🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov13.022324.10307@alf.uib.no> magnus@ii.uib.no writes:
>Last Update: Nov 13 1992
>large degree of configurability depending on the genre and campaign. A
>C program to make a life-path generation system based on asking the GM
>questions has been suggested. There will also have to be a
>point-allocation version. 
Excellent idea.  It would be especially useful if this system could 
produce reasonable "stock" npc rather quickly.  
>
>ketil suggested that the skill-system should be hierarchic, with
>expensive root skills and cheap leaf skill. Martial arts would be a
>root skill and langsword could be a leaf skill.
Good deal if all the calculations are done for you.  Otherwise way too
much to deal with.  (Do you want to be able to potentially move campaigns
to a non-computing environment occasionally?)
>Q4.	Should there be one game mechanic?
>
>A4.	Not decided. There has been some opposition to using just one
>kind of dice because it has been suggested that it makes for boredom.
>Then again it is a lot more elegant, and will probably be.
>
>torbenm suggests that we should use a small number of game mechanics,
>so we don't have to force everything into one.
One dice, multiple mechanics sounds good to me, but what real problem is
there with using multiple dice?
>Q5.	What will the one game mechanic be?
>1.	Roll two d20 and subtract one from the other. Add any modifications
>due to skill.
Maybe too linear?
>2.	Roll just one d20, and your opponent rolls one as well. Each
>side adds in mods for skills, advantages etc. Subtract as in 1.
Good idea but still might be too linear.  At least two people are 
involved.
>3.	Ressult Point-based system. Open-ended d20 converts into nil,
>one or two results point. Higher skills make for higher chance of
>rerolling -> more result points.
Hmm, maybe more explanation of how this works?
>4.	You roll d100, if you roll 5 or less, you roll again and
>subtract the second result. If you roll 95 or more on the first roll,
>you roll again and add. Then you add modifiers.
Decent system but I find it too linear in general.  Open-ended is nice 
though.
>jbridson proposed using a deck of cards. This did not seem to meet
>with a lot of enthusiasm, though.
Actually if done correctly it could be very good.  Cards have the unique
advantage in that drawing without replacement affects future draws.  In
general probably too much shuffling though. :-)
>2.	Detailed descriptions of all the general levels of
>success/failure, including examples + links to actual results in most
>skill descriptions, including numerous examples.
Probably the only practical system.  Make a table that will include 
combat and spell-casting/power use well please :-).
>Q7.	Combat; detailed or streamlined?
>
>A7.	Detailed and Streamlined. We don't want to make another Prince
>Valiant - we are aiming for considerable realism, or at least
>believeability. On the net experts in all fields are available, we
>will use them. 
Good.
>mathers suggested that we use a map-based combat system. magnus does
>not think should be required, but it might be nice for an optional
>rule - especially in those mother-of-wars battles.
Very good so long as it is easy to use while gaming.  I tend to end up
having to draw pictures of rooms, halls buildings anyhow when battles
get complex.
>Q8.	How do you roll for damage?
>
>A8.	You already did that when you rolled to hit. Factors are how
>well you hit, strength, weapon type, quality, armor, toughness. Some
>people (ralph) think that damage does not increase with skill. He
>seems to be a minority, though.
>There are also weapon considerations that must be observed here.
Damage should depend on both your success and weapon (skill determines
success, do you want to count it twice???)  Additionally weapons should
have certain points (in terms of success) at which they become more 
damaging.  In other words their damage does not increase linearly with
success but (depending on the weapon) either levels or increases along a
more exponential line.
>Q9.	Hit points or wounds?
>
>A9.	Hit points distributed onto body parts, but also with a
>'central HP bank' that you draw from each time you draw from a body
>part. When you get low, you are wounded and cannot perform some tasks.
How about hp on limbs, and then two other factors, blood and exhaustion.
When hp on a limb = 0 the limb goes limp/useless.  (at some - it is severed).
Wounds also take exh. and potentially blood (maybe over successive rounds).
If blood = 0 your dead.  Finis.  If exhaustion reaches 0 you become
unconscious.  Obviously you have variable recovery rates.
>Q10.	Hit locations?
>
>A10.	When you roll a d100 to hit, you just switch the digit to find
>the hit location. If you want to hit a spesific location, you can
>subtract from your to hit roll (before making it), and add (or
>subtract), to your hit location roll. 
>There will have to be a hit location chart for each major body type
>and one for each weird monster (like 3headed ogres). 
>tdunn said this: If you have a higher skill, you get to roll more dice
>at the hit-location table, and then you choose one of them.
Hmm.  To me the attack success role is 90% of hit location.  If I have a 
spear and get some phenominal success that wouldn't mean I hit you in the
foot no matter how hard :-).  Actually my suggestions for weapon damage
don't take into account a location based system.  Still if the hit location
is kept like this I think it is a good idea.

>jbridson (robert) is only one of several proposing weaknesses. If you
>play with a 'restricted' character generation, a weakness would give
>you extra points to distribute among positive attributes / abilities.
You can add my voice here.  I like the life-path approach where you at
each point either have to choose a route, or have to choose a skill or 
weakness (expending points as you go).  When you run out of points you
are done, figure your age depending on how far you went and are ready to
play.  (Means heroic prodigies will generally start very young, while a
gambling, alcholic one-eyed, illegal ex-pirate character might start much 
older.)
>
>Q12.	How do I improve?
>
>
>A13.	There has been some discussion as to where the 'human touch'
>should be focused. magnus suggests that the human touch is essential
>in details as well as in the grand picture, while mav wants this to be
>saved for the campaign and the "role-playing". He wants the rules to
>take care of all the small-scale effects. 
The system should definitly handle everything for the beginning player.  It
is always easier to remove or replace than it is to add.
>

>Q14.	What should be in net.rpg?
>
>A14.	At least this (according to RDT111 and others):
>
>System for creating characters
>Mechanics for learning skills
>Mechanics for using skills
>Combat System
>Advancement system
>Campaign Advices
>Customization Guidelines
>
>Genre spesifics:
>
>Magic system
>Equipment lists
>World outlines
>
Looking forward to it! :-)

>Q15.	Are there any attributes yet?
>
>A15.	jliukkon proposed these:
>
>Build
>Fitness
>Consciousness
>Subconsciousness / Instinct
I take it we're into minimalism? :-)  I prefer more personally but I won't
bother trying to come with a list unless someone is interested.  Still if 
this is the approach you want then three are fine:
Physical
Cognitive
Psychic
Anything more could probably be fit under one of these categories.

				Wow, much too long :-)

				Brian Leet  (Brian @ UD, TMI-2)