Preface:
Sorry if it seems that I'm nitpicking over details that aren't in the current rules but I tried to set things up so that I could introduce subsequent changes with minimal disruption. It'll probably be more efficient to make a version that needs heavier modification later if it's easier to understand.
Body:
It looks fairly accurate, though some of the term changes you made seem inconsistent with my plans. I'll try a piece-by-piece breakdown of the relevent parts of your post.
Technical details like damage calculations are all fine and good if they don't interfere with the player's understanding of the rules. To the players, the rules are a BIOS, and they make the inputs and receive the output. You should outright state what inputs the players must make, and what outputs they'll get, without the inbetween technicals.
I figured that including a formula that would work for 95 or so variations of a command was the simplest way to present the information they would need. Regarding the inputs a player makes, see my reply to the next quote.
Also, keep the inputs as simple as possible. Like I said, simplicity is often as good as complexity.
The current order format is Action(Intensity). I expect to add targeting to that in the near future but I'm currently handling it on the GM side. I meant to mention it plainly in the rules but I think I decided that it would be redundant. Looking back it wasn't obvious enough.
For example, the TU costs for action, calculation, recovery. Unless there's some hidden purpose for this, why not just use the one cost?
Execution is the time between an action being initiated and when it takes effect (eg the time between starting to swing a sword and hitting the target). The calculation phase is when calculations (eg amount of damage done) take place. Recovery is the time until you can use the resources (eg intensity, weapon etc) in a new action (eg the time it takes you to pull your sword out of your enemy). Also, the phase of an action may affect other action's effects (like a defend action only working on an attack in the execution phase). While it isn't apparent in this rule set, some actions might not have the same set of phases (eg a 'double smash' might go 'execution1, calculation1, execution2, calculation2, recovery). I figure that breaking it up into multiple phases makes things easier to understand (if I explain them properly at least).
Also, 100*X%=X, you do know that, right?
I assume you're referring to the formulae for effectiveness. If so then the 100 is actually (Strength+Dexterity+Intelligence). While it will consistently add up to 100 in this ruleset, that will change when it is applied to characters with additional customisation or 'bosses'. I figured phrasing it this way now would reduce the changes I'd need to make later.
If you're referring to the calculations for TUs required for attacking, the current formula is a simplification, with balancing that takes that simplification into account. The main goals were to keep it simple while making sure that a defence took less time than an attack of equivalent power to offset its inability to do direct damage. The full formula would include speed (currently all characters are assumed to be the same speed), weapon requirements (this might just affect the minimum intensity a character could assign to weapons using that action) and 'trade-offs' (a quicker execution time in exchange for a longer recovery time as an example), probably more (though I'll set up a simulation program to handle thing if it gets that far).
The parameter (Str+Dex+Int) can just be labeled as the Ability Sum.
For this ruleset, yes. Problem is that this is a simplified formula, with the actual calculation involving weapon requirements and character statistics relative to those requirements. Due to the simplification it is assumed that a character's weapon's requirements are equal to the character's stats, without the limitations that would normally impose. That's why I went with the neutral names of Subtotal etc. Even when the formulae change, the variable names remain valid.
No one action can use less than 5 Power.
Accurate, though I'm thinking I'll put that in each action's section instead of as an overarching rule (makes it easier to modify appropriately when I bring in some of the rules). Also, I support Intensity over Power because Intensity seems to me to suggest using all of your abilities (Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence in this case) better than Power.
Deals damage to target.
Implement: Weapon in hand.
Duration = X TUs.
Cooldown = X TUs.
Potential = AS*X/100
Effects:
* If Potential exceeds opponent's Defence, deal the difference as damage.
* If opponent's Defence exceeds Potential, add the difference to Cooldown TUs.
Looks good, though I prefer execution and recovery to duration and cooldown. I think Potential is a good term though. Regarding Implement: Weapon in hand, that could also include unarmed combat, so I'm not sure that that's the best way to state it.
Provides additional defence against an incoming attack.
Implement: Weapon in hand.
Duration = .75*X TUs.
Cooldown = .75*X TUs.
Potential = AS*X/100
Effects:
* If Potential is positive (y'know, I have a hunch that there's little to no way it's going to be negative), add Potential to Defence
I'm not sure if you were alluding to this when you said 'Provides additional defence against an incoming attack' but a Defend is only effective against the attack it is initiated against.
Your hunch is right, Potential won't be negative in this ruleset. There were several possibilities before I got the public version up where it could have been:
- Feinting and searching for weak points. They might have resulted in a penalty being applied to defensive actions. I cut them out due to possible balance issues, aesthetic issues (a successful feint would have forced the target character to take a certain action, which might have been detrimental to their experience) and randomisation (I didn't want a random component in the first ruleset).
- Originally a defence was almost guaranteed to intercept an attack (this is before I properly implemented the execution, calculation, recovery phases). If the attack was stronger than the defence, the difference would be applied as a delay effect to the defender. I stopped because I thought it was silly to offset damage after the attack had hit.
- Before I made the minimum intensity rule it would have been possible (though pointless) to defend at 0 intensity. I don't remember details but I did some fiddling with the formulae, some of which involved division, so I thought 'divide by zero' and put something there. I'm guessing I subsequently erased that something because I figured it would only confuse people.
Review the above. I think it manages to represent your current rules fairly accurately.
Accurate as far as it goes. I hope you don't mind but I think I'll try and use your work there as a base for my next attempt at explaining the rules.