Print

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

[kisame12794]

So, I was thinking of running a loot centered exploration game set in a world similar to the Zone from the game series STALKER. Players would explore the world in teams or alone, and would brave mutants, bandits and anomalies to find mysterious Artifacts of varying size, usefulness, and value. Each artifact has a Size, Material, Effect(s), and Home Anomaly. Each effect also has a potency value. Players can sell artifacts for cash, use them to barter, or, if you find one that seems particularly helpful, equip them to gain the effects. Not all effects will be beneficial, and some artifacts will be deadly. Right now all I've got is a bunch of ideas and a totally basic artifact generator table though, so any tips on creating random item creation tables would be appreciated.

[Fniff]

Feel free to use any of my generators. Aside from that, very interesting idea. I'm personally working on a map making system for my suggestion game, so we can share notes if you want some inspiration on randomly generated maps that can be easily wrote on a spreadsheet.

[Harry Baldman]

-fluff-

Seems like good fluff! I approve.

-crunch-

Oh gods, too many skills and attributes and I don't even know what else.

I feel ambivalent about the idea now.

So, I was thinking of running a loot centered exploration game set in a world similar to the Zone from the game series STALKER. Players would explore the world in teams or alone, and would brave mutants, bandits and anomalies to find mysterious Artifacts of varying size, usefulness, and value. Each artifact has a Size, Material, Effect(s), and Home Anomaly. Each effect also has a potency value. Players can sell artifacts for cash, use them to barter, or, if you find one that seems particularly helpful, equip them to gain the effects. Not all effects will be beneficial, and some artifacts will be deadly. Right now all I've got is a bunch of ideas and a totally basic artifact generator table though, so any tips on creating random item creation tables would be appreciated.

I'd advise not getting carried away with random generation - maybe you can roll for potency value, general intent of the artifact (beneficial, weird, harmful etc.) and perhaps use the time-honored method of rolling on a list of random words (nouns, verbs, adjectives) to get a feel for the general theme of the thing. Most importantly, make your own lists and only use other generators as inspiration.

[Tarran]

I seriously don't understand the stigma over having more than an average amount of attributes or skills. It's not like it's a serious problem for the players--The only time they have to put any effort into looking at them is in the beginning, creating a character sheet. And once and a while, spending a couple seconds seeing their value in the attribute/skill if they want to use something related--and for GMs like me, we spend more time and effort thinking of writing fluff than looking at stats and hey, once again the most time they'll be looking at those stats is when creating an NPC (where we can cut out any bit that isn't ever going to be used by the NPC) or a player, wherein the only time they'll ever look at those stats again is when they're being used.

Really, it's not like the player will have to look at their entire sheet every time a turn comes, or the GM for that matter. At most, they'll have to look at, what, one or two stats? And even then, they're just numbers.

[kisame12794]

Well, the current table I've got really only needs balance. All I've got are eight effects, six materials, and four sizes. Not a whole hell of a lot of rolling, but until I balance it you can get insanely powerful artifacts right off the bat. I'm thinking of adding the detectors from the series and limiting the artifacts you can find by the tier of detector you have. So, if you have a tier 1 detector you can't find Large artifacts, or at least, it's extremely rare, and having a tier 5 detector means you have an equal chance to find all four sizes.

[Harry Baldman]

I seriously don't understand the stigma over having more than an average amount of attributes or skills. It's not like it's a serious problem for the players--The only time they have to put any effort into looking at them is in the beginning, creating a character sheet. And once and a while, spending a couple seconds seeing their value in the attribute/skill if they want to use something related--and for GMs like me, we spend more time and effort thinking of writing fluff than looking at stats and hey, once again the most time they'll be looking at those stats is when creating an NPC (where we can cut out any bit that isn't ever going to be used by the NPC) or a player, wherein the only time they'll ever look at those stats again is when they're being used.

Really, it's not like the player will have to look at their entire sheet every time a turn comes, or the GM for that matter. At most, they'll have to look at, what, one or two stats? And even then, they're just numbers.

