[svn] r2271@freebird: fabien | 2006-08-30 21:33:34 -0400
Mise à jour préventive.
About the Forge </about/> | Articles </articles/> | Forum </forum/> |
Reviews </reviews/> | Resource Library </resources/>
*
* <#>
Home <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php>
Help <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=help>
Search <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=search>
Login <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=login>
Register <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=register>
Welcome, *Guest*. Please login
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=login> or register
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=register>.
Did you miss your activation email?
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=activate>
March 15, 2006, 02:55:25 PM
Login with username, password and session length
*Forum changes:* Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
*Search: * Advanced search
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=search;advanced>
*198794* Posts in *18708* Topics by *5988* Members Latest Member: * -
kuljek
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=6115>* Most
online today: *113* - most online ever: *271* (February 22, 2006,
03:03:12 PM)
+ *The Forge <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php>*
|-+ *Inactive Forums <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php#5>*
| |-+ *Scattershot <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?board=22.0>*
| | |-+ *Part V: Peeling Back the Layers - The Real Deal
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1122.0>* « previous
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1122.0;prev_next=prev>
next »
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1122;prev_next=next>
*Pages:* [*1*] Print
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=printpage;topic=1122.0>
Author Topic: Part V: Peeling Back the Layers - The Real Deal (Read
914 times)
*Le Joueur <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=73>*
Member
Posts: 1363
View Profile
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=73> WWW
<http://www.scattershotgames.com>
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1122.msg10546#msg10546>
*Part V: Peeling Back the Layers - The Real Deal
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1122.msg10546#msg10546>*
« * on:* January 01, 2002, 08:43:00 PM »
------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 24th, 2002 -
At the behest of my friends here on the Forge, I will present
Scattershot at the point I have it. Even though this is a
work-in-progress and much of the terminology is in a state of flux, I am
not trying to present a diary of the progress. Expect the lead
component of this thread to undergo changes as Scattershot does. This
edition was originally put together very early on Tuesday, January 1st,
2002. This series of articles will detail strictly the mechanics of
Scattershot, articles relating to the techniques of 'how to play' will
have to wait until I have more of them centralized and organized. The
third major component of the game, the setting and genre material is
will be addressed once I get a new batch of playtesters.
So at last we come to the mechanics. This is where we formalize the
'flow of play' in support of emotionally engaging contextual thinking
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1073&forum=2&1>.
We are going to examine primarily the Advanced Scattershot mechanics
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1087&forum=2&0>
across the whole range of 'Densities' from General to Mechanical
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1087&forum=2&0>
play. We're going to fully formalize the process of passing who the
Speaker
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1087&forum=2&0> is
during scenes
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1087&forum=2&0>
within a game into the communal language
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1073&forum=2&1> and
mechanics of Scattershot.
At its simplest level, the Scattershot mechanic is little more than a
resolution system
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1096&forum=2&0>
with trimmings. Every ability (or quality of any entity within a
Scattershot game) is described by a Rating. Before I talk about using
these Ratings, I think I should describe 'how to get them.'
Fat Points
Scattershot's point-based system requires that you 'buy' abilities
using character points, during character generation or evolution,
in order to take full advantage of them. Since simplicity is one
of the design specifications and it is a point-based system, we
quickly decided that to raise any rating 1 point would cost 1
point. This makes Scattershot's points 'worth more' than most
games (by a factor of 3, 5, or in some cases 10 or higher).
Some have suggested that this lacks a limit on the 'return on
investments.' This is only an illusion. Scattershot's die
mechanic (more in just a bit) creates a sigmoid graph (which means
more and more points give less and less improvement in probability
terms). Also, when a player has more points to 'spend' there are
obviously more choices to make (Scattershot will have rather long
'laundry' lists of abilities to choose from - for players who
aren't interested in lists, it's not hard to make up abilities
instead of searching for them, the lists are mostly to help
players get inspired); this means that most of the time, these
points will tend to get 'spread out' more.
The second part of having a point-based system we do differently
is that there are no point cut-offs. Instead of saying, "you only
have 30 points to spend," we point out that more points means a
character has a higher or broader efficacy in general.
Concentrations of points in a single ability means that a
character is expected to excel at (or be somewhat defined by) that
ability (like a gunfighter - who /should/ have a high 'quickdraw'
skill). Based on this quality, the rest of the group can form a
quick understanding of 'how able' a character is and can play
accordingly.
All abilities (which does not /appear/ to include Stats) require
that at least one point (not including Free Skills1 - more on that
later) be spent on them in order that the character can make full
use of them (Stats /are/ the same except a 'hidden' point is spent
on each prior to character generation). Abilities not 'spent
upon' can only be used at a 'default' rating (which means they
have certain functional restrictions). Abilities are ranked from
Free1, to Easy, Intermediate, or Difficult (on up to Exceptional,
Renowned, Incredible, Nigh Impossible, and Legendary - this is
actually based on an explicit formulation of efficacy, see 'making
up your own abilities' below).
Free skills1 (which make up almost all of the Free abilities) are
included to cover things that are generally taken to 'flesh out' a
character (and have much higher 'starting' Ratings than other
abilities, as listed with each). Rather than making things like
academic-based characters very expensive, they allow a broad range
of 'background' skills. There is only a minor cost that accrues
for taking /many/ Free skills1. All other abilities receive their
rank not by some arbitrary standard, but how they relate to one
and another in terms of efficacy in general and specifically how
they relate to the template abilities (that are used to create
additional material by the participants - see 'making up your own
abilities' below). (Technically 'Free skills' do this too, but
the point cost is also 'hidden'.)
