Working on a new system and would like to share with /tg/ to use or read as they like.https://files.catbox.moe/4vx58r.pdfThe system is Valor, Glory, Power. Core gameplay loop is early medieval adventurer, into mercenary leader, into fief owner, into regional power. Those systems are currently developing well but I wanted to create a combat system that works.The system: The system uses D6 dice pools made up of Attribute+Fighting Rank+Gear Bonus. Prior to rolling, combatants choose (in secret) one of 4 "intents" or approaches to the fight with advantages and disadvantages (usually higher reward/higher risk down to lower risk/lower reward).-It uses an injury system somewhat similar to Tales from Eslewhere (as opposed to Hitpoints)-Armor is functional and meaningful-Fights last ~4-8 exchanges on average in tests on the table. Averaging 8-20 minutes. Much faster against weaker or unarmored opponents. -Roll and compare margin of success to see what happens. Keep margin of success as "position" that can be spent later in the fight. Often to do real damage, you need to slowly accumulate a positional advantage (or force your opponent to overextend)-Reach and range are abstracted by weapon length. Gridless range bands.-It's brutal, some fights can be over in 1-2 exchanges-Grappling matters, especially into armored opponents; but it's highest risk vs reward
>>97316925>Who is this for?My friends. It's also for folks with similar taste. Those who enjoy the historically-inspired RPGs with a leaning toward simulationism>What is "medium crunch"?If you want incredibly high granularity and specificity you will not get that with this RPG. Song of Swords does this best. Mythras does it well. It's heavily inspired by both. What it does is tries to maintain some of that realism but add a speed of resolution.>What does it do well?Simultaneous resolutions as opposed to "I go you go" hit, parry, hit, parry sequences. Abstracting someone who would aim to parry a bit more as choosing a "guarded" intention as opposed to an "overwhelm" intention. The intention system adds some tactical depth by offering choices. It's also a bit of a gamble to choose certain intents. Resolution is faster than most systems (not as fast as OSR or NuSR, for obvious reasons). However, you don't have long lists of maneuvers or moves to memorize/choose from. It helps with analysis paralysis and allows a little bit of space to describe what happens.>What does it do poorly?You lose some granularity. There's a little bit of "ruling" inferred in spending your margins of success requiring a higher trust table. Grappling and shields remain a touch over-tuned. Ranged combat is not quite as interesting as melee (but it's about as interesting as other systems like VGP including Mythras). The system eschews "balance": wearing heavy armor is almost always better. Using a poleaxe is almost always better than a spear (though, spears have their advantages and are quite easy to use). The injury system takes getting used to
>dice poolVomit.
>>97316972Last post before I'll let the thread die unless someone replies.>What are the 4 intents, in summary?Prior to each combat exchange you choose a facing on a D4 in secret. The combatants reveal dice facings simultaneously. >(4) OverwhelmThis represents a high risk, high reward strike intending to overwhelm the target. It costs the most endurance, but if you are able to injure your opponent you increase the kind of injury you inflict (e.g. minor to major). If you end up in a weapon-to-weapon bind (if a tie happens) you start with structure (in advantage) which helps with winning the bind (and can be lethal).>(3) PressA more standard attack with some control of measure and line. Not as expensive to use as overwhelm. Allows you to force a dominant bind (costs a sucess). Also allows you to bet some of your D6 in a feint. This allows you to score automatic successes into a more defensive opponent (Defensive/Guard)>(2) GuardedThink a counter-thrust or cautious attack. This grants you a slight edge against offensive attacks, but makes it harder for you to injure your opponent. What's useful about it is that- unlike more aggressive intents- you can use successes to open the reach between opponents (important if you have a spear and your opponent has a mace!)>(1)DefensiveThink a defensive void, or trying to gain control of the measure/distance between opponents. This is a truly defensive maneuver that allows you to catch your breath (gain endurance) and reduce your opponent's accrued position dice. Against the most aggressive attack, you have an opportunity to riposte. However, it otherwise is not used to inflict injury
>>97317013Totally understand, not for everyone. I just enjoy the statistics and find counting successes up is a bit faster than modifier math.>TQ/NoteMy only request to anyone with suggestions is to let me know how I can credit you. I'd like to include you as a credited help.
>>97316925If you're still here, a little bit of helpful advice:You unfortunately put "general" in the subject of your thread, and while this doesn't bother me to any degree, due to how the catalog's filter function works, you condemned your thread from any visibility to everyone who has "general" in their filters.Not giving you shit, just informing you of basic site features.
