Well, the week has gone by. A lot of activity here at HQUnicron.
Let´s give a general view of the purpose of Silent Archaea, and then onto my specific problem.
I´ve been reading some stuff since uploading SA to Game Chef.
I read lots of design journals, publishing tips and procedures. I also read some great games like Donjon, Puppetland and My Life With Master. I like the way those games work, and the way they are written.
Now, I´m not seriously considering publication for SA. It just way too early to even think about it. It´s my first design, and I plan on treating it like that.
However, I like the design process. I would like to make the best game possible. This is a hobby for me, so I´m not afraid of spending a decent amount of time on the game. (Hobby time, that is)
Besides, if GC games were published all the time there would be too many games and not enough gamers :) And playing is what´s important, not text and art.
That´s the idea. I will work on it as professionally as possible. In fact, I plan on doing quite an amount of art for it, since art is what I´m trying to do with my life.
Now onto other things.
The original problem:
I won´t ask anyone to read a draft or anything. I´ll try and explain everything here.
The characters on the game have four attributes: Specialization, Martial, Sanity and Health. Every one of those is given a type of die (d6-d8-d10-d12)
Now, the Health and Sanity attributes had points attached to them. The higher the die type, the more points the character got.
The problem was the Sanity roll mechanic. When a character used a dose of drug, he gained an advantage (scene changing mechanic, basically)
After that he would roll his Sanity die against a target number (8)
Passing the roll (equal or higher) carried no consequences. Failing it, the character lost a Sanity point.
As you can see this made the Sanity attribute doubly important. The higher die type meant more points, and also a higher chance of passing the roll. This was the problem, for I didn´t want an attribute to be stronger that the others.
First solution was this: make the character roll the highest number on the die to pass the roll. Two seconds later I could not find a sensible reason for this (higher Sanity characters having a harder time passing the roll) so I discarded it.
Second solution was having a different target number for each die type. For example: 4 for a d6, 5 for a d8, 7 for a d12, etc. This meant more text, confusing target numbers with only metagame reasons, and overall quite inelegant mechanic.
Ok, stay with me. Now comes the fun part.
I needed a way to give every character the same chance of passing the roll. I didn´t want to change the points table, since I wanted characters with different amounts of Sanity points.
So I decided that the player would roll his Sanity die against a variable difficulty. Specifically, a “difficulty die” of the same die type. This means the d6 Sanity character would roll a d6 for his attribute against another d6. Equal or higher roll, he passes the test.
This would give everyone the same chance of succeeding, since a d12 Sanity character would roll against a d12, and so on.
I thought this was what I was looking for. But there was no need for a completely different mechanic, no matter how important Sanity rolls were. So I decided to mutate the whole system from a fixed target number, to a variable target number.
Now every attribute would roll against a difficulty (still set by the GM) that would be another die roll.
Now, I set the attributes to be variations of this die types: d6, d8, d10, and d12. A d20 just went over the charts as far as progression.
The thing is I know crap about probabilities and stuff. I´m thinking of a difficulty die table such as this.
Automatic action – no roll
Easy action – d4
Average difficulty action – d6
Hard action – d8
Very difficult – d10
Almost impossible – d12
Impossible – no roll
This means an attribute with a d12 is actually very powerful. But I made the limitations so it was possible to have a d12 on an attribute, but a d6 was necessary.
So, what do you guys think? You think I should keep this train of thought? Is this system viable. Is the table right or is it too difficult to do stuff? There is a mechanic for tokens which can modify rolls too. It is small now. But maybe I can increase it to give the players more tokens, or something like that.
Thanks for any and all comments. Sorry for the lenght.
Cheers!!
May 7, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Alright, I’ll comment on this in more depth later, but here is a quick guess at the probabilities (having run it in a quick Excel Spreadsheet)
VS (d4/d6/d8/d10/d12/d20)
d4 = 48.6/27.3/19.3/16.6/11.7/7.2
d6 = 68.9/50.2/34/26.8/22.6/14.2
d8 = 80.9/65.8/52.9/41.1/32.2/19.8
d10 = 84.6/71.8/62.9/53.3/40.8/23.0
d12 = 86.7/78.1/67.6/58.7/50.3/29.7
d20 = 91.8/88.8/82.8/76.1/73.2/51.3
May 8, 2007 at 2:56 am
Wow, thanks for that. It´s really useful :)
May 8, 2007 at 10:05 am
The mechanic seems workable to me, although looking at the probability chart, with stats from d6 to d12, making d4 an average difficulty and going up from this could work better, possibly. Easy actions would effectively become automatic, but if something is easy, there should rarely be any need to bother with it (if it’s important enough, it could be given d4 difficulty just as well).
d12 for almost impossible doesn’t seem enough, however, and neither does d20, if you want to keep the current gradation of difficulties.
Another option of dealing with the original problem, anyway, would be disconnecting the points from the die type, basing them on something else.
May 8, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Alright… further comments. I extended the probability run a little bit further to get more accurate numbers (although they are pretty durn close to the originals)
Against (d4/d6/d8/d10/d12/d20)
D4: 48.54/29.16/22.68/17.38/13.96/8.10
D6: 69.78/49.12/35.88/28.38/23.10/12.68
D8: 77.76/63.66/50.06/39.00/32.02/18.32
D10: 84.32/73.94/62.02/50.66/42.26/23.58
D12: 86.40/76.98/67.82/59.24/49.44/29.60
D20: 92.26/87.40/81.14/76.46/70.76/49.90
I actually quite like the system of “opposed rolls”, it creates some drama that may or may not be present in traditional fixed difficulty systems.
Some concerns though. As Filip points out, one problem with this method is that even using the lowest dice (d4) against your highest difficulty (d12) there is still a signficant chance of success (around 7%). This may be a feature rather than a bug! Likewise, flipping it around, even with the highest skill (d12) against the easiest difficulty (d4) you will fail around 7% of the time.
These oddities get more pronounced as you move down the table.
Another thing that you might want to be concerned about is the players ‘perception’ regarding rolling versus a variable difficulty. You may find that some people like to know “what they are shooting for” (this could be solved by having the GM roll first).
Finally, unless you really like the new dice rolling system (and I do think that it is nifty) it seems that reconfiguring your sanity mechanic is easier than reconfiguring the way all dice are rolled.
For instance:
Consider giving everyone the same number of sanity tokens (I know you said you wanted variable numbers, but it makes your design more clean to take it out).
Consider (if you are keeping a variable number of tokens) ‘Fixing’ the sanity dice at a set value (say ‘D8′).
At any rate, glad things are coming along for you!
May 11, 2007 at 5:36 pm
I have a question, why does everyone need the same chance of passing a sanity roll? Isn’t that the point of assigning dice to attributes. Such as, if you take a d4 in sanity there are certain levels of change you just can’t do.
I both like and dislike the variable difficulty as that it adds a sense of randomness. I like that because it seems more realistic even doing the samething may be easier at times than others or may work once and fail the next. I dislike it for the same reasons. If you keep it, I think the table works. If you drop you, you need numbers that must be rolled aboved (much like the table: 4 for easy, 6 for moderate, etc and no roll is made it’s always that number).