Posts tagged Aristeia RPG

Weird thought for the day:

I’m a deist, and I’m making a game where a computer program designs a world where it personally cannot intervene without causing undue chaos within its world, so it instead brings in people from an outside plane of existence (our world) to solve the problems of the world.

Huh.

Incidentally I’ve got new character sheets put together, I guess I’ll post those up sometime later today.

In light of my recent experience with the GLS I’ve decided to make this more of a games blog in general. I will of course be doing regular AR.Isteia posts, and tagging them as such. I just felt that it would be more engaging for me to use this site a little more often for things beyond the occasional confusing RPG post.

So I’ve been playing around with dice mechanics more (I must be getting close to something good to be messing around with them so much at this point).

I’ve noticed that with the new roll mechanics (roll over or at target number, add dots to die roll) that the rolls can go from 6-51. That’s a much larger scale than originally was possible, and I think that’s fantastic. It finally opens up the range so that I can really play around with it, which is what this post is about.

Critical hits are, and should be, a factor in games. I’m toying around with some ideas. For AR.isteia I think that something like “degrees of success” might be more appropriate, because the odds of hitting a perfect 36 on a die roll are much more complicated than rolling a natural 20 in DnD or similar games. Here’s what I have in mind:

- Total rolls that beat a target score by 5 or more are considered “success +1.” This would be something like a particularly good hit in combat (+1 damage) or a fast or particularly successful skill check (picking a lock in half the time for example).
- Rolls that beat a target score by 10 are considered “success +2” and do +2 on damage rolls and are particularly beneficial with skill rolls. How? Well that’s where DM discretion would come into play. 

Just things I’m considering. I’ll need to get to playtesting these ideas, but so far I’m liking how this roll mechanic is shaping up. Now I just need to work on executable rules and we’re looking like we’re in good shape. 

So now I’m using a standard meet-or-roll over system and attribute/skill dots are added to your roll to aide you. By doing that, rolls now can range from 6-51 instead of 6-36. This is because now a max possible roll of 36 can have up to 15 s/a dots added to it. This is an interesting development indeed for me.

Nothing major. Instead of dots increasing the target number (making it easier) I’ve decided that the dots will subtract from your roll. It has the same effect, and it makes the math easier.

I apologize for the lack of video updates recently. I’ve been applying for summer work and there’ve been a slew of house work to do. I’ll make a nice big slew of videos soon. I’ve also been working on a lot of math. Game mechanic math.

Let’s talk game mechanics.

For a long time, I’ve been working with a 4d6 roll system I’ve built. The idea is that you have a target number (average is 12-14) that you’re trying to roll at or beneath. To aide you, there is a point buy system for attributes and skills in the game that works like so:

When rolling a skill (let’s say a weapon skill, which normally works off of the Strength Attribute) you roll at the target number (let’s say 12). Your character has 1 dot (with a potential maximum of 4) in Strength and 2 dots (also with max possible of 4) in the melee weapon skill.

Having a dot in an appropriate attribute increases the target roll number by 1 (thus making it easier to roll under it) and an attribute bonus applies to any skills that fall under its category and any feats that may play off the attribute or respective skills. So this character’s target roll is now 13 or lower, because it has 1 dot helping it.

Having a dot in a skill (a much more specific bit of training) increases the target roll number by 2. Having a dot in a skill only applies to that skill and any feats that may factor into it. Because this character has 2 dots, it increases the target number by 4. Between the 1 dot of Strength and 2 dots of weapon skill, the target roll number goes up from 12 to a much easier 17 to meet or roll below.

What’s particularly nice about this system is the math behind 4d6. The highest you can roll on a 4d6 is a 24 (all 4 dice rolling 6’s). Consider the following math:

- The base average roll is 12

- Both skills and attributes can gain up to 4 dots, granting up to 8 and 4 points (respectively) when considering rolls

-If you max out a character’s stats on a specific skill (all 4 dots in both the skill and the respective attribute) then you are rolling with a bonus of 12 points. This meets the maximum roll possible. 

— This is balanced by the fact that by the time you have enough experience on your character to purchase all 8 required dots, the target rolls are likely to be harder than a normal target of 12.