>>97316925Pretty far from what I tend to run or play but I'll take a look. Thanks for posting and good luck with your game.
>>97317095I appreciate this advice! As future updates emerge, I’ll avoid making this mistake again.>>97317103You may find something interesting about the system, even if you decide not to go with the system in its entirety. Thanks for taking the time to look at it.
>>97316925Okay questions about definitions>Unspent position degrades by 1D6 each round Is this different than upgrading/downgrading? >margins of successwording is awkward, the clarity is a good idea but might be able to use >the difference between to good effect. >reach token/indication is unclear, hopefully becomes more so after a full read.>hidden intent and gm count downI really like this and will now play your game. The endurance cost being the number on the D4 is clever. Not sure how you want this to play out a the table but having 4 cards with the breakdown of each intent that can also be used to play it facedown might help. >Upgrade damage severity by 2 if you inflict or 1 if you receive damage (after applying armor)This means to upgrade damage received correct? >Prior to revealing, you can declare a feint - bidding between 1 or 2D6I think this is from the total pool but am uncertain. >5 second count to pick effects A quick reference sheet that's easy to scan will really help here. I like the time pressure but it will be hard for those unfamiliar with depthful combat forms to get into. Maybe 10 seconds until they get the hang of it. I would put how to deal damage before additional effects order of explanation wise, people are going to think of that first. >injury location Not knowledgeable enough about shields, would this effect arm injury chance as well? >injury table speed If you can roll injury location and severity simultaneously it could speed things up a bit. It basically means rolling D10, D8, D6 and D4 while only using the appropriate dice based on the D10. You're already going fairly tense and granular so I think the injury dice tension works. >surprise roll I'm a huge fag and would just do a X:10 modified contextually. Keep it simple. >common sense range bands Throwing beyond the range band for things not designed to be thrown seems off. Throwing a sword 30 yards in any effective way for instance. >cont
>>97317292It appears using a short spear has the same range band as a regular spear, haven't made it to the weapon list yet.
>>97317396More cont Moving between ranges costing MoS vs withdrawing being free is unclear with increasing range costing MoS. Unclear on why one would chose to Withdraw as opposed to Flee. Unclear on why most NPCs will not chose to pursue fleeing opponents. Cover vs concealment seems off. Wargames might be of use with light, medium and full cover rather than having overlap or removing the bushes from the description of concealment. I get that not all concealment is cover but the distinction made is muddy. >target locations being non-hits due to cover sometimes but not always I'd honestly leave this out, the disadvantage of shooting at prone targets is already notable and this doesn't add much. What are the relevant modifiers for the opposed roll to stand up?
>>97316925I'm very glad you didn't give up on this, as I was just thinking about this system the other day. Will give this a more comprehensive read later.At a glance I'm interested that you changed your damage system to be locational, with MoS determining if an injury is sustained.Funnily enough I stole your old lower-is-better per-weapon damage mechanics (with some tweaking) for my own homebrew.
>>97317473More cont.>ranged combat table This clears up throwing ranged non-ranged weapons, makes sense. Not sure if I can use aim dice as position dice I have to give up every turn I don't use them. Not sure it will come up but seemed possible, if weird. >falling prone on a tie for dodging ranged attacks I'm not sure this adds much. >dual wielding Dice pool penalty in exchange for having 2 functional reaches simultaneously seems workable. >Single Page Summary A table for margins of success and injury or some sort of colour coding could help if its the reference point while the GM is counting down from 5. >MoS Reference table Nice. >Weapons and Shields Table I think the Bonus Damage is Blunt, Piercing & Cutting but not sure where that's explained. >dice pool curve tables Interesting notes, worth including. Overall I like it more than I thought I would from your initial description and want to test it a bit. I understand the urge to have different helmets from armours but not sure if its necessary, but that's a preference rather than very important. An example combat in the document would help.