The stigma about it lies mostly in the fact that it's one of the primary signs an RTD isn't going to last more than a couple of turns, barring very special cases, because it practically screams lack of forethought. Each piece of armor has its own separate HP and damage absorption value (each boot, greave and pauldron is tracked separately, no less), the social skills are completely ridiculous in their specificity or basic nature (seriously, 'word weaseler'?), and there's separate skills for moving in armor and absorbing blows in armor. It's somewhat indicative of a problematic complexity addiction, and doesn't really seem easy to work with at all, considering that it has changing die sizes and continuous experience gains and stat mutability. At the end of the day, it's just plain inelegant is what I'm trying to say here, but that's just my take on things. I'm rather against mechanical complexity in RTDs in general, because the format's basic draw is that it's easy to get into, play and perform interesting antics in.

And if a zero in a stat doesn't give you penalties (it's unclear from the description on whether it does or not), one has to wonder if the entire game wouldn't be better served by disposing of the stats altogether and simply having a perk system instead, where you mention your special skills and the rest are assumed to be normal unless stated otherwise.

Well, the current table I've got really only needs balance. All I've got are eight effects, six materials, and four sizes. Not a whole hell of a lot of rolling, but until I balance it you can get insanely powerful artifacts right off the bat. I'm thinking of adding the detectors from the series and limiting the artifacts you can find by the tier of detector you have. So, if you have a tier 1 detector you can't find Large artifacts, or at least, it's extremely rare, and having a tier 5 detector means you have an equal chance to find all four sizes.

One question: how about finding artifacts without a detector? Will that be possible? Also, I'd like to see some Gargantuan and Colossal artifacts. Especially if they're malevolent.

[kisame12794]

Certain artifacts will be able to be found without detectors, but again the size would be limited. You also spawn with a T1 detector, but if you lose it or it breaks you'll still be able to find a tiny artifact to help pay to replace it. Tiny artifacts are under one pound and have one effect, positive or negative, Small artifacts are one pound and have two effects, Medium artifacts are 2.5 pounds and have three effects, and Large artifacts are 5 pounds and have four artifacts. I suppose I could add two more sizes, and just have them have 5 and 6 effects respectively. And as for malevolent artifacts, having six negative effects would be pretty damn hilarious.

[Tarran]

...because it practically screams lack of forethought.

Hence the testing. Also, I've been working on the RTD for many months now.

Each piece of armor has its own separate HP and damage absorption value (each boot, greave and pauldron is tracked separately, no less),

I don't see a particularly serious danger in that, I don't foresee the players swapping out armor every couple of turns.

the social skills are completely ridiculous in their specificity or basic nature (seriously, 'word weaseler'?)

Like I said, the test is outdated, the social skills have been reduced from 10 to 7.

Word Weasler is referring to sneaking words out of people without them noticing. Countering that is Speech Control, which resists that. I admit, those two are a bit sketchy, and potentially redundant (in fact, I might have had that opinion for a while), and I may have to review them. However, I'd be far more helpful if someone had an idea what other stat to use in any particular case where someone tries to sneak words out of someone but where it still makes sense.

and there's separate skills for moving in armor and absorbing blows in armor.

That's because there's a difference between moving around in armor without getting weighed down, and absorbing hits. A difference between knowing how to take blows so it hits your armor in the right place where your armor takes the most damage and your person the least, and not getting slowed down by massive plate mail and missing your target.

It's somewhat indicative of a problematic complexity addiction, and doesn't really seem easy to work with at all, considering that it has changing die sizes and continuous experience gains and stat mutability.

If I had a complexity addiction, I would have far more stats. I have as few stats as possible for as many unique situations, barring maybe a couple. And at the end of the day, after RTD of the Dragon, I'd rather have a more complex system where there's an obvious stat to use than one that is so simplified that I can't decide (I have a serious problem with indecision). Maybe if I have an RTD recently fail due to complexity I'll change my opinion, but that's my stance for the moment.

The dice size changes indeed might be a problem. I've thought it through, and I'd probably use a quick "Cheat Sheet" whenever people get into a situation where the skills are likely to be used multiple times in a short time. That should alleviate a significant part of the problem. For the players it should be even easier as they don't really need to know the exact roll sizes every turn.

At the end of the day, it's just plain inelegant is what I'm trying to say here, but that's just my take on things. I'm rather against mechanical complexity in RTDs in general, because the format's basic draw is that it's easy to get into, play and perform interesting antics in.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree then. I don't believe in RTDs meaning a simple, dice based system. I believe in it meaning a system based mainly on dice rolls.

