Print

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

[AoshimaMichio]

Okay, i have an another odd idea:
Each stat, instead of adding straight bonuses(except for +x/+x, it is effectively a straight bonus), it instead increases the part of the dice instead. For example;
Base dice is 1~6
X stat is 0/+2
When X stat is used, then
1~(6+Stat)=1~(6+2)=1~8

Another example-
Base dice is 1~20
Y stat is 0/+5
When Y stat is used, then
1~(20+stat)=1~(20+5)=1~25

The first part, however, adjusts the lower side of the dice. For example:
Base Dice is 1~6
Z stat is -1/0
When Z stat is used, then
(1-stat)d~=(1-1)~6=0~6
So it's like this:
-1/+4 at 1~6 becomes 0~10
+1/-4 at 1~6 becomes a sure 2.
Note: trying to add bonuses beyond it's current max, or trying to add maluses beyond it's current min, well, divide by two and round down (max to bonuses, min to maluses).
Adding bonuses to the lower side of the dice, however, costs triple as much as adding bonuses the upper side. The reverse doesn't apply to maluses, however.
Not sure if this will work.

I had similar idea before. The problem is how do you handle the extremes (overshoots, total failures) when everybody has different dice. If one has 1-6 die and another 6-15 die, does it mean the latter will overshoot most of the time and technically never fails? Or do you scale it so that both can fail, but latter will always win against the first one?

It's workable, but I feel like it slips a bit on the gray side of the concept of RTD.

[H4zardZ1]

Okay, i have an another odd idea:
Each stat, instead of adding straight bonuses(except for +x/+x, it is effectively a straight bonus), it instead increases the part of the dice instead. For example;
Base dice is 1~6
X stat is 0/+2
When X stat is used, then
1~(6+Stat)=1~(6+2)=1~8

Another example-
Base dice is 1~20
Y stat is 0/+5
When Y stat is used, then
1~(20+stat)=1~(20+5)=1~25

The first part, however, adjusts the lower side of the dice. For example:
Base Dice is 1~6
Z stat is -1/0
When Z stat is used, then
(1-stat)~6=(1-1)~6=0~6
So it's like this:
-1/+4 at 1~6 becomes 0~10
+1/-4 at 1~6 becomes a sure 2.
Note: trying to add bonuses beyond it's current max, or trying to add maluses beyond it's current min, well, divide by two and round down (max to bonuses, min to maluses).
Adding bonuses to the lower side of the dice, however, costs triple as much as adding bonuses the upper side. The reverse doesn't apply to maluses, however.
Not sure if this will work.

I had similar idea before. The problem is how do you handle the extremes (overshoots, total failures) when everybody has different dice. If one has 1-6 die and another 6-15 die, does it mean the latter will overshoot most of the time and technically never fails? Or do you scale it so that both can fail, but latter will always win against the first one?

It's workable, but I feel like it slips a bit on the gray side of the concept of RTD.

The bonus min part (at least, at this system) is more stat-heavy than the max, so it acts like most +(number)s. So basically no epic failures if +1/(irrelevant) or more.
The overshot part is the max of the dice.

...Although most stat-games erased overshot but kept the epic failure in. Let me ask a question: Which stat system is better for my upcoming game, current or the above?

[H4zardZ1]

On a D2, it would overshoot 1/2 of the time.

Why don't you just only use them for rolling off?

most stat-games erased overshot

[Person]

Believe it or not, a system like the one you're discussing already exists.  Not that yours doesn't have some merits, but the one I'm going to tell you about is probably simpler to understand.

The system to which I refer is Sean Mirrsen's progressive die system, which I will copy pasta here. I'm not 100% sure when it was first used/suggested/created, but it can be found in a few places like here and here. I've always kind of liked it for a few reasons.

=== PROGRESSIVE ROLL RULES ===

For every Action a Player submits, the Game Master rolls a die to determine its outcome.
The number of sides on the die rolled is determined by the value of the skill or attribute assigned to performing said Action.
The outcomes are selected from a predetermined list, sorted by severity:
Epic Fail(EF): The intended result was not achieved, and the character suffers additional problems as a consequence.
Failure(F): The intended result was not achieved, but no further complications occur.
Partial Success(PS): The result is only partially achieved, with exact degree determined circumstantially by GM.
Success(S): The result is achieved, though the character may suffer unintended consequences.
Epic Success(ES): The result is achieved, and any consequences turn out positively for the character.
Overshot(OS): The result is nominally achieved, but the character suffers consequences from intentionally or unintentionally "overdoing" the action.

The table of outcomes is determined thus:
(Die Value):[Roll Value]-Outcome;

(D1):[1]-Epic Fail.
(D2):[1]-EF;[2]-Fail.
(D3):[1]-EF;[2]-F;[3]-Partial Success.
(D4):[1]-EF;[2]-F;[3]-PS;[4]-Success.
(D5):[1]-EF;[2]-F;[3]-PS;[4]-S;[5]-Overshot.
(D6):[1]-EF;[2]-F;[3]-PS;[4]-S;[5]-Epic Success;[6]-OS.