The Rating of an Easy ability is the 'points spent on it' plus 11,
Intermediate abilities are 'points plus 10,' Difficult is 'plus 9'
(and so on)². (As an example, Superpowers are of Incredible rank,
but in the example powers - a fairly wide list - may be treated as
Difficult with a 'buy in' cost of 3 for Ratings purposes;
numerically the result is the same.) Natural human range for all
abilities (Stats included) is 8-14 with a median of 10 (any rating
is possible, but a 15 means the character is at least superhuman
in that respect - and that may require additional explanation in
the character's description).[/list:u]What Do You Do with These
Ratings?
When an Instantaneous, Invoked
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1096&forum=2&0>
Rating is 'checked³' for an Immediate action
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1096&forum=2&0>
by an Individual
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1096&forum=2&0>,
after determining the necessary rating, two ten-sided dice
are rolled and their sum* is subtracted from this rating (so
rolling lower is better). The difference is called a MIB
(short for Made-It-By) number. Rolling higher than the
Rating is a failure or MIB (Missed-It-By) number; a roll
equal to the rating has 'just made it.' There are many
different types of Modifiers that can be applied to this
roll. Beyond the familiar range, size, and opportunity
modifiers you would expect, there can also be Residual,
Scope, and Duration
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1096&forum=2&0>
modifiers when the available ability is not a perfect match
for the needed action.
A MIB becomes a contested 'check3' by having any party who
is 'engaged' by the action actively resist it. After the
modifiers are applied, both parties roll separate MIB
numbers, and then subtract the resistor's MIB number from
the MIB of the character performing the original action.
Sometimes the resistor's MIB number can be derived as
either a Reactive or Residual
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1096&forum=2&0>
MIB number, depending on the circumstances. The Resulting
MIB (or RMIB) number is used to determine the /quality/ of
the success of the action (just like the MIB number in an
uncontested roll).[/list:u]Taking Turns
As I mentioned in the first installment
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1073&forum=2&1>,
Scattershot formalizes the 'flow of play,' especially
at times of high emotion
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1087&forum=2&0>.
Just like the normal tendency to formalize play
during cacophony
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1087&forum=2&0>,
Scattershot switches to a rigid play-order during
Mechanical play
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1087&forum=2&0>.
A lot of game systems use complicated mechanics to
create some kind of turn order related to the efficacy
of combat-skilled characters. For as much trouble as
I have seen this cause, it never seems to be a
reasonable return for such wargame inspired mechanics.
During Mechanical play
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1087&forum=2&0>,
Scattershot does a very simple thing; play goes
counter-clockwise around the group (play passes to
your right once you have taken the turns for each of
the characters you play). Each time around the group
is called a Round (simple huh?). What about all those
things complicated games capture with their turn-order
mechanics? Well, it seemed to us they were trying to
emulate the kinds of advantages characters could have
over each other in melee, so we created the Combat
Advantage system (I'll come back to that later)
instead.[/list:u]Who Goes First?
Another feature that seemed to us a needless
complication was all of those 'initiative'
mechanics. Ultimately, they only seem to
mitigate who makes the actual 'first swing;'
while that can have important consequences in
fairly lethal systems, it seems to completely
eliminate those tense and exciting 'leading up
to combat' scenes. The tense circling, the
traded insults, having guns at the ready yet not
wanting to 'make the first move.' Looking at
all these examples with an eye towards writing
mechanics, I could only see one thing. /The
battle had already started./
In the source material, sometimes it seemed like
a mental battle, sometimes not, but it always
'felt' like they were already using Mechanical
play
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1087&forum=2&0>.
So how were they fighting without trading
blows? It looked like they were 'looking for an
opening,' seeking the 'advantage,' or the like.
(I'll get to Combat Advantage in a moment.) If
that is the case, /then/ who starts it? That
seemed simple, whoever first chooses to act as
though battle is inevitable. Whether it is the
cowhand walking into the bar spoiling for a
fight, savages springing from an ambush, the
dandy striking with his white glove, or a pirate
slowly drawing his cutlass from its scabbard,
the character who makes the decision that battle
is a foregone conclusion is the one who takes
the first Mechanical play
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1087&forum=2&0>
turn; it's that simple.[/list:u]What about
Bigger, Faster Combat?
During Mechanical play
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1087&forum=2&0>,
scope is an important feature to keep
track of. Things like naval engagements,
a battle like Waterloo, and those mass
combat scenes from The Hobbit and
Braveheart will only rarely have an
Individual Scope aspect (and even then the
battle itself is usually handled 'behind
the scenes'
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1087&forum=2&0>)
and are usually only in Specific play
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1087&forum=2&0>.
Our mechanic for melee is, if the
characters played by one participant
outnumber the rest of the group /of
players/, you will usually need to switch
to a 'higher' level of Scope
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1096&forum=2&0>
than Individual
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1096&forum=2&0>
play. This keeps things from 'bogging
down' the pacing, like a battle against
bad odds. This also allows the system to
simplify handling what I believe are
called 'mooks' more easily.