And if a zero in a stat doesn't give you penalties (it's unclear from the description on whether it does or not), one has to wonder if the entire game wouldn't be better served by disposing of the stats altogether and simply having a perk system instead, where you mention your special skills and the rest are assumed to be normal unless stated otherwise.

They do give penalties. A significant one, in fact. The average, where there's no penalties, is 25. Yes, it is a bit odd, but consider that the alternative is having everything starting at -25. No perfect solution.

[Fniff]

So, if the main point of an RTD that it is based mainly on dice rolls, what's the difference between it and a regular tabletop game? Saying RTDs are based on dice rolls is like saying that an FPS is based on reflexes. Yes, that's the most basic form of it, but it is not the main attraction.

[Dermonster]

So, if the main point of an RTD that it is based mainly on dice rolls, what's the difference between it and a regular tabletop game? Saying RTDs are based on dice rolls is like saying that an FPS is based on reflexes. Yes, that's the most basic form of it, but it is not the main attraction.

RTD's are supposed to be 'quick'n'dirty' tabletop games.

Some people didn't get the memo and wrote fifty pages of rules, though.

[Fniff]

Precisely. This is like if someone tried to claim an RPG was an FPS because RPGs also involve clicking buttons.

[Tarran]

Last I checked, there wasn't some page somewhere listing what is, isn't, and what can never be an RTD on this forum. So you'll have to forgive me for having incorrect opinions on what an RTD is.

[SeriousConcentrate]

Just run it in FG&RP. No more argument about it being an RTD.

That said, I don't mind some complexities in the character creation. It helps give each character a set role in the party and if it helps the GM decide what applies in certain situations, so much the better. I'm sure you remember the one RTD you were in that I ran for like ten turns where pretty much every damn thing defaulted to Intelligence because I didn't have anything better.

[Draignean]

So, if the main point of an RTD that it is based mainly on dice rolls, what's the difference between it and a regular tabletop game? Saying RTDs are based on dice rolls is like saying that an FPS is based on reflexes. Yes, that's the most basic form of it, but it is not the main attraction.

RTD's are supposed to be 'quick'n'dirty' tabletop games.

I disagree. RTD's, much like their content, vary wildly. By the definition you have, the 'best' RTDs would be the ones with with the quickest and dirtiest rules. Clearly, this is a definition of almost perfect fit to the minimalist genre. The logical extension of this is that Minimalist RTDs are the best RTDs, which is not something that I can believe. In fact, I would argue that your definition, that an RTD is defined by its accessibility and lack of rules, is far more guilty of an FPS analogy than Tarran's. Tarran's definition is useless because it is impossibly vague, but yours is downright misleading.

We can both agree that the distinction between an FPS and an RPG does not lie in its clever usage of clicky objects. However, there is nothing in this definition that prevents the two from crossing over a great deal. You seem to imply by your argument that the two domains can never touch, and that the perfect RTD is one that is quintessentially simple. Consider Fallout 3/NV, STALKER, any of the recent rash of zombie survival games, bioshock, etc. Are they first person shooters? Yes. They all involve shooting things while in the first person. Are they role-playing games? Yes. Some more so than others, but they all have a degree of choice and decision to be made by the player. The above games are both FPS and RPGs, and I think we can agree that they are the better for the mixture. A first person shooter, devoid of any other elements, is the most simplistic game imaginable with the sole exception of pong. When stripped of other influences, a first person shooter truly is a game about clicking on things quickly. An RTD, stripped of everything else, is a game that is, as you said, about being "quick'n'dirty": consisting basically of an OP with little to no information and a d6. I believe you are patently wrong, however, when you argue that this is what an RTD is "supposed" to be. An FPS that consists of nothing more than clicking rapidly while controlling something that shoots would be strange, boring, and very much like this. (Except with less story) A good first person shooter blends genres, taking elements from everyone else in order to create a better experience. Likewise, a good RTD cannot allow itself to be defined solely by simplicity.

