From: magnus@brisk.ii.uib.no (Magnus Alvestad)
Subject: Re: net.rpg
Reply-To: magnus@ii.uib.no
Organization: UVBS -> SFK/T-DSA / SOPS - HOS / RNoN
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 92 08:37:53 GMT

>>>>> On 8 Nov 1992 04:44:20 GMT, tdunn@ecst.csuchico.edu (Tim Dunn) said:

>I can't be the first one to propose this, 

	Tim> No, you aren't.  The last person to helm this project
	Tim> dissappeared from this group a season or three ago.  I
	Tim> have a copy of his FAQ, which I'm re-printing. I should
	Tim> stress that he has not been seen or heard from (by me,
	Tim> anyhow)

I'll just catch up where he left off then, if we don't get as far as a
complete system, at least we'll discuss important issues.

All these points I'm making are my opinions, I'll be happy to recieve
comments, but give me alternatives if you don't like it. I don't want
to don my ABCF suit (Atomic Biological Chemical Flamage) suit.

	FAQ> Q2.  Should our system be skill-based or class-based?

	FAQ> A2.  The answer seems to be that we should be skill-based.  Some of us
	FAQ> have voiced favor for a career-type skill packaginig system, though,
	FAQ> which might be a good compromise between skill-based and class-based.

Uhm. Well, I kind of like the system in Daredevils, where you
construct a lifepath. We could make something like that, not tight and
uncomfortable like in Cyberpunk, we want a wide, dynamic, demanding
system that allows for a lot of GM-Player interaction, a lot of Player
creativity, and a lot of slack for differing genres, cultures etc.

The GM will have to work on a Character Generation Setup (parameters)
for the genre he decides to play in. Like are there social classes,
are there large differences, are there job possibilities, how's
education, etc. etc.

There should be a C program for generating a Life Path generator by
asking the GM a number of questions. (The Life Path generator itself
should of course be good old text on paper with formulas and tables)

	FAQ> Q3.  Should we be multi-genre or just one?

	FAQ> A3.  We seem to be gravitating toward the multi-genre end
	FAQ> of the spectrum.

Why not, concentrating one two-three 'default' genres. These should be
quite different, like fantasy, Space sci-fi and War today with modern
weapons, tanks etc..

	FAQ> Q4.  Should there be just one game mechanic?

	FAQ> A4.  Yes, to whatever reasonable extent is possible.
	FAQ> Everyone does, of course, agree with the concept of a
	FAQ> simple mechanic.  Making one mechanic for all (or as many
	FAQ> as possible) situations does make the system simpler to
	FAQ> learn and remember.

I don't really know about this. Yes, I know it's simpler - yes I know
it's more elegant. But personally I have this feeling that a
one-mechanic (in the one-dice sense) can be boring in a way. If no one
agrees with me on this one, I'll just forget it.

	FAQ> Q5.  Okay.  What does the game mechanic look like?

	FAQ> A5.  We don't know yet.  There have been several
	FAQ> proposals, but none has taken the lead yet:

All the proposals are based on d20 systems - IMHO d20s are too small.
We should use d100s. These give a much wider range of results, making
for a better implementation of critical 'hits' / 'misses'. 

Open-ended-ness is nice though. How about this:

You roll 1d100, if you roll 5 or less, you roll d100 again and
subtract the result. If you roll 95 or more (or more) on the first
roll, you roll again and add. Then you add modifiers. 

	FAQ> * Each skill has its own result table.  Results can be
	FAQ> detailed very finely, but there will be a lot of result
	FAQ> tables, it seems.

No! Yuch.

	FAQ> * One generic result table with descriptive results such
	FAQ> as "Average" and "Spectacular" success.  These success
	FAQ> levels may be described further in the individual skill
	FAQ> descriptions.

This is the way to go. With both a) detailed descriptions of the
success/failure levels (including examples), and b) links to actual
results in the skill descriptions, including examples of critical
failure results.

	FAQ> Q7.  Combat:  Detailed, or streamlined?

Uhm.. detailed and streamlined? :-)

	FAQ> * Keep It Simple, Stupid.  Every other skill is
	FAQ> abstracted out; making combat a special, detailed case
	FAQ> implies "roll playing."

Just say no to Prince Valiant.

	FAQ> * Combat is conflict, which is the driving force of a
	FAQ> good story.  We need to give combat more detail and
	FAQ> flavor.

Well, I think combat is a pretty complicated event with some radical
results (like your head being torn off) - the rules should try to
represent this in a way believable to the player, wether what they are
trying to represent is a russian firing a howitzer or a dragon
breating acid at you.

This is hard, and requires a lot of planning.

	FAQ> Again, more discussion is needed.

Right.

	FAQ> Q8.  Combat II:  How do I roll for damage?

