ORACLE

11/23/2010

[Sword & Sanity RPG] Resolution Systems

Roleplaying games are designed around two very important building blocks, player interaction and task resolution. I want to take a moment to discuss the later, and some of the choices I have made while designing the various task resolution systems for Swords Against the Outer Dark: Sword & Sanity Roleplaying.

As I have discussed extensively in the past, this game is being designed as an extension of the Labyrinth Lord rules. When I decided I wanted to take on this project it became clear early on that I wanted the design and gameplay to be as close to LL as possible. So far, I feel I have achieved this, but there are a few things I have changed along the way. Task resolution has been a big change, though my approach has been more of a reorganization of the rules more than it has been an overhaul.

In Labyrinth Lord there are several task resolution systems which are used. A very thorough breakdown and discussion of this can be found here (B/X D&D and LL work the same). All in all, I do not have many complaints about how most things are handled, but I have to admit that the OCD part of my brain tends to squirm when I try to understand the reasoning behind some of the game design decisions that were made.

A good example of what I mean by this is the way thieving abilities are handled. Six of the seven skills listed require percentile dice to be rolled when used, but Hear Noise instead requires a d6 to be rolled when it is used. Why is this? Why not have all thieving abilities use a d00? Also, why do thieving abilities use percentile, as does the Ranger's tracking ability in AD&D, but the Cleric's turn undead ability uses a 2d6 when used? It just seems odd to me to create a different task resolution system for Class Abilities each time a new class was designed...

Anyway, as I said before, I am not redesigning the game as much as I am reorganizing and cleaning things up the way I feel they need to be cleaned up. Quickly, here are a few thought I want to share concerning the task resolutions systems I will have in place:
  • Texture and Fun - I could have easily discarded most of the dice mechanics present in the LL system, and pared it down to just one task resolution system, but I decided against doing that. The main reason for this is because rolling dice is fun. Its that simple. I honestly believe that some of the system burnout I suffered from playing d20 based games came from the fact that all of the subsystems present in older editions of D&D were thrown out and replaced with a single d20 based system. It took me a long time to realize that by doing this D&D/d20 lost a whole hell of a lot of texture and flavor. The system became boring. By keeping multiple systems to resolve various tasks it allows the players to roll a wide variety of dice during the game. It sounds childlike, but I feel that rolling a wide variety of dice makes the game that much more interesting and engaging. This is just my opinion, of course.
  • d6 Common Adventuring Actions - In the Sword & Sanity RPG all player characters are Adventurers first and foremost, no matter what Class the player chooses to play. Each of the different Classes in the game simply represents a "class" of Adventurer. Nothing revolutionary about this, but it is a different way of organizing the game data. As it stands, LL has a few common adventuring "skills" that use a d6 to resolve, such as Find Traps, Hear Noises, Foraging, Hunting, etc. Unfortunately, all of these skills are scattered throughout the rulebook, just as they were with the B/X D&D rulebooks. In the Sword & Sanity RPG rulebook all of these Common Adventuring Actions have been compiled and listed under the entry for Adventurer. These actions on the most part work the same as they did before, and use a d6 to resolve.
  • d00 Class Abilities - As I mentioned earlier, it bothers me that Clerics use one dice system for their Abilities and Thieves use another. Why not have all Class Abilities resolve using the same dice mechanic? I decided to use a d00 to resolve the use of Class Abilities across the board. I have designed six Classes for the game, and every one of these classes has Class Abilities that use the d00 mechanic. (I will be discussing the Classes in greater detail beginning next week) So, why not use a d6 to resolve Class Abilities just like the Common Adventuring Actions mentioned above? The reason I chose to use d00 over d6 is because I feel Class Abilities require a dice roll that offers pinpoint accuracy in the results. When rolling a d6 the range of results is very dramatic (i.e. 1 = 16.66666666666667%, 2 = 33.33333333333333%, 3 = 50%, 4 = 66.66666666666667, 5 = 83.33333333333333%, 6 = 100%). This seems fine to me when rolling to resolve Common Adventuring Actions, because they are not as important to the character as Class Abilities are. Class Abilities deserve more attention to detail and accuracy, which can only be gained by using percentile dice.
  • 2d6 Calculating Results - When a Class Ability is used sometimes there is a need to calculate a random number that represents the end results of using said Ability. The number of undead which are turned, or the number of rounds it takes for a lock to be picked, are two examples of how this works. If larger sums are required, simply add additional six sided dice to the mix, roll the dice and add up the total.
  • d6 Initiative - Nothing has changed here. Initiative (so far) has remained unchanged from the LL rules.
  • 3d6 Ability Checks - Ability Checks work as explained in the LL rules, but instead of using a d20 to resolve these checks I decided to use 3d6. This allows for more predictable results due to the belle curve 3d6 creates when rolled. Using a d20 can be more unruly than I wanted for Ability Checks in the game.
  • d20 Combat - Unlike Ability Checks, I wanted combat to be chaotic and unpredictable, so I decided it best to keep the d20 mechanic in place. Not much has changed in this regard.
So, what do you think? Am I on the right track here, or have I included too many resolution systems in the game? I look forward to hearing arguments for and against my design choices.