An RTD is not a tabletop game, it is the bastard child of a tabletop game and gambling dice. Its rules and complexity varying on the sliding scale between needing three playing books and two supplementary manuals to understand on the upper limit, and simply remembering that the number '6' is higher than the number '1' on the lower limit. After we have found that there is both the rolling of dice and the dodging of objects, we have established an RTD, much as we can establish an FPS by the shooting of things while in the first person. This is not what the game is about, but it is the clinical definition. Just as the FPS can vary from Duke Nukem to Bioshock , so can the RTD vary from ROLL TO SET JULIE ANDREWS ON FIRE to Their Coming is at Hand. You cannot exclude something from being an RTD just because it is more than the simple creature captured by its most clinical definition.

tl;dr

I don't think you can meaningfully argue to exclude anything somebody made from the category of RTD as long as it involves rolling dice and dodging crap.

2-A genericish medieval fantasy RTD with Angels and Demons replacing Elves and Dwarves, and the bad guys being none of the four and not Human

'Splain! I'd like to hear about/possibly play in this one.

It's the notably less serious of all the others (that said, it isn't a silly RTD, the meaning is relative). It doesn't have a complex introduction or storyline, but here's the intro:

Spoiler: Intro (click to show/hide)

In the beginning of time, there were many gods, good, neutral, and evil. And there were humans, creatures with all three--All at that time were the direct descendants from the Creator. In those times, the gods vied for control of the humans for many years, trying to get their worship to power themselves. However, the human race began to clump together slowly outside of the influence of the gods. And in time, many lesser gods that shared spheres were forced to step down from godhood. Sometimes, there were wars between two gods of the same sphere with roughly equal followers. But eventually everything became orderly with one god for each thing. Then, for many years, the gods worked out their differences peacefully. Humanity exploded across the world during this time, becoming dominant. However, eventually the good and evil gods split again. The neutral gods had to pick between the two, and were split down the middle. Humanity was also split, between the worshipers of the evil gods, and the good gods.

Then came the wars. Good versus evil, 'good' crusaders versus 'evil' crusaders, angels versus demons. All fought on and off for hundreds of years. Eventually, a majority of humanity became disillusioned with the gods and gave up worshiping entirely, letting the two sides fight without them. Then, the wars lost momentum and both sides had an unofficial truce. But the damage was already done, a large number of humans did not worship the gods anymore, or at least were not in the mood to ever fight a war for the gods again.

The truce continued for many more years, and so did the non-worship. For a long time, the gods tried to reestablish control over humanity, but it met little success, as they had lost touch with humanity. Soon, the gods left humanity on its own for a long time, with little fighting between good and evil.

Then, something happened. It started as priests being worried. Then priests stopped getting power from the gods. Then finally, both angels and demons arrived in the realm of humanity. All of them. Not as warriors, but as refugees. And with them, were the weakened 'bodies' of their gods who could no longer maintain their realms. The gods were losing all their power, even with the worship of a small but significant portion of humanity. Nobody knew what was wrong, and they kept getting weaker, until eventually they all fell into comas, and have not awakened to this day.

That was hundreds of years ago. Today, it's the same situation: Demons and angels are still stuck with humans. They've been stuck for so long, in fact, that between all three there has actually been interbreeding. Half angels, half demons, angel-demons, and even mixes of all three, all exist now. The murderous old hate between demons, angels, and humans has nearly disappeared for the most part, replaced instead with moderated competition. The gods have still not woken up, and everyone has given up hope on them waking up soon.



You are a human/demon/angel/undecidedblob member of a absurdly average adventurer band (of the will-kill-monster-for-gold kind) heading towards the possibly average city Aleradam, of the Therhidon Kingdom of Erosus, on the border of the Setten Empire of Talson. And you have the feeling your day is about to get exciting... Far more than usual, for some strange reason. Bah, you're just being paranoid. There will be no doomsday whatsoever. Yeah. Now stop reading this and sign up or something I'm on a 40K character limit here that I am dangerously close to hitting. Actually relevant story will come later. You can consume it fresh off the brainwave line.

As for the rules, this RTD, should I chose to run it, will be one of the first that I try using an skill+attributes increases dice size rather than dice roll system. Might fail, might be awesome, have no idea. It also has a fairly non-generic system for combat, and numerous different skill types.

It also has more than trippledozen times as many character creation choices than most minimalist RTDs. Truefax.

Here's some experimentation I had a bit ago while designing the system. Do note, this was designed purely for me, so quite a few things are unexplained and some things are much more "raw" than they would be in the actual RTD. Heck, even I can't remember off-the-bat what some things mean without thinking on them for a while (I haven't worked on this for a notable amount of time). Also note that this is somewhat outdated (notably, percentage skill gains are not a thing anymore). Still, it gives a fair example of stuff that might be seen in the RTD.