	FAQ> A8.  You already did when you rolled to hit.  The
	FAQ> concensus is that the damage should be partially
	FAQ> reflected in how well you struck your blow.  Other
	FAQ> factors might be strength, weapon type and quality, and
	FAQ> armor and toughness.

Agreed. And the skill of the attacker. I think we should have a Hit
Location chart. This would go from 01 to 200 - and you get your hit
location by switching the digits of your original, unmodified d100 to
hit roll, and then adding your skill with the weapon / attack form.

Maybe it should also be possible to add here by subtracting from the
to hit roll (you have to say so before you roll, of course) -
representing an attempt to go for a soft spot, with a piercing attack
that will be deflected if you miss. 

These are details though.

	FAQ> * Keep it Simple, Stupid.  Hit Points are easy.  Wounds
	FAQ> are hard.

Hit points are simple - if you put hit points on each hit location, or
general hit area (at least), it's a bit more realistic and
complicated. I cannot swallow the general one-big-hp-pool idea.

Then we could have a big hp pool in addition, so every hit subtracts
from both hit points. Is that worth the hassle? If you're down to 0 on
your big pool, you're dead meat. If you're down to 0 on a body area
HP, that part is dead meat.. :-)

	FAQ> * A Wound System doesn't have to be hard.  But we don't
	FAQ> seem to agree on what type of wound system to use,
	FAQ> exactly.

..or if you're down to .5 HP on a part, it's hard to use it / you
can't use it? What do you think?

	FAQ> Q10. Combat IV: Can I strike vital blows to the head?  If
	FAQ> so, how?

Well, I suppose we could do it like this .. If you want to hit a
spesific location, you f.ex subtract 20 from your hit roll. Now you
cna use those 20 on the hit location chart ( plus or minus ). You
might still not be able to hit the head, but the chance is larger.

Of course your head HP would be lower than f.ex chest HP, so a
violent, smashing or crunching attack to the head should be able to
finish off the victim. Or at least send him dreaming.

	FAQ> it's possible a shot to the arm should be able to hit the
	FAQ> chest if it misses its mark.

This would be pretty nifty - any good ideas on how to do it? I mean -
if you miss with a called shout - you hit a close body part?

	FAQ> We also haven't decided how to make a hit location system
	FAQ> work for non-human critters such as dragons, squid, and
	FAQ> three-headed ogres.

A hit location chart with most body setups, and then individual hit
location charts on those that need their own (like the 3headed ogre).

	FAQ> Q11. Character:  How do I create one?

	FAQ> A11.  Well, give us time.  Rome wasn't built in a day.
	FAQ> It seems we want to have enough characteristics/
	FAQ> attributes to give a sense of detail, but we don't want
	FAQ> too many, either.

I like the TW2000 character generation system. Maybe the simplest way
of doing this genre-independent would be to have a large number of
stats, and then a genre-spesific character sheet listing just relevant
stats for everyday use. (But having all the stats on a Complete
Character Description With All the Small Bits Included)

	FAQ> * Will the bad guys (be they thugs, dragons, or giants)
	FAQ> have the same attributes, just in different ranges?  Or
	FAQ> will they be described completely differently?

Same stats is the most elegant solution. Makes for a simpler combat
system too, when you can just turn the cards around.

	FAQ> * What are the attributes, and what are the ranges?

They should be weighted, like 3d6, 4d6 (minus something?) Well in fact
a 0-99 range would perhaps be nicest, but harder to load. 10d10? 

	FAQ> * Are the values from zero up?  Or can a character have
	FAQ> negative strength, which makes his die rolls lower?

Ahm.. no I don't like negative stats. No good reasons though. 

	FAQ> Q12. Character II:  How do I improve as a character?

I don't have a clue. Well, roleplaying should be rewarded, but that's
so easily affected by the player's charisma and ability to present his
thoughts and ideas.

Maybe all characters should get an equal amount of experience points
after solving a part of the struggle, surviving etc. - and then every
player can distribute these points on skills he has used. The more he
puts on a skill, the larger is the chance that it will rise, and with
more.

	FAQ> A14. First, I think we should discuss those questions
	FAQ> above that don't have definite answers yet.  Perhaps
	FAQ> there should be some committee that makes decisions after
	FAQ> a subject has been talked to death.  I don't know.  I
	FAQ> just wrote this FAQ.  Don't bug me.

Discussion, that's my middle name. Well in fact I don't have a middle
name. I have an initial though. It's "Y" - so it's not very initial
alphabetically speaking, but it serves its purpose.

	FAQ> it might be best to have some people making the decisions
	FAQ> once a subject has reached critical mass.

Ok, that's me. :-) Any objections?

-Magnus (!kibo)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design