'm going to focus on the static dice.
Static dice has one great feature. No hard math for probability with only 1 object used (1 die roll, 1 card drawn) and only slightly harder when it's more then one of these. The key factor here is that you have the same probability space between all contested rolls. For the sake of ease I will stick with 1 die, a d20.
Rolling a d20 has a chance of 5% rolling on any number, none of these have any weight. We just place the weight on the high or low end. If we have modifiers this increases the result that would by 5% per 1 as long as we just use the number and not care if it is a 1. What this leads to is everyone knowing what they can hit and their probability. If you need a 6+ you havea 75% chance of doing this each additional bonus increases it by 5% so +1 gets you to 80% and a +2 gets you to 85%. Granted this may be meta gaming but after a few tries a preson may figure out if they should withdraw or not if they are constnatly getting hit but not doing anything.
The problem that arises from this is the bonuses that are given, after a certain point you will never fail something that was average before or you may never pass something unless you have bonues. Sometimes this is wanted in a system, this leads to a problem where this aspect is a major part of the game yet not all options allow you to get to the level needed to pass this at all. Some systems take a dice pool idea and make certain numbers mean something, the 1 means you automaticly fail and the 20 means automatic sucsess and call it balance as everyone has a chance of doing something.
This may be an oppinion but that is a poor form of balance for the a very basic reason, If you are profficent under the system to do something and roll a 1 you fail, if something even if it is ludicrious and you attempt it and roll a 20 you sucseed. It makes it more exciting in some cases and I can see it's draw but it is just odd, if you wanted some to always have a chance to succeed or fail why do you have to put in this single rule rather then designing the system entire to fit it? In books or enteratainment the 1 in a million shot happens all the time because it is written, it wont' change, attmepting to incorperate it into the game with this is worthless for producing such scenarios without dm intervention. How to solve this I do not know as any other design based around static dice runs into the same basic happens on this percent solution.
The good of this when done in moderation is that everyone has a decent chance to do something, this facilitiaes some games well. If the threashold is low enough that untrained can do it without arbatrary rulling and gaining specific bonuses only increases this chance without making it automatic then things are alright. This limits the "growth" of a character based on the range involved but it seems to be a decent trade off.
With such knowledge the person running the game with knowledge of the characters and such can easly tell what falls into impossible terratory. They would not mistakenly have something that requires a total roll of 30 to hit when the best the group can do is +5 to a d20 and think that this fight will be a fair challege. Even with multiple dice summed you can still generate a table without much math and have that table be valid, although shifted in the cases of bonuses, for every match up.
the start
I've created this blog in an attempt to share ideas as well as think about games and such ideas that relate to them. Most of these will be related to pen and paper games but not always. There are many aspects that are accumulated in games when thought about. The most basic is probability, the aspect of reward and punishment, specialization in a group, and choice. How these aspects come about is ultimately arrived at through a philosophy that may or may not be expressed in how the game is built. These philosophies may deal with social aspects, or balance between choices that players make.
I am not the most social person but I can at least understand and discuss the mechanics which is intended to be the main focus of this blog. When looking at such design choices and philosophies discussion of the pros and cons of such ideas will be when it comes to the game. There are some beliefs that there is only one way to game or that one system is the only way to play a game, I'm in more of a mindset that play style and system combination only maters in what is trying to be accomplished.
My bias is still there. There are some systems I prefer over others, but I still like the other systems unless they ultimately fail. By that I mean their mechanics do not facilitate their goals or are so lopsided towards an option that not taking the option makes you unable to play the game unless you have that option. This may not be the best view but it is the one I believe.
I am not the most social person but I can at least understand and discuss the mechanics which is intended to be the main focus of this blog. When looking at such design choices and philosophies discussion of the pros and cons of such ideas will be when it comes to the game. There are some beliefs that there is only one way to game or that one system is the only way to play a game, I'm in more of a mindset that play style and system combination only maters in what is trying to be accomplished.
My bias is still there. There are some systems I prefer over others, but I still like the other systems unless they ultimately fail. By that I mean their mechanics do not facilitate their goals or are so lopsided towards an option that not taking the option makes you unable to play the game unless you have that option. This may not be the best view but it is the one I believe.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)