Spoiler: Go, Gornand the Setten Human (click to show/hide)

Gornand's HP is, with current rules, 45. Gab 1 is 25/3=8 (fodder enemy), Gab 2 is 35/3=12 (fodder enemy)

REFERENCE:

Name: Gornand Ithmond
Gender: Male
Race: Human
People: Setten
Faction:
Type:
Allocated Attributes:
  -Strength: 40+15=55
  -Toughness: 40=40
  -Agility: 20+10=30
  -Dexterity: 20=20
  -Perception: 30=30
  -Intelligence: 10=10
  -Willpower: 20=20
  -Charisma: 20=20
Allocated Skills:
  Melee:
   -Daggers: 0+25-15=10
   -Short Blades: 10+25+5=40
   -Long Blades: 0+25+15=40
   -Small Axes: 0+25+5=30
   -Large Axes: 10+25+15=50
   -Light Blunt: 0+25=25
   -Heavy Blunt: 0+25=25
   -Spears: 0+25=25
   -Polearms: 0+25=25
   -Hand-to-Hand: 0+25=25
  Ranged:
   -Short Bows: 30=30
   -Long Bows: 0=0
   -Crossbows: 0=0
   -Slings: 0=0
   -Throwing: 0=0
  Defensive:
   -Dodging: 30+20=50
   -Shields: 10+20=30
   -Parry: 0+20=20
   -Armor Soaking: 10+20=30
   -Armor Movement: 10+20+10=40
  Magic Schools:
   Material:
    -Water Magic: 0=0
    -Fire Magic: 0=0
    -Earth Magic: 0=0
    -Air Magic: 0=0
    -Polymorph Magic: 0=0
    Immaterial:
    -Life Magic: 30=30
    -Death Magic: 0=0
    -Force Magic: 0=0
    -Heat Magic: 0=0
   Arcane-
    -Meta Magic: 0=0
    -Mind Magic: 0=0
    -Chaos Magic: 0=0
    -Misc Magic: 0=0
  Magic Misc:
   -Arcane Intuition: 0=0
   -Magic Binder: 0=0
   -Magic Puller: 0=0
  Passive Utility:
   -Sneaking: 0=0
   -Spotter: 10=10
   -Climber: 0=0
   -Swimmer: 0=0
   -Jumper: 0=0
   -Night Vision: 0=0
   -Danger Awareness: 10=10
   -Magic Awareness: 0=0
   -Trainer: 20=20
  Active Utility-
   -Stonesman:  0=0
   -Metalworker:  20=20
   -Woodworker:  0=0
   -Physical Examiner:  10+15=25
   -Magical Examiner:  0=0
   -Value Examiner:  10=10
  Social-
   -Conversationalist:  15=15
   -Truth Teller:  20=20
   -Liar:  10=10
   -Conversation Controler:  10=10
   -Word Weaseler:  0=0
   -Speech Control:  0=0
   -Bluffer:  5+15=20
   -Expression Observation:  10=10
   -Expression Control:  0=0
   -Barter:  20=20
Equipment:
Armor- Steel helmet, Steel Chestplate, Bronze Left Pauldron, Hardened Leather Right Pauldron, Copper Left Greave, Copper Right Greave, Iron Left Boot, Iron Right Boot.
Weapons- Bronze Broadaxe, Copper Dirk.
Insert equipment for individual testing.

Hittable Locations: Head 1-2, LArm 3-5, RArm 6-8, Torso 9-13, RLeg 14-17, LLeg 18-21

Stats for equipment:
Steel helmet: 16 AHP, absorbs 3d6 damage.
Steel Chestplate: 32 AHP, aborbs 2d18 damage
Bronze Left Pauldron: 10 AHP, absorbs 3d4 damage
Hardened Leather Right Pauldron: 4 AHP, absorbs 1d4 damage
Copper Left Greave: 6 AHP, absorbs 3d2 damage
Copper Right Greave: 6 AHP, absorbs 3d2 damage
Iron Left Boot: 12 AHP, absorbs 2d8 damage
Iron Right Boot: 12 AHP, absorbs 2d8 damage

Bronze Broadaxe: 2d10 damage, -4 dice size, 4 durability
Copper Dirk: 1d14 damage, +4 dice size, 2 durability