Does all that make sense? Awesome. Now I want to change it to 6d6. Here’s why:

- Having a wider number spread gives me more numbers to work with when making monsters

- Having a wider number spread gives more room and a better scale for characters to increase in power

- Having a wider number spread lets me have more requirements for feats and similar “bars to entry” abilities for characters

These and similar reasons have me considering a 6d6 system. The math also works rather well:

-Assume a new base target score of 20 instead of 12. Keep in mind the highest possible roll on 6d6 is 36 (6 dice rolling all 6’s). This gives a potential spread of 16 points (20-36).

- Now have 5 dots possible for both skills and attributes. That’s 5 potential points in Attributes, 10 in a skill. 15 points total.

-Granted this means that a 36 is an auto failure, as 20+15=35 (base roll+potential points=max potential). At the moment, I’m ok with that. I’m trying to work out a scale of success and failure based on how far from the number you are, one point isn’t the end of the world for your character. This 36 just represents that there are some things that luck will intervene in. Also, by the time you have 5 dots in an attribute and 5 dots in a skill, you likely won’t be using a base roll of 20 anyway.

These are just ideas I’m tossing around every which way. But I think having a wider spread of numbers helps me a lot. Thoughts?

A question came up about the 3 classes, a follow up to my post yesterday.

Here’s what I had in mind for starting class packages and the general idea of their roles:

- Fighters. Focus on Strength and Constitution.

• STR handles damage dealt in combat and brute force and short bursts of athleticism in regards to skills.
• Constitution handles physical durability in combat and health. It would also factor into things such as focus and long term strength, resistances to poisons and the elements. Things along those lines.
• The fighter’s role is to be in the thick of combat, they hit hard, take hard hits, and are the bread and butter melee warrior. A fighter focuses more on overwhelming strength or skill with a melee weapon to win a fight. They wear heavier armors and equipment than most and use it effectively.
• Alternate roles: A fighter could branch into Dexterity and mix his strength with finesse and learn to be deadly with a sword or similar light weapon. A Fighter could dock points into an EXEcutable related attribute and imbue weapons with elemental powers, giving an edge in combat. A fighter could carry around a ranged weapon of some sort and use it while closing the gap with the enemy. The role of a fighter is largely decided by how the player wants to approach combat.
• A fighter could look at Wisdom or Charisma attributes and become more of a team leader, bringing insight and dignity to a wider variety of scenarios.

-Ranger. Focus on Dexterity and Wisdom:

• Dexterity handles the ranged weapon skills and nimbleness of the ranger. A ranger could wield lighter weapons using his dexterity. Dexterity also handles some of the more roguish skills such as stealth, acrobatics and thievery (a mix of lockpicking and slight of hand, I find having the two be separate to be redundant even if they are two different kinds of skills)
• Wisdom handles more of the worldly skills, having a profession, worldly lore, awareness of surroundings. Practical things for survival. Wisdom also factors into some EXEcutable powers a ranger could take interest in for combat.
• The role of the ranger is largely determined by the player. Are they ranged combat experts? Woodsman and survivalists who can guide a party through dangerous areas? Do they decide to focus a little in charisma and become a dashing rogue always one step ahead of enemies? Do they lean more into Wisdom and tap into EXEcutable powers both for utility but to augment their fearsome combat prowess?
• If a fighter is more of a tank and bruiser of a team, a ranger is more of a nimble one on one combatant, picking off individual targets from afar and more versatile in the field.

-Spellcasters (aka. Programmers, Hackers, etc. Aka. I need a name for these guys)

-Focus on Intelligence and Charisma (also Wisdom, recommend taking 2 of the 3)

• Currently the most open class, spellcasters usually focus on Support Executables (INT based team aide), Offensive Executables (WIS based elemental attacks) and Hacking (CHA based enemy debuffs and harrier attacks).
• Spellcasters also use their attributes to be extremely helpful out of combat when it comes to knowledges, diplomacy, and similar interaction and mechanical functions. 
• It’s recommended to also dock a few points into an attribute such as DEX or CON to be able to hold your own in a combat, either using a melee weapon as a focus of your spells or having the ability to dodge and fire away with executable abilities.
• Going purely focused on the INT, WIS, and CHA attributes makes spellcasters the glass cannon class. They can’t take much of a beating, but they can change the tide of a fight in a single round.

These are general ideas and purposes. I really need to get some playtesting done and see what works and what doesn’t in combat, in interaction and puzzle solving. Remember, a large focus of character building is that you choose a general path of how your character acts and develops. Your skills reflect that.

Thoughts?