>>97317391Great questions.1. Will clarify. Degrade as in you lose a D6 from your pool of “position dice “ unless any are spent. This is to discourage a phenomenon I observed where players banked dice for several engagements with zero consequence (or effectively forcing his enemy to pick Defensive)2. Agree the wording is awkward (a trend in my writing)3. I’m not sure of a quick way to track the reach. Everything I think of adds an extra cognitive step. I want to reward the effort of a shorter ranged fighter at slipping into dagger reach against a spear.4.A card method is actually genius. I’d want it to be entirely optional, obviously. Most folks hate custom trinkets, no?5. Correct, upgrading damage means upgrading severity (eg. grazing wound upgrades to a major wound, for instance)6. Total pool. That’s correct, I’ll edit.7. Shields don’t change injury chance directly. This is a very different approach from what most people think about. I tried a static defense bonus (slowed shield vs shield to a crawl… I’m talking DOUBLE the engagement count) and also wanted to model how a shield helps offensively.8. Agree with your approach to injury.9. As you can see, surprise is complicated by starting range/reach. Agree with simplicity10. Aye. There’s definitely a maximim
>>97317396I’m concerned with adding additional range bands but flexible on the idea. Would also allow things like Pikes to distinguish themselves without an arbitrary rule.>>973174731. In general the question is: do you want to open up your distance but remain in the fight? Or flee? My goal is to also FAVOR the ability to flee. I want it to remain a valid option.2. Agree with your critique regarding cover and concealment.4. I’ll play test removing the non hir. It’s a hold over from Mythras. Make sure to tell me how to credit you!>>97317473Hornskull? Is that you friend? I’m so glad to share my ideas and you’ve had a significant impact on this project.
>>97317821All those were me, not Hornskull. Cool project. Just credit Anon. Thanks for the clarifications, I'll try it out a bit.
>>973175711. Glad the table clarifies thing. I'll add the tables to each section as well. No, aiming is separate from position dice.2. I'll try it out.3. That's a fair approach. The dual reaches is quite potent. I'm mostly trying to model how dual wielding would function (usually with a parrying weapon+main hand)4. Agree with the color coding. That and the earlier recommendation of cards.5. The damage is, indeed, piercing blunt and cutting and you are correct that it's not well explained.5. Thanks, I think the statistics are important to understand because that's how the game will "feel" at a table. It's the main reason I changed from "only 6's = success to 5+6+sixes can explode". That major change has helped combat explode in terms of risk, action, and speed of resolution. 6. I think I'll keep it separate just because of how often folks prioritize helmsComing soon: An example combat *and* some test fightersThankful for your input, anon.
>>97318494>test fighters I was just going to pull random pictures of fighters, stat them and make 'em fight.
>>97317821>Hornskull? Is that you friend? I’m so glad to share my ideas and you’ve had a significant impact on this project.>>97317565 Was me, actually. I'm glad I was able to contribute positively enough that you remember me :)>A card method is actually genius. I’d want it to be entirely optional, obviously. Most folks hate custom trinkets, no?True, but you don't necessarily need custom cards. You can use Clubs = 1, Diamonds = 2, Hearts = 3, Spades = 4. If you want to be more straightforward, you can just use 1s, 2s, 3s, and 4s, but then you limit yourself to only 4 players' worth of cards in one deck.Really, I would suggest either of these card methods over the die. A die is harder to articulate and keep secret, especially in online play (thinking about playing in tabletop sim with my friends especially) it is easier to reveal cards than it is to do so for dice. Dice also have a chance to roll, especially if you're setting them down quickly for your GM's countdown.Regarding combat rolls, I do have a concern>"The victor must decide within a five count"1. I get what you're going for with the pacing of a real-life melee, but if you'd like to do this timed approach, I think your MoS options need to be cut and dry options laid out in a neat table; A mother-may-I request to the GM is kind of contingent on OOC bargaining, to say little of the GM having to adjudicate whether or not the request is acceptable.Having 5 MoS be the exception to this may be fine, but I don't think relying on GM fiat so for normal attacks is wise if you want to pace things so quickly.1/2
>>97326988>When an opponent is “Overextened”: after simultaneously revealing intents, the combatant that is not overextended may change their intent by one step (e.g. 1 to 2. 4 to 1)What causes "overextension?" I can't seem to find what does so>If a future injury would occupy the same “slot” it’s upgraded in severity How does this work with grazing injuries? If I am at max grazing injuries on my chest and I receive one more, does it upgrade to minor? If I am already at minor and I receive grazing, does it upgrade to major, or does it need to be of the same tier to upgrade?Also, are injury effects cumulative? i.e. would a minor injury on both arms result in -2D to all rolls?> Fighting Multiple OpponentsHave you given any thought to what this would look like for larger engagements, say 3v3? I suppose you'd effectively force all combat to be duels, and if people are removed from combat, you'd choose who to double up on.>Gear Bonus damage typeMaybe move this into its own column; I was kind of confused what the letters were even referring to at first. And how does a slash work? Do you choose which you'd like to inflict?2/2