Gabberjump MKI 1
Effective Attributes:
  -Strength: 30
  -Toughness: 20
  -Agility: 40
  -Dexterity: 30
  -Perception: 10
  -Intelligence: 0
  -Willpower: 10
  -Charisma: 0
Effective Skills:
  Melee:
   -Maw: 40 -Strength
   -Claw: 40 -Agility
  Defensive:
   -Dodging: 15
  Passive Utility:
   -Swimmer: 15
   -Jumper: 40

Maw Damage: 4d3 damage, -6 dice size
Claw Damage 1d4 damage, +2 dice size

Gabberjump MKI 2
Effective Attributes:
  -Strength: 50
  -Toughness: 30
  -Agility: 20
  -Dexterity: 15
  -Perception: 5
  -Intelligence: 0
  -Willpower: 15
  -Charisma: 0
Effective Skills:
  Melee:
   -Maw: 20 -Strength
   -Claw: 30 -Agility
  Defensive:
   -Dodging: 5
  Passive Utility:
   -Swimmer: 5
   -Jumper: 20

Hittable Locations: Maw 1-2, FLLeg 3-4, FRLeg 5-6, BLLeg 7-8, BRLeg 9-10, Torso 11-15

Maw Damage: 4d3 damage, -6 dice size
Claw Damage 1d4 damage, +2 dice size





START TESTING:

Gornand engages Gabberjump 1 with his Broadaxe. He rolls [1d26:6], while the Gabberjump rolls [1d21:18]. Gornand swings his axe widely and the Gabberjump easily sees it coming, ducking and backing away slightly.

Gabberjump 1 retaliates, attacking with his large maw. He rolls [1d18:9], while Gornand rolls [1d22:19]. The Gabberjump leaps at Gornand with maw chomping in the air, but Gornand flinches out of the way stylishly and the Gabberjump has no chance to hit him.

Gornand gains +1 to Dodging skill (86% max!).

Gabberjump 2 decides to try for itself, attacking with its maw too. He rolls [1d18:5], while Gornand rolls [1d22:3]. Location of damage is [1d21:2] the head. Damage is [4d3:1,1,2,3=7], while the armor absorbs [3d6:5,4,2=11] and Gornand rolls [1d21:15/5=3] (for experience), resulting in 14 absorbed damage max. His helmet takes 7 damage, reducing it to 9 AHP. Gornand finds his helmet taking a beating as his head is surrounded by numerous teeth mouth-strips. After he yanks the Gabberjump, it growling as it falls to the ground, off he finds his helmet bent in several positions.

Gornand is 1/2 to +1 Armor Soaking skill (71% max roll).

Gornand, unamused, engages Gabberjump 2 instead with his Broadaxe. He rolls [1d26:13], while the Gabberjump rolls [1d15:10]. Location of damage is [1d15:8] the back left leg. Damage is [2d10:2,4=6]. Gornand swings his broadaxe violently and nearly cleaves off the second Gabberjump's back left leg, spraying a thin but thick stream of blood from the wound.

Gabberjump 1 attempts again, this time with its claw. He rolls [1d28:13], while Gornand rolls [1d22:16]. The Gabberjump once again misses Gornand, though only by a narrow margin this time.

Gabberjump 2, reeling from its serious leg wound, still tries to bite down on Gornand. He rolls [1d18:14], while Gornand rolls [1d22:4]. Location of damage is [1d21:10] the torso. Damage is [4d3:3,1,2,2=8], while the armor absorbs [2d18:15,4=19] and Gornand rolls [1d21:21/5=4], resulting in 23 damage absorbed max. His chestplate takes 8 damage, reducing it to 24 AHP. Gornand is stunned for a second as his wounded enemy batters his chest in a rage.

Gornand gains +2 to Armor Soaking skill (100% max!).

Gornand tries to kill his wounded enemy again, tired of the consistant hits. He rolls [1d26:3], while the Gabberjump rolls [1d15:8]. Gornand's axe slides on the floor and doesn't hit anything.