5 comments:

thekelvingreen said...

I went around on this myself, when I was thinking of running a Labyrinth Lord game. I started out changing all class abilities to be based on a d6 roll, so they'd match up with the generic abilities, but something was missing.

I realised that I liked the way the different task resolution systems worked, because it helped emphasise the differences between the classes. If you're playing a thief, then you've got your percentile dice at your side of the table, and no one else has them, so that makes your character feel more unique than it does when you just have "Thief" written at the top of your character sheet.

(I blame/thank my experiences with D&D4 for this. There is a game in which every class and sub-class works in exactly the same way, using the same mechanics and the same dice, and a lot of the unique feel of the classes is lost. I realised I missed that, and didn't want to bring the same flatness into LL.)

So if I were to run LL again, I'd keep all the subsystems. I might make a slight concession to modernity and change them so that they all roll high or something like that, but that would be it.

Rich said...

I like the point that both of you are making about different mechanics for each character class creating an individual feel for each type. It is hard to resist the temptation of creating a "universal" method for handling actions, when actually a bunch of small resolution systems may do the job better.

Sean Robson said...

I've always been attracted to universal mechanics - they satisfy my innate desire for symmetry and elegance. But I think that sometimes you can push a unified mechanic too far, using out of hide-bound obsession rather than genuine pragmatism.

I've been wrestling with this issue, myself, lately as I've been working on my own project and have a universal task resolution mechanic based around rolling under your ability score that I quite like, but I find myself tempted to shoehorn this mechanic into everything.

I think you've struck upon a nice balance, Shane, with just a few different, well organized, categories of mechanics. Each serves its purpose while avoiding the chaotic helter-skelter of methods that so offends my need for order and structure.

Jeoshua said...

Personally, in my game mechanics I've been working on for my science fiction game, I used a d10 based resolution system. In fact, every conflict in the game would be handled with the same dice, stats, and skills. The reason for this was to streamline the gameplay. I didn't want players to have to roll dice and think hard and do math to do simple things in the game, rather prefering that the rules remain in the background and that imagination be the rule and roll of the day. Unified all the way.

But this post has made me think twice about that. Possibly I could use both the custom signed 2d10, take lowest method I am using, and also use a d00 method, positive die being the 10s, for certain other things. I shall have to think on this.

thekelvingreen said...

I think it's a matter of flavour and taste. I can see why a universal mechanic would be desirable, and sometimes that's the way my interests lie. It's neat and coherent. Then again, there's some very Gamist fun to be had in the idea of having a different ruleset to handle each character's abilities, and I find that when it comes to D&D at least, I lean toward that direction.