Okay, here's where it stands for now. Some of this is me sharing new information, some is correcting misunderstandings or summarizing old information.
The background and the challenge
This system is a mix of other systems. Before I started this game, I developed another game--one that I'd love to play with you people sometime. I am preparing it for commercial use; either a portfolio piece or something to sell for real. This outside game is not based on Roll To Dodge: instead, it is a mix between a more familiar system of combat where every point counts, and my idea of an "expanding" list of results based on the circumstances of the combat.
To have some fun on these forums, I started playing the current game, where I realized that I could apply some of the basic ideas to the d6 results from Roll To Dodge. But how much? The granularity is dramatically larger, and it's not so much that "every point counts" as that every result could be qualitatively different. It's not just that adding a new "Succeed" result has a disproportionate effect; given that you might rarely roll that particular result, the player's experience of "better" or "worse" is nothing like a familiar system of points!
You'd think that this could be solved by doing some math; and, of course, I've done the math, calculating expected values for your damage per attack as you go up in power. Effects are weird. There comes a point where adding more "Succeed" . . . makes you weaker. How? Simple: you've dwarfed your "Succeed greatly" results, which had been your real breadwinners.
Likewise, for both math and appearance of fairness, a designer has to watch the effect on "Fail" results, which can be dwarfed in . . . shall we say, very strange and variable ways depending on what you're doing.
With that in mind, what happens when you remove bad results for special benefits like from that phasestrike javelin removing "Fail by succeeding"? Because Roll To Dodge is so qualitative, there's a serious risk of removing all bad results, destroying the contrast between good and bad.
So what does that mean for character strength and growth?
Before I started playing, I calculated expected values for basic equipment, as well as "fine," "superior," and "masterwork" versions. Also, I compared iron and workstone. That meant five individually-calculated "Succeed" boosts, handcrafted to affect "Succeed weakly/greatly" too.
Anything more requires handcrafting. I needed magic items, so I expanded to four more boost levels, which follow their own rules because you expect something special from magic other than linear improvement. Then I needed even more magic items, so I . . . tried to write more, but found that I had bumped against the limits of believability and practicality. Like, adding more "good" results both looked weird and bumped into the problem where it wouldn't add statistical benefit (or, to avoid that, add way too much benefit to be a fair step size). I was able to add only three more levels. I've got spreadsheets!
Current implementation
Right now, your character is like some standardized cutout, made interesting by other things being added. Also you go up in HP.
There is another entire mechanic that you have not seen yet. I will hold onto this for now.
Until then, better equipment improves your "Succeed" results along the limited slider that I calculated. Sometimes, it removes "Fail." Sometimes, if magical, it removes "Fail by succeeding."
Personal skill has effects which I try to handcraft for the players. The doctor and the mason remove "Fail by succeeding" results: I justify this by saying that they of all people should know how to avoid overshooting at their job. They can still "Fail" because 1) in-game, it makes sense that anybody could fail, and 2) meta-game, removing this result means too dramatic a change (from those specific crafting tables which are very, very small).
To answer specific questions: I don't know where you saw a "+1," as that isn't in my notes for the professions. However, you will see it showing up when something good happens. This is an important point: not only is a single +1 massively helpful in a system based on d6, but it demonstrates another reason why I can't hand out "Succeed" boosts willy-nilly. If your table went up to d18, i.e., 3x as much, would you care for anything less than a +3 bonus? Meanwhile a +3 bonus would destroy a d6 system! This system is self-limiting.
The conundrum of the combat-focused character
This is a special case and needs attention. But this isn't the first time it came up, oh no: when Alyssa Alpine (Rautherdir) joined, we had "a hunter and a hired blade" in the party. If I gave out the familiar benefit, removing "Fail by succeeding" when using the relevant skill, that would mean doing so in combat. I would guarantee that all players from here out were warriors. Seriously, who wants to hit themselves or an ally during combat when "getting in fights" is so commonplace? No combat benefit is small enough. It would break the game.
So, for this case, I looked for what incidental skills a hunter would have. Something that would arise as often as, say, a mason's skills. I'm still not satisfied, and would welcome input, but I decided that combat-focused characters can move in the dark more easily (this has happened a few times), and avoid any penalties when fighting either unarmed (a reasonable problem) or without a helmet (never happened before). Is that enough? I can't say.
But I can say that the difficulties of this "expanding" d6 system limit the possibilities.
Known career effects
For thoroughness, here is everything I have prepared:
-- Alchemist would enable alchemy via crafting rolls (with full risk), but the alchemist player dropped, so you haven't seen that yet;
-- Blacksmith enables smelting metal bars at a forge, and also smithing via crafting rolls (with full risk);
-- Doctor removes "Fail by succeeding" from healing;
-- Hunter/warrior removes "Fail by succeeding" from moving in the dark and removes unarmed/"missing helmet while underground" penalties;
-- Mason removes "Fail by succeeding" from related crafting or carving rolls;
-- Religious positions allow a once-per-day bonus to be obtained even by performing meditation between time periods.
There are other options. We've done "stealth" rolls before, so I could add a "thief career" which takes advantage of that. However, the first thief we got was John (ziizo), a "chicken thief," which demands some headscratching to figure out a skillset. The next criminal-ish person we have is Louis (dustywayfarer), who "short-sold a group of shady dealers"--so is this person sneaky more in physical or mental manners?
In any case, I try to work with what you give me, and I hope that it is reasonably fair--for the shockingly unfair world that is Roll To Dodge. I also hope that the above answered some questions.
Author
Topic: Magical ASCII Mine-diving Adventure, Day 20 - At Rest (Read 237598 times)