🚀 go-pugleaf

>>>>> On Thu, 12 Nov 92 22:45:14 EEZ, towo@swob.nullnet.fi (Mika Toivola) said:

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

Mika> I personally dislike open-ended thinking, but I rather like to
Mika> use a combination on dice, so thet the probability chart is a
Mika> bell-curve (I hope I'm making myself understood). So that a
Mika> result in either end of the table is MUCH less probable than the
Mika> average one. Personally I like the idea of three (3) dice, since
Mika> 2 don't give a curve sharp enough, and 4 would probably be too
Mika> clumsy. Say that we would use 3 dice of D10, the chance of
Mika> throwing a 3 is 1 against 1000 (I think), sounds like improbable
Mika> enough. That would give us a scale of 3->30. What do you say?
Mika> No need for re-throwing :-)

I agree, at least in principle.  The main gripe against percentile
dice is the 'flat' distribution they give.  Openendedness is, face it,
a kludge :-)

Skills and stats on a smaller range, IMHO tend to be a little coarse,
I'd like to look upan them as continuos.

Perhaps we could have various distributions/dice for various degrees
of difficulty and randomness of the task?  If luck is a major factor
(perhaps in damage done by a bullet, or better yet, a grenade) use a
flatter distribution than if skill is most important (either you're
good enough, or you're not)

	Mika> Yes, I say two systems, one used normally, the other in
	Mika> "mass combat" situations (or when playtime is running
	Mika> out :-)

I think combat, and most other things should be detailed down as much
as you like.  The levels of detail for combat could be:
  
 1 fighting one-on-one in full, blood soaking detail, hit for hit
   (use this for advanced player-vs-npc battles)
 2 fighting one-on-one in a quick way, roll a couple of dice, smack -
   he's dead (npc-vs-npc, optional for players perhaps)
 3 Fighting group-vs-group
and perhaps
 4 Army vs army
   
In a war, this means we could have several levels of detail going on
simultaneously, battles without PC's in them could be done the
army-vs-army way, with PCs mostly level 3, when a 'platoon'  (or
whatever) with pc's in it is fightning, perhaps detail it even more.

I'm not sure how this would work, especially with respect to
interfacing winth magic systems etc.  Solution?  Screw magic :-)

	Mika> Yes. Note that in figuring out the damage we should not
	Mika> take into account the skill, since it was already used
	Mika> in checking how well the blow hit. You are stuck with
	Mika> the D100 now, let's get the basics straight first, you
	Mika> seem to be fine-tuning already :-)

Well, I hope you're not saying skill isn't important when it comes to
damage inflicted, InMyNot-so-humbleOpinion, it is crucial.  Esp. in
melee/bocy combat.

> 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.

	Mika> Sorry, I quite couldn 't figure out what you're saying
	Mika> there. Are you still talkin D100?

I'd like the 'default' hit locations to vary with weapons used, i.e. a
slashing weapon will have a tendency to hit arms and head, a
piercing/stabbing/thrusting weapon should have a tendency to hit the
torso. 

> 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.

This is good.  Keep the values absolute!

Perhaps we could have different HP according to different kinds of
damage?  A knife couldn't do much to a brick wall, but a sledgehammer
could.  Or something like Twilight armor modifiers.


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

Perhaps on a less detailed scale, esp. if they're not too important,
or you have to draw them up in a hurry.

> 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? 

5d20 :-)  I like the 0-99 range, but remember dragons should also be
included in this range.  If a man has a strength of ~20, I don't see
why a troll shouldn't have 60 or so, and dragons perhaps 100.  Maybe
even more?  Perhaps we shouldn't even have limits on stats?

-ketil
--
 = Ketil Malde                     In real life:  ketil@ii.uib.no =
 = Nuke the whales!                    Honk if you love unicorns! =