Above (D6), the outcome table is expanded by padding Success outcomes inbetween Partial and Epic Successes.
Thus, for instance, a roll of (D10) will look like this:

(D10):[1]-EF;[2]-F;[3]-PS;[4-8]-S;[9]-ES;[10]-OS.

As a rule of thumb, the severity of the overshots and epic fails will depend on the value of the die being rolled - so getting a [5] out of a (D5) is a much milder overshot than a [10] out of a (D10)

Basically, bonuses increase die size rather than result, leading to diminishing returns. Personally, I think enhancing all of the results might be better, not just overshot and epic failure.  I'd probably add more perfect successes further down the line if I didn't do just that. Suffice to say that it is a versatile system, which is why I'm disappointed that it doesn't get used more. The main downside it that it warrants a random number generator, as I doubt many people own a d7/d9/d11. I mostly like it because it penalizes dump stats much higher.

Another downside is that contested rolls between two or more highly skilled/extremely strong things can be somewhat vague, as both sides usually succeed to some degree. Very few games would warrant rolling more a die larger than d12 though, so I feel it is passable in that regard. The system definitely fizzles out in effectiveness around the d20 though.

For awhile now, I've actually been considering building a modified progressive system that goes Epic fail, fail, fail, partial success, partial success, success, and THEN we start adding higher degrees of success. We would upgrade fails to partial successes, partial successes to successes, and successes to epic successes. There would be no positive overshot in such a system, but perhaps Epic fail would have it's own table. Such a system would mostly symbolize a d6 as the average, unskilled person's ability to do any given task. Going up to d8 or d10 would be someone who mostly knows what they're doing, and a d12 would be more professional. Of course, an rtd should always have a chance of failure, because otherwise there's not much point in rolling dice really is there.

The basic d6 is a good system on its own, especially in a minimalist setting, but adding bonuses and penalties to it defeats the purpose. 6 numbers or results is far too rigid to throw off like that, from what I've seen. Even a +1 bonus is such an absurd advantage under such a system that if one does a little statistics, either everyone has to minmax in such a system, or no one does.  In most cases, a more complex game warrants a more complex system. That's not to say that there aren't exceptions, but those games are generally more exceptional due to the people that run them than the system used to run them.

Well, that ended up being a larger wall of text than I thought I would make, but I hope it'll be useful.

Edit: Another alternative could be a hybrid system, where both the die size and the modifier increase or decrease. I think that's what you're creating though, so carry on.

[Salsacookies]

Link!

Went with Singapore for the setting. May decide to visit Dubai later, I could see this working as a globetrotting squad game

[lawastooshort]

It would be great to come up with a fool proof mechanism for finding an extra spare hour in every day and undying motivation and inspiration to enable a return to GMing.

I've thought about games with a built in definite end point, say, Turn 10.

To summarise: Woe is me.

[IronyOwl]

Well, inspiration tends to breed motivation. What are you feelin? Naked Flaming Priest-Off 4: Haunted Hill?

[lawastooshort]

Ha!

Well. No, surprisingly.

I have three current ideas, apart from the other ideas I have temporarily forgotten. One, indeed, is Roll to Not Be Naked or Aflame. Two is Roll to Be a Janitor at GenCorp. Both of these are variations on "Roll to Live", in my mind. Three is Roll to Brian, since my other Monty Python adaptation worked quite well.

[Yoink]

I vote for #2, because I'LL REDEEM MYSELF THIS TIME DAMN IT.
Whatever the case, though, a new la game would be excellent.

[H4zardZ1]

Believe it or not, a system like the one you're discussing already exists.  Not that yours doesn't have some merits, but the one I'm going to tell you about is probably simpler to understand.

The system to which I refer is Sean Mirrsen's progressive die system, which I will copy pasta here. I'm not 100% sure when it was first used/suggested/created, but it can be found in a few places like here and here. I've always kind of liked it for a few reasons.

=== PROGRESSIVE ROLL RULES ===

For every Action a Player submits, the Game Master rolls a die to determine its outcome.
The number of sides on the die rolled is determined by the value of the skill or attribute assigned to performing said Action.
The outcomes are selected from a predetermined list, sorted by severity:
Epic Fail(EF): The intended result was not achieved, and the character suffers additional problems as a consequence.
Failure(F): The intended result was not achieved, but no further complications occur.
Partial Success(PS): The result is only partially achieved, with exact degree determined circumstantially by GM.
Success(S): The result is achieved, though the character may suffer unintended consequences.
Epic Success(ES): The result is achieved, and any consequences turn out positively for the character.
Overshot(OS): The result is nominally achieved, but the character suffers consequences from intentionally or unintentionally "overdoing" the action.

The table of outcomes is determined thus:
(Die Value):[Roll Value]-Outcome;

(D1):[1]-Epic Fail.
(D2):[1]-EF;[2]-Fail.
(D3):[1]-EF;[2]-F;[3]-Partial Success.
(D4):[1]-EF;[2]-F;[3]-PS;[4]-Success.
(D5):[1]-EF;[2]-F;[3]-PS;[4]-S;[5]-Overshot.
(D6):[1]-EF;[2]-F;[3]-PS;[4]-S;[5]-Epic Success;[6]-OS.

Above (D6), the outcome table is expanded by padding Success outcomes inbetween Partial and Epic Successes.
Thus, for instance, a roll of (D10) will look like this:

(D10):[1]-EF;[2]-F;[3]-PS;[4-8]-S;[9]-ES;[10]-OS.

As a rule of thumb, the severity of the overshots and epic fails will depend on the value of the die being rolled - so getting a [5] out of a (D5) is a much milder overshot than a [10] out of a (D10)

Basically, bonuses increase die size rather than result, leading to diminishing returns. Personally, I think enhancing all of the results might be better, not just overshot and epic failure.  I'd probably add more perfect successes further down the line if I didn't do just that. Suffice to say that it is a versatile system, which is why I'm disappointed that it doesn't get used more. The main downside it that it warrants a random number generator, as I doubt many people own a d7/d9/d11. I mostly like it because it penalizes dump stats much higher.

Another downside is that contested rolls between two or more highly skilled/extremely strong things can be somewhat vague, as both sides usually succeed to some degree. Very few games would warrant rolling more a die larger than d12 though, so I feel it is passable in that regard. The system definitely fizzles out in effectiveness around the d20 though.

For awhile now, I've actually been considering building a modified progressive system that goes Epic fail, fail, fail, partial success, partial success, success, and THEN we start adding higher degrees of success. We would upgrade fails to partial successes, partial successes to successes, and successes to epic successes. There would be no positive overshot in such a system, but perhaps Epic fail would have it's own table. Such a system would mostly symbolize a d6 as the average, unskilled person's ability to do any given task. Going up to d8 or d10 would be someone who mostly knows what they're doing, and a d12 would be more professional. Of course, an rtd should always have a chance of failure, because otherwise there's not much point in rolling dice really is there.

The basic d6 is a good system on its own, especially in a minimalist setting, but adding bonuses and penalties to it defeats the purpose. 6 numbers or results is far too rigid to throw off like that, from what I've seen. Even a +1 bonus is such an absurd advantage under such a system that if one does a little statistics, either everyone has to minmax in such a system, or no one does.  In most cases, a more complex game warrants a more complex system. That's not to say that there aren't exceptions, but those games are generally more exceptional due to the people that run them than the system used to run them.

Well, that ended up being a larger wall of text than I thought I would make, but I hope it'll be useful.

Edit: Another alternative could be a hybrid system, where both the die size and the modifier increase or decrease. I think that's what you're creating though, so carry on.

...Reminds me of a game that i read. Skill increases the dice from 1~4 to 1~7, if i'm not wrong.

Hybrid system, but rather than modifier itself, the min part of the dice increases instead. It's effectively a +1 with 1 less dice size.




Unless something happens or i get lazy, thread starts tomorrow (at GMT+8?). You can send vehicle and maps now, and quick!
...Or do i need to send the quote here?

[lawastooshort]

I vote for #2, because I'LL REDEEM MYSELF THIS TIME DAMN IT.
Whatever the case, though, a new la game would be excellent.

I would very much enjoy running one. I don't know if I can make the time though, or use the time writing it as relaxation from the current stresses which mean I have no time, if that makes sense.

I have to think.

Also it's very possible that I've gone either bad or rusty

[FallacyofUrist]

It's been so long... Gencorp, you said? The Gencorp?
I still remember crazy axe employee versus his boss from reading the old Gencorp game!

So best of luck to you.

[lawastooshort]

Thank you. I think I'd need it.

And yes, the very same GenCorp.

[Mr.Zero]

After my last reboot flopped epically (I really overestimated the want for high story telling RTD's), I was wondering wether there is any interest in one of the following.

A high fantasy rtd, which I would like to reboot. Namely Monster Hunter RTD. Back then I was a young faggot with somewhat shit story telling, but I believe that I significantly improved and I renewed some of the content in separate documents.

There's also a mech rtd with a module based system A la gundam-ish? With a hex-based combat system, which I never properly ran or....

some gag rtd which I sometimes work on. I was wondering how it would look like on a wiki based page, so I imported three 'classes' to give you a feel.

http://ortd.wikidot.com/wiki:muscle-saint
http://ortd.wikidot.com/wiki:gun-mage
http://ortd.wikidot.com/wiki:patessarie-girl

It would be some wacky ass rtd, in a mish mash high fantasy world. With some other classes being Mad scientist (Has one ability, namely to pick up random junk and transform it into not so safe but working devices of mass destruction), The counter-striker (Gun based class akin to a gunslinger) or the hobo (With the ability to even make gods give you stuff, because of your begging skills).

[lawastooshort]

I would totally hunt monsters.