Gabberjump 1 tries again to take advantage of this situation, with his claw. He rolls [1d28:12], while Gornand rolls [1d22:12], tying. Reroll: [1d36:27], which is higher than Gornand's maximum roll. Location of damage is [1d21:6] the right arm. Damage is [1d4:1]. The armor will always absorb this much, so soaking skill roll only [1d21:16]. His Right Pauldron takes 1 damage, reducing it to 3 AHP. Gornand is surprised by a sudden claw to his right arm. He swings around and quickly knocks the Gabberjump off his arm.

Gornand gets another 1/2 to +1 Armor Soaking skill (76% max roll), and gets +1 to Armor Soaking.

Gabberjump 2, emboldened by its enemy's failure, tries to bite yet again. He rolls [1d18:9], while Gornand rolls [1d22:14]. Gornand sees his wounded enemy off to the side and rolls backward. It's a bit clumsy but it is enough.

Gornand is 1/2 to +1 Dodging skill (63% max roll).

Gornand, wishing he had some backup, continues to swing at the second Gabberjump. He rolls [1d26:21], which is higher than the Gabberjump's maximum roll. Location of damage is [1d15:6] the front right leg. Damage is [2d10:2,5=7], which is a kill. Gabberjump 2 can barely react before Gornand swings his mighty axe and slices the Gabberjump's leg off. The Gabberjump flips over and screams a bit before dying of blood loss. Gornand shouts in victory.

Gabberjump 1, in fear, tries to run away. [1d23:7, fail] The Gabberjump tries to run away but trips on a hole from where a rock used to be, which some time in the past was removed for some reason or other.

Gornand, sensing the Gabberjump's failure, swings again. He rolls [1d26:19], while the Gabberjump rolls [1d21:19], tying. Reroll: [1d32:5], [1d22:13]. Gornand somehow misses the Gabberjump. Gee, maybe he really does need some backup.

Gabberjump 1 tries again to run away. [1d23:15, success] The Gabberjump runs away fast, and is in danger of getting away.

Gornand is not amused by this. He charges after the Gabberjump. [1d21:13, partial success] He chases right behind the Gabberjump, but after a bit he realizes he cannot catch up and stops after a while.

End of combat.

Notes:
Seems successful, but need to pay attention to modifiers closely. List all relivant dice sizes first, on the first turn of combat, for simplicity.

If anyone wants explanations for any of the other 5, go ahead and ask. Do note, some will have more or less detailed answers as I have put differing types of effort on each.

From a balance standpoint, those armor and damage values seem like a frustration clusterfuck. Just from what I've played in other, admittedly non-RTD games, the higher your damage variance is, the more frustrating a weapon is. Add wildcard armor values to that, and survival can become almost as much luck as equipment.

I do agree with Harry Baldman, with experience from a similar armor system. Unless you're automating that partitioned armor, it's going to become a pain quickly. Players will also swap out their armor as soon as it becomes convenient.

[Tarran]

Suddenly, Draignean comes in and bulldozers even the simplest of posts.

Just run it in FG&RP. No more argument about it being an RTD.

But then the terrorists will win.

Tarran's definition is useless because it is impossibly vague,

Yeah, it is, but once again, it's my personal opinion on what could be accepted as one. By no means did I suggest others use it. By god I do hope it's never used officially.

From a balance standpoint, those armor and damage values seem like a frustration clusterfuck. Just from what I've played in other, admittedly non-RTD games, the higher your damage variance is, the more frustrating a weapon is.

The weapons in the test are not representative of what the weapons in the finished versions may be. Remember, this test was taken with only me in mind, and it was literally the first test, which was even before I started setting in stone the values of different types of weapons and material types. But point taken.

Add wildcard armor values to that, and survival can become almost as much luck as equipment.

Once again, nothing is set in stone, but you have a point there. In some way, I wanted to simulate that armor has weak points, so armor isn't this indestructible wall that prevents players from ever taking damage as long as it's up, or something that takes the same percentage damage all the time. As an RTD, I also wanted to try to make it so dice factor in somehow.

I do agree with Harry Baldman, with experience from a similar armor system. Unless you're automating that partitioned armor, it's going to become a pain quickly. Players will also swap out their armor as soon as it becomes convenient.

Experience? Do tell, I'm legitimately curious what game has partitioned armor. Anyway, coming from you I... guess can believe it.

Also, remember, "convenient" can vary wildly depending on what the GM throws at them. If I really legitimately end up disliking how much they change armor I could throw enemies with no armor or weaker armor. Yes, I know that's not perfect but it's always an option.