Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Egan_BW]

It took three turns but encompassed 15 actions from each of us. If we had to have a whole new turn for each action with equivalent rules, it would have taken five times as long.

[syvarris]

Yeah, the advantage of a very gamey numbers-based system is that it's situation independent.  We could have a system that's more abstract and allows us to use the environment, but then it's very difficult to run a bunch of actions all at once.  Also, another of PW's goals was to have monsters be easily scaleable in level, so that he can easily make challenging monsters for high level people, and weak monsters for low level people.  It's a way to get around ER's monster problem, where challenging high level monsters have to be DBZ characters, like the Amp Specialist.

I'm a bit of a biased party though, as I love extremely complex number-based systems.

[Egan_BW]

I think it might be interesting to remove RNG and GM discretion entirely from this system, creating a COMPLETELY DETERMINISTIC COMBAT SYSTEM *dramatic thunder clap*, which would be good because it lessens the amount of work that the Gm has to do for combat and also for reasons.

[piecewise]

I think it might be interesting to remove RNG and GM discretion entirely from this system, creating a COMPLETELY DETERMINISTIC COMBAT SYSTEM *dramatic thunder clap*, which would be good because it lessens the amount of work that the Gm has to do for combat and also for reasons.

I have no idea how you'd do it.

[AoshimaMichio]

Feint of better swordsman always succeeds. Block of better shield user always succeeds. Skill is superiour. Luck is for noobs.

[Radio Controlled]

Something like that might work if there's a rock-paper-scissors like system attached to it, where certain stances/techniques give bonuses against others. Otherwise 1 char/entity might be so powerful it literally can't even be scratched by another. It might quickly fall prey to 1 strategy being strictly superior though, and again would probably be very restrictive in terms of influence from the environment.

[piecewise]

Something like that might work if there's a rock-paper-scissors like system attached to it, where certain stances/techniques give bonuses against others. Otherwise 1 char/entity might be so powerful it literally can't even be scratched by another. It might quickly fall prey to 1 strategy being strictly superior though, and again would probably be very restrictive in terms of influence from the environment.

Yeah, this is the problem.  When you have total deterministic systems, you have the chance of fights that are literally unwinnable; where you can throw an infinite number of low level characters against an enemy and they will always fail.

Though, a rock paper scissors style thing might not be too bad. I had a lot of fun with a game called "Magic Pengel" back in the ps2 era that had combat based on a rock paper scissors mechanic.

Then again, I also had a lot of fun with phantom dust, and thats essentially a card based combat mechanic. Hmm.

[NJW2000]

Rock-paper-scissors like system? I suppose one could have rock, paper and scissors have wider environmental effects, but otherwise it's still either "guess/infer the right approach" or pure luck.

Which doesn't seem very different to just rtd, using d3s, and possibly multiple turns...

[syvarris]

A purely deterministic system is easy, you just have to add more complexity.

Say, every player gets a certain number of stamina points, and regens to full every turn.  When they play a card, they can choose to invest a certain number of stamina points in it (and they can play multiple cards).

So if you invest six points in an attack card, you make one attack at six accuracy--but it's defended against if your foe uses a defense of six or above.  Defenses might have varied effectiveness--a parry might grant one defense per two stamina, and set your opponent's stamina to zero if it works, a dodge might grant one defense per stamina invested, and a block might grant two defense per stamina (but your shield will break eventually).

You'll still have the problem that extremely powerful people are basically immune to low level people.  Also, it'll be harder for PW to not metagame, and if he randomizes demon stamina, the whole "pre-empt your opponent" part of the gameplay gets thrown out.  Lastly, it's more complex.

[piecewise]

I wonder if combining an expanded rock-paper-scissors game with point allocation would work?

[AoshimaMichio]

There's one way to find out. But I guess it wouldn't be a RTD then.

[Ozarck]

A purely deterministic system is easy, you just have to add more complexity.

Say, every player gets a certain number of stamina points, and regens to full every turn.  When they play a card, they can choose to invest a certain number of stamina points in it (and they can play multiple cards).

So if you invest six points in an attack card, you make one attack at six accuracy--but it's defended against if your foe uses a defense of six or above.  Defenses might have varied effectiveness--a parry might grant one defense per two stamina, and set your opponent's stamina to zero if it works, a dodge might grant one defense per stamina invested, and a block might grant two defense per stamina (but your shield will break eventually).

You'll still have the problem that extremely powerful people are basically immune to low level people.  Also, it'll be harder for PW to not metagame, and if he randomizes demon stamina, the whole "pre-empt your opponent" part of the gameplay gets thrown out.  Lastly, it's more complex.

Yeah, you made your own counterargument there: this is good for a PvP game, but bad for a PvE game, where the GM controls the mobs.

[Egan_BW]

Well,  we could always do a PvE test. MORE! MORE!

[syvarris]

Well,  we could always do a PvE test. MORE! MORE!

Preemptively signing up for this!  Equipment: Two-handed Black Knight Halberd, no armor.

[spazyak]

Preemptive Sign up too!: Short sword, Buckler.