While we're talking about melee, I would
like to describe a seemingly unique
feature of Scattershot. Now you probably
don't imagine using Involved actions
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1096&forum=2&0>
in Individual
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1096&forum=2&0>
melee, but we have a way where it seems
almost necessary. To me, when a
gunslinger sizes up his opponent, waits
for them to 'twitch,' draws his gun, and
fires as though he'd aimed; these four
actions actually count as a single
Involved action
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1096&forum=2&0>.
The same is true for those 'Hong Kong
Martial Arts Theatre' movie moves, a whole
flurry of actions that Scattershot treats
as a single Involved action. (Because of
the nature of this contested action and
how the actual landed blow is determined,
Scattershot resolves this as a /series/ of
die rolls between subject and actor.)
When a character knows a martial art that
includes any of these Involved
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1096&forum=2&0>
sequences of actions and they have an
opportunity to act, they may use one /as
though it were a single action/. In many
cases, the literal sequence will be
described by a loose 'script' that can be
customized 'on the fly' during play.
These sequences can be followed to their
end, provided every component is fended
off or the whole sequence is not
interrupted (specific mechanics of
interruption apply).[/list:u]How Do I
Defend Myself?
In Scattershot, whenever someone
makes a melee action against your
character, the have 'engaged' them.
When your character is thus
engaged, you may Forfeit one of
their upcoming actions (if they have
any left this Round) and perform a
Reactive or defensive action with
its MIB roll. (And performing such
a Forfeited action can be a lead in
to a flurry of actions, /by the
defender/, so be careful who you
engage, you might regret it.) After
you have Forfeited both of your
character's actions, they may
perform nothing but 'free actions'
until the end of their next
turn.[/list:u]What was that about
Advantage?
During a melee, many things
happen, too many to easily
catalog as mechanics. In
order to reflect the many,
varied ways that combatants
can shift the tide of battle,
we created the Combat
Advantage mechanic. Basically
speaking, it is any action
that would result in a
Residual penalty
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1096&forum=2&0>
against the opponent that your
character holds the Advantage
over. Scattershot's
techniques discuss what can be
or should not be worthy of
creating this Residual penalty
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1096&forum=2&0>;
what kinds of actions will
create Advantage, what sorts
will support an Advantage, and
what one can do to erode
another's Advantage over you.
(I'm not going into the
specifics here unless requested.)
This mechanic of Combat
Advantage is what replaces
most other games' rules for
initiative and complex
turn-order rules (which, as
far as I can tell, only result
in some kind of advantage
anyway).[/list:u]What if I Miss?
In many cases during
Specific play
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1087&forum=2&0>
a roll might Miss-It-By
just a point or two.
After the MIB number is
calculated, the
character's player may
opt to 'Buy a Success'
by changing one of the
parameters of the
attempt /after the
fact/. Let's say an
auto mechanic
Missed-It-By 1 (often
just MIB -1), his player
can turn this failure
into a success by
changing the amount of
time it took, or by
requiring more parts and
thus cost (or both if
they Missed-It-By 2). A
'bought' success is
never higher than 'just
making it.' In
Mechanical play
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1087&forum=2&0>,
like melee, if a player
needs to 'Buy a Success'
they can do things like
give ground, yield
Combat Advantage, dive
for cover, or something
more descriptive like
going down on one knee
as long as the group
seems receptive to the
complication it creates.
If you can 'Buy a
Success,' why not be
able to 'Sell a
Success?' The mechanic
for when you 'Sell a
Success' is called the
/±5 mechanic/. To take
longer, you find the
duration on the UE Chart
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1096&forum=2&0>
and then count up or
down 5 points. This way
you can /add or
subtract/ to the amount
affected; 'extra' points
of success can also be
'spent' on Residual
modifiers. You can
likewise 'buy' a point
of Combat Advantage
(which is of course just
another form of Residual
modifier
anyway).[/list:u]Critical
Junctures
In setting up a
game, the
participants need
to fix how 'epic'
or 'over the top'
they want to play.
The primary way
this is done is by
adjusting the
Critical Juncture
Threshold. The
core suggested
threshold is 7.
This means
whenever any
modified MIB
number is 7 or
higher, the player
of the character
this 'goes
against' is
compelled to
create a
description of not
only what has
happened but must
also indicate how
this forms a
turning point for
their character.
(I especially
like the title
character's first
encounter with the
Sheriff of
Nottingham, in
Robin Hood: Prince
of Thieves. Robin
clearly scores a
/Telling Blow/ -
matching or
exceeding the
Critical Juncture
Threshold of the
game. The
Sheriff's player,
rather than taking
a horrible wound,
describes a fatal
attack on his
vanity, taking on
a new Disadvantage.)
Likewise, if a
player rolls a
Missed-It-By
number 7 or more
points above the
modified Rating
used, they are
also compelled to
describe what kind
of fantastic
mistake occurs.
This
/Catastrophic
Failure/ must also
be something of a
'turning point.'
In contested
rolls, a Telling
Blow is only
described when the
RMIB /continues/
to exceeds the
Critical Juncture
Threshold after
being calculated.
The Critical
Juncture Threshold
also controls a
number of other
features in the
game. For
example, the total
of the Critical
Juncture number
and Epic Value³
(which limits the
maximum length of
Flurries of
Action) must be
ten or less (id
est, in a game
where the Critical
Juncture is 6,
then flurries may
not exceed 4 in a
row). This keeps
all the 'epic'
qualities in line
for a single
game.[/list:u]/In
Case I Forgot to
Mention:/
Uses of
Types in
Mechanical
play
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1087&forum=2&0>:
most
abilities
used will be
Invoked
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1096&forum=2&0>
Ratings,
what these
affect is
often
limited by
Magnitude
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1096&forum=2&0>
Ratings.
'What gets
affected'
will
frequently
be a
Resource
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1096&forum=2&0>
Rating.
For example,
if your
character
/punches/
mine (and
they don't
have a
related
melee
skill), they
will
generate a
MIB number
based on an
Invoked use
of their
Agility
Stat. If
they have an
unusually
high
Strength, in
its
Magnitude
role, the
Multiplier
facet of the
UE Chart
will be
indexed and
that will
multiply the
RMIB. This
will be the
/basic/
damage which
unless
modified is
taken from
my Hit
Points in
their
Resource
role.
Likewise,
if your
character
wanted to
throw a
water tower
on a burning
building,
their
Strength
indexed on
the UE Chart
would be
compared to
the
estimated
weight of
the tower
and the
maximum
throwing
distance
could be
calculated.
Because of
the scope of
the tower
and the
target,
small
amounts of
error in the
throw would
be forgiven
(using both
scatter and
'area of
effect'
mechanics).[/list:u]How
is a
Gamemaster
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1080&forum=2&30>
different in
Mechanical
play
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1087&forum=2&0>?
You
may
have
noticed
that
once
Mechanical
play
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1087&forum=2&0>
gets
going
it
quickly
becomes
impossible
to
tell
'who
started
it.'
The
only
problem
this
has
caused
had to
do
with
the
application
of
superhuman
speed
in our
superhero
mechanics.
The
solution
was to
have a
fair
number
of the
additional
actions
performed
immediately
before
the
gamemaster
(mostly
because,
by and
large,
they
are
taking
the
turns
of
more
individual,
and
non-player,
characters).
Other
than
that,
there
are no
real,
practical
differences.[/list:u]What
if I
Want
to
Make
Up My
Own
Abilities?
Scattershot
bases
every
ability
on
5
templates.
There
are
schedules
of
modifications
that
can
be
made
to
these
abilities,
but
those
modifications
are
rather
esoteric
and
are
kept
to
the
Advanced
Scattershot
mechanics
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1087&forum=2&0>.
In
keeping
with
the
design
specifications
of
Scattershot,
these
templates
are
paired
with
the
five
elements
(almost
everything
happens
to
be,
but
that
has
more
to
do
with
Scattershot's
universal
metaphysic
that
I
can
cover
if
anyone
is
interested).
Earth
matches
the
template
of
affecting
the
physical
nature
of
an
object,
Water
has
the
template
of
movement,
location,
and
time
manipulation,
Air's
template
manipulates
the
energy
of
a
subject
(including
spiritual),
Fire
manipulates
structure
and
relativity
(this
includes
information),
and
finally
Ether
is
relative
to
the
unusual
abilities
that
affect
the
'character'
of
a
subject
-
including
things
which
make
it
unique
or
unremarkable.
I
can
go
into
detail
if
necessary,
but
this
about
sums
it
up.[/list:u]I
hope
this
satisfies
everyone's
curiosity
over
Scattershot's
mechanics.
Feel
free
to
ask
for
clarifications,
I
am
planning
on
going
over
the
whole
series
in
better
detail
and
re-editing
almost
all
of
it.
Maybe
I
can
spell
out
the
techniques
of
play
that
make
use
of
these
mechanics.
©2002
Impswitch
and
Fang
Langford
(who
will
get
around
to
tightening
this
up
eventually,
especially
with
feedback)
¹
Free
skills
are
actually
free
until
quantity
is
built
up
with
them.
A
bargain
at
4
(taken
at
listed
levels)
for
every
point,
and
the
first
4
are
Free!
After
you
'pay'
for
them,
raising
them
is
normal
(1
for
1).
(Their
'actual
value'
falls
below
the
easy
threshold
because
of
their
limited
applicability.)
²
A
character
may
have
a
specialization
in
a
Skill
by
simply
further
narrowing
what
it
affects.
This
compares
the
differences
in
Scopes
of
some
related
Skills.
For
example,
the
squad
level
engagement
skill³
compares
to
military
hand-to-hand³
in
the
same
fashion
as
an
M16
skill
(an
unlisted
specialization)
would
compare
to
the
rifle
skill.
Such
specialization
makes
a
skill
one
rank
'easier'
and
therefore
cheaper.
There
has
been
a
great
deal
of
controversy
on
the
modeling
of
talent
in
relation
to
training.
In
Scattershot
Talent
in
a
skill
costs
the
same
as
Training,
it's
only
differentiated
by
the
character's
description
and
history.
This
is
because,
without
a
point
cut-off,
there
is
not
much
need
for
complicated
pricing
mechanics.
(These
costs
can
be
mixed
as
well.)
³
I
need
a
new
word
for
this
one.
*
Anyone
can
also
add
experience
dice
to
this
roll.
Experince
dice
are
six-sided
and
given
out
as
rewards
for
play
that
increases
the
enjoyment
of
the
game.
They
are
awarded
at
the
end
of
a
session
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1087&forum=2&0>
(by
gamemaster
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1087&forum=2&0>
choice,
group
vote,
or
other
technique
as
desired)
or
they
are
given
'on
the
spot'
where
and
when
any
participant
feels
that
someone
has
made
a
significant
contribution
to
their
(or
everyone's)
play
(when
other
than
the
gamemaster,
we
are
considering
if
a
'bowl
of
dice'
is
appropriate
or
if
players
should
use
only
their
own
on
the
chance
that
the
gamemaster
will
not
agree
and
refund
them
immediately).
Experience
dice
are
also
the
character
development
mechanic.
When
a
player
wishes
to
add
points
to
their
character
they
select
a
number
of
experience
dice
to
'roll
for
points.'
The
target
number
for
1
point
is
6,
for
two
it
is
10,
3
is
14,
and
4
is
18
(and
so
on
by
increments
of
4
per
point).
All
the
'wagered'
experience
dice
are
rolled
at
once
and
added
together
and
then
compared
to
the
target
numbers.
As
I
explained
in
this
thread
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1068&forum=2>,
the
critical
juncture
number
and
the
'looseness'
of
the
supply
of
experience
dice
work
together
to
Transition
Scattershot
towards
more
Narrativist
play
(when
Critical
Juncture
is
low
and
Experience
Dice
are
plentiful)
or
towards
Gamist
play
(when
Critical
Juncture
is
high
and
Experience
Dice
are
scarce).
You'll
note
that
in
character
development,
often
regarded
as
a
Gamist
mechanic,
Experience
Dice
become
more
valuable
because
of
scarcity.
Logged
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fang Langford is formerly the creator of the Scattershot Role-Playing
Game System. This project has been permanently suspended. If you have
any questions regarding the implementation of it or anything else, he
can be reached at ripjack@mad.scientist.com
<mailto:ripjack@mad.scientist.com>
*Le Joueur <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=73>*
Member
Posts: 1363
View Profile
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=73> WWW
<http://www.scattershotgames.com>
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1122.msg12189#msg12189>
*Finally Editted - Whoops
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1122.msg12189#msg12189>*
« *Reply #1 on:* January 24, 2002, 03:05:15 PM »
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I finally got around to editting the beast.
And I found a whole section missing. The 'rules of engagement' are now
in place and make the following-action stuff look a little more worthwhile.
Thanks for the patience.
Fang Langford
Logged
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fang Langford is formerly the creator of the Scattershot Role-Playing
Game System. This project has been permanently suspended. If you have
any questions regarding the implementation of it or anything else, he
can be reached at ripjack@mad.scientist.com
<mailto:ripjack@mad.scientist.com>
*contracycle
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=109>*
Member
Posts: 2392
View Profile
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=109>
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1122.msg12216#msg12216>
*Part V: Peeling Back the Layers - The Real Deal
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1122.msg12216#msg12216>*
« *Reply #2 on:* January 25, 2002, 03:26:46 AM »
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Say Fang, you've never worked for Last Unicorn games, have you ;)
Logged
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impeach the bomber boys:
www.impeachblair.org <http://www.impeachblair.org>
www.impeachbush.org <http://www.impeachbush.org>
"He who loves practice without theory is like the sailor who boards ship
without a rudder and compass and never knows where he may cast."
- Leonardo da Vinci
*Le Joueur <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=73>*
Member
Posts: 1363
View Profile
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=73> WWW
<http://www.scattershotgames.com>
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1122.msg12227#msg12227>
*Last Unicorn Games?
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1122.msg12227#msg12227>*
« *Reply #3 on:* January 25, 2002, 06:29:24 AM »
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: contracycle
Say Fang, you've never worked for Last Unicorn games, have you ;)
No. Why? (He said with much confusion.)
Fang Langford
Logged
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fang Langford is formerly the creator of the Scattershot Role-Playing
Game System. This project has been permanently suspended. If you have
any questions regarding the implementation of it or anything else, he
can be reached at ripjack@mad.scientist.com
<mailto:ripjack@mad.scientist.com>
*contracycle
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=109>*
Member
Posts: 2392
View Profile
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=109>
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1122.msg12230#msg12230>
*Part V: Peeling Back the Layers - The Real Deal
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1122.msg12230#msg12230>*
« *Reply #4 on:* January 25, 2002, 06:40:20 AM »
------------------------------------------------------------------------
They're (in)famous for reinventing terminology to the point of
obscurantism. I was just struck by how many terms you have to get to
follow the description.
Logged
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impeach the bomber boys:
www.impeachblair.org <http://www.impeachblair.org>
www.impeachbush.org <http://www.impeachbush.org>
"He who loves practice without theory is like the sailor who boards ship
without a rudder and compass and never knows where he may cast."
- Leonardo da Vinci
*RobMuadib <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=96>*
Member
Posts: 230
<callto://robmuadib/>
View Profile
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=96> WWW
<http://www.wildmusegames.com>
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1122.msg12253#msg12253>
*[SCATTERSHOT:V] Peeling Back the Layers, The Actual Mechanix
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1122.msg12253#msg12253>*
« *Reply #5 on:* January 25, 2002, 09:32:14 AM »
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: Le Joueur
So at last we come to the mechanics. This is where we formalize the
'flow of play' in support of emotionally engaging contextual thinking
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1073&forum=2&1>.
We are going to examine primarily the Advanced Scattershot mechanics
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1087&forum=2&0>
across the whole range of 'Densities' from General to Mechanical
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1087&forum=2&0>
play. We're going to fully formalize the process of passing who the
Speaker
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1087&forum=2&0> is
during scenes
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1087&forum=2&0>
within a game into the communal language
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1073&forum=2&1> and
mechanics of Scattershot.
Well, I thought I would chime in here a bit, partially as a response to
contracyles post below. Specifically, on the idea of the steeper
learning curve associated with a game that fully quantifies it's game
language, and largely makes it a requirement to learn.
First, all RPGs are in effect Formal Languages, in the way that computer
programming languages are. These formal languages exist to enable us to
engage in the three elements of Story, Game, and Role.
Now, most games that have been written so far, leave large amounts of
this formal language implicit, or reserve it's use to certain empowered
players.
Now, in the first case, you lose the easy means to express and utilize
the elements of the formal language that are assumed/implicit, those
creating a system with which the players largely give short shrift to
those elements Story/Game/Role which are left implicit. In the second,
you create a class of highly empowered players, who because they have
access to these Guide mechanics, have greater control over the
experience of the players that don't.
Thus, I believe that making the mechanics explicit and "democratizing"
them leads to the ability for all players to be empowered and thus have
greater ability to engage the elements of Story/Game/Role they find most
compelling.
(This is newish thinking on my part that has developed from my X-styles
and XXX RPG theory thread in the GNS discussion forum)
Quote from: Le Joueur
At its simplest level, the Scattershot mechanic is little more than a
resolution system
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1096&forum=2&0>
with trimmings. Every ability (or quality of any entity within a
Scattershot game) is described by a Rating. Before I talk about using
these Ratings, I think I should describe 'how to get them.'
again I like this thinking, as it mirrors the methodology I am using in
design of my own game. That getting the players to learn to use game
language, and make that language "abstractionist" and high-level, so it
is powerful and easy to use, is GOOD. Powerful Formalized Game Language
GOOD!
Quote from: Le Joueur
Fat Points
Scattershot's point-based system requires that you 'buy' abilities
using character points, during character generation or evolution,
in order to take full advantage of them. Since simplicity is one
of the design specifications and it is a point-based system, we
quickly decided that to raise any rating 1 point would cost 1
point. This makes Scattershot's points 'worth more' than most
games (by a factor of 3, 5, or in some cases 10 or higher).
Some have suggested that this lacks a limit on the 'return on
investments.' This is only an illusion. Scattershot's die
mechanic (more in just a bit) creates a sigmoid graph (which means
more and more points give less and less improvement in probability
terms). Also, when a player has more points to 'spend' there are
obviously more choices to make (Scattershot will have rather long
'laundry' lists of abilities to choose from - for players who
aren't interested in lists, it's not hard to make up abilities
instead of searching for them, the lists are mostly to help
players get inspired); this means that most of the time, these
points will tend to get 'spread out' more.
The second part of having a point-based system we do differently
is that there are no point cut-offs. Instead of saying, "you only
have 30 points to spend," we point out that more points means a
character has a higher or broader efficacy in general.
Concentrations of points in a single ability means that a
character is expected to excel at (or be somewhat defined by) that
ability (like a gunfighter - who /should/ have a high 'quickdraw'
skill). Based on this quality, the rest of the group can form a
quick understanding of 'how able' a character is and can play
accordingly.
One problem I have on this thinking, while true for normal abilities that
define an ability to succeed at something, there is a diminished return
for each greater investment. But what about abilities such as super
powers and such, ones which are applications of a UE derived Value.
Since they are based on a Geometric progression. Having unlimited points
to spend on the "effect" portion means a player could create a character
that can destroy planets and all while someone else might have just made
batman. How do you adress this, Self-established limits?
This is interesting to me, since I plan to use a scaled triangular
progression for establishing Trait Score costs. Where a triangular
progression means it costs you a number of points equal to the sum of
the values up and including the Score being purchased - i.e. a Score of
1 costs 1, a Score of 2 (1+2), 3, a Score of 3 costs (1+2+3), 6, Score
of 4 costs (1+2+3+4), 10, a score of 5 costs (1+2+3+4+5), 15, etc.
This doesn't result in a shortchange in either Basis Traits or Proficiency,
despite the diminishing returns in your chance of Binary Success, as
higher Trait Scores offer a geometric increase in related Values, and a
Linear increase in scaled ability. For Proficiency, although your Binary
Success is subject to diminishing returns, the magnitudes of your
Success scale linearly. (and thus require a geometrically increasing
cost to achieve.)
This occurs because of the way I determine Success/Effect ratings. Which
I will show when I post an examination of my mechanics, which I plan to
do later today.
Quote from: Le Joueur
What Do You Do with These Ratings?
When an Instantaneous, Invoked
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1096&forum=2&0>
Rating is 'checked³' for an Immediate action
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1096&forum=2&0>
by an Individual
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1096&forum=2&0>,
after determining the necessary rating, two ten-sided dice are
rolled and their sum* is subtracted from this rating (so rolling
lower is better). The difference is called a MIB (short for
Made-It-By) number. Rolling higher than the Rating is a failure
or MIB (Missed-It-By) number; a roll equal to the rating has 'just
made it.' There are many different types of Modifiers that can be
applied to this roll. Beyond the familiar range, size, and
opportunity modifiers you would expect, there can also be
Residual, Scope, and Duration
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1096&forum=2&0>
modifiers when the available ability is not a perfect match for
the needed action.
I like this idea of allowing of success out of failure. Seems like a
good mechanic, especially when trying to emphasize story elements. This
is somewhat novel approach. I have seen modifiers applied for
hurrying/Taking extra time on an Act, but this is first I've really seen
anyone use a reverse application of it. Pretty slick.
My only caveat would to be label "optional" in that, it that it could
cause short shrift to Roleist elements for people who want to emphasize
it. Hardcore "Sim" play being the classic example, and possibly Gameist
play as well. Imagine the following exchange.
"Hah, you failed, prepare to die dewd."
"Wait!, <rules ouija by desperate Gameist player to snatch victory from
the jaws of defeat."
"What? that sucks, pulling some lame rule out of your ass just so you
won't lose.""
Quote from: Le Joueur
Taking Turns
As I mentioned in the first installment
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1073&forum=2&1>,
Scattershot formalizes the 'flow of play,' especially at times of
high emotion
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1087&forum=2&0>.
Just like the normal tendency to formalize play during cacophony
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1087&forum=2&0>,
Scattershot switches to a rigid play-order during Mechanical play
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1087&forum=2&0>.
A lot of game systems use complicated mechanics to create some
kind of turn order related to the efficacy of combat-skilled
characters. For as much trouble as I have seen this cause, it
never seems to be a reasonable return for such wargame inspired
mechanics.
In many cases during Specific play
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1087&forum=2&0>
a roll might Miss-It-By just a point or two. After the MIB
number is calculated, the character's player may opt to 'Buy
a Success' by changing one of the parameters of the attempt
/after the fact/. Let's say an auto mechanic Missed-It-By 1
(often just MIB -1), his player can turn this failure into a
success by changing the amount of time it took, or by
requiring more parts and thus cost (or both if they
Missed-It-By 2). A 'bought' success is never higher than
'just making it.' In Mechanical play
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1087&forum=2&0>,
like melee, if a player needs to 'Buy a Success' they can do
things like give ground, yield Combat Advantage, dive for
cover, or something more descriptive like going down on one
knee as long as the group seems receptive to the
complication it creates.
I am going to agree to disagree with you, well done initiative systems,
provide a nice modeling of factors resulting in very tense involved
Gameist gameplay.
The best example of such being the Semi-simultaneous action count system
of the Phoenix Command Small Arms system. (an idea I am ripping off for
my game, but only for the Tactical Combat rules, :))
Where moving into the open at the wrong time, or being caught
flat-footed out of cover has obvious and crushing results. And catching
some poor bastard looking around being uncatious with a short burst, as
you wait in a Kneeling firing stance around solid cover, is SO satisfying!
(what can I say, I like to play FPS on the computer too. Oh yeah, that
reminds me of one of my classic mantras, someone needs to convert
Phoenix command to a computer moderated version that would be sweet!)
Quote from: Le Joueur
If you can 'Buy a Success,' why not be able to 'Sell a Success?' The
mechanic for when you 'Sell a Success' is called the /±5 mechanic/. To
take longer, you find the duration on the UE Chart
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1096&forum=2&0> and
then count up or down 5 points. This way you can /add or subtract/ to
the amount affected; 'extra' points of success can also be 'spent' on
Residual modifiers. You can likewise 'buy' a point of Combat Advantage
(which is of course just another form of Residual modifier anyway).
[/list:u]
Again, I like this, it's a clever reverse application of the handiness
of a UE Scale type deal. Also one I haven't seen before, as I mentioned
above.
Also, such Success Shifting can be a good tool to support Storyist goals.
Which should gain you brownie points around here:)
My only point would be to express it's Storyist leanings, or not, as Ron
mentioned in a different thread, your game nicely features lots of
Storyist supporting mechanics.
Quote from: Le Joueur
Critical Junctures
In setting up a game, the participants need to fix how 'epic' or
'over the top' they want to play. The primary way this is done is
by adjusting the Critical Juncture Threshold. The core suggested
threshold is 7. This means whenever any modified MIB number is 7
or higher, the player of the character this 'goes against' is
compelled to create a description of not only what has happened
but must also indicate how this forms a turning point for their
character. (I especially like the title character's first
encounter with the Sheriff of Nottingham, in Robin Hood: Prince of
Thieves. Robin clearly scores a /Telling Blow/ - matching or
exceeding the Critical Juncture Threshold of the game. The
Sheriff's player, rather than taking a horrible wound, describes a
fatal attack on his vanity, taking on a new Disadvantage.)
Likewise, if a player rolls a Missed-It-By number 7 or more points
above the modified Rating used, they are also compelled to
describe what kind of fantastic mistake occurs. This
/Catastrophic Failure/ must also be something of a 'turning
point.' In contested rolls, a Telling Blow is only described when
the RMIB /continues/ to exceeds the Critical Juncture Threshold
after being calculated. The Critical Juncture Threshold also
controls a number of other features in the game. For example, the
total of the Critical Juncture number and Epic Value³ (which
limits the maximum length of Flurries of Action) must be ten or
less (id est, in a game where the Critical Juncture is 6, then
flurries may not exceed 4 in a row). This keeps all the 'epic'
qualities in line for a single game.[/list:u]
Again, I really like these ideas, reminds me of some of the Reality
Rules I have in my game, whereby the outrageouness of results is tied to
the "Reality" being simulated. Though in my take it is in support of
Roleist, rather than Storyist goals.
Like I mentioned in earlier threads, I am finding it interesting how we
have hit upon similar design metholodigies, but where your design is
heavier on Storyist supporting mechanics, mine is heavier on Roleist
supporting mechanics.
Either way, both are helping me to develop my thinking on my new XXX rpg
theory stuff.
Quote from: Le Joueur
/In Case I Forgot to Mention:/
Uses of Types in Mechanical play
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1087&forum=2&0>:
most abilities used will be Invoked
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1096&forum=2&0>
Ratings, what these affect is often limited by Magnitude
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1096&forum=2&0>
Ratings. 'What gets affected' will frequently be a Resource
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1096&forum=2&0>
Rating.
Oh, I am reminded of something in Contracycles post regarding your
terminology. Invoked is probably overly-obfuscated. In terms of previous
design, Acting/Opposing or Action/Reaction might be a clearer term.
Invoked is not as intuitive and heavier on the formal side in your
Formal Language. Magnitude is pretty good, as it is fairly intuitive.
Quote from: Le Joueur
For example, if your character /punches/ mine (and they don't have a
related melee skill), they will generate a MIB number based on an
Invoked use of their Agility Stat. If they have an unusually high
Strength, in its Magnitude role, the Multiplier facet of the UE Chart
will be indexed and that will multiply the RMIB. This will be the
/basic/ damage which unless modified is taken from my Hit Points in
their Resource role. Likewise, if your character wanted to throw a
water tower on a burning building, their Strength indexed on the UE
Chart would be compared to the estimated weight of the tower and the
maximum throwing distance could be calculated. Because of the scope of
the tower and the target, small amounts of error in the throw would be
forgiven (using both scatter and 'area of effect' mechanics).[/list:u]
I am a big proponent of the niftiness of the use of a Value Scale, it
provides lots of concrete values and detail, while still being fairly
high-level and abstracted enough to use easily. As opposed to lots of
gurps like calcuation of specific values with lots of multiplication and
no easy way to convert between results and such.
Quote from: Le Joueur
You may have noticed that once Mechanical play
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1087&forum=2&0>
gets going it quickly becomes impossible to tell 'who started it.'
The only problem this has caused had to do with the application
of superhuman speed in our superhero mechanics. The solution was
to have a fair number of the additional actions performed
immediately before the gamemaster (mostly because, by and large,
they are taking the turns of more individual, and non-player,
characters). Other than that, there are no real, practical
differences.[/list:u]
One case where effective initiative mechanics do make a useful
apperance, though a very limited case. Again, given the Storyist
leanings of your system that I see, sounds pretty good.
Quote from: Le Joueur
What if I Want to Make Up My Own Abilities?
Scattershot bases every ability on 5 templates. There are
schedules of modifications that can be made to these abilities,
but those modifications are rather esoteric and are kept to the
Advanced Scattershot mechanics
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1087&forum=2&0>.
In keeping with the design specifications of Scattershot, these
templates are paired with the five elements (almost everything
happens to be, but that has more to do with Scattershot's
universal metaphysic that I can cover if anyone is interested).
Earth matches the template of affecting the physical nature of an
object, Water has the template of movement, location, and time
manipulation, Air's template manipulates the energy of a subject
(including spiritual), Fire manipulates structure and relativity
(this includes information), and finally Ether is relative to the
unusual abilities that affect the 'character' of a subject -
including things which make it unique or unremarkable. I can go
into detail if necessary, but this about sums it up.[/list:u]I
hope this satisfies everyone's curiosity over Scattershot's
mechanics. Feel free to ask for clarifications, I am planning on
going over the whole series in better detail and re-editing almost
all of it.
This sounds pretty interesting, and again follows some of the stuff I
have been doing in my design, which is focused on getting the players to use
the Design Architectures to build worlds in its universe, The Million
Worlds (TM)
Quote from: Le Joueur
² A character may have a specialization in a Skill by simply further
narrowing what it affects. This compares the differences in Scopes of
some related Skills. For example, the squad level engagement skill³
compares to military hand-to-hand³ in the same fashion as an M16 skill
(an unlisted specialization) would compare to the rifle skill. Such
specialization makes a skill one rank 'easier' and therefore cheaper.
A good way to make skill use simple while still allowing for detail. I
go significantly further by using a Cumulative Skill Tree where
Proficiency is
determined from the sum of one of each of the character's relevant
Skills,Specialties, and Familiarities.
as for names, the military Hand-to-Hand is covered in army field manual
FM21-150 Combatives. Perhaps simply Close Combat (squad) and Close
Combat (individual).
Quote from: Le Joueur
There has been a great deal of controversy on the modeling of talent in
relation to training. In Scattershot Talent in a skill costs the same
as Training, it's only differentiated by the character's description and
history. This is because, without a point cut-off, there is not much
need for complicated pricing mechanics. (These costs can be mixed as well.)
I will discuss this more when I post a summary of my Outcome Test
mechanic for review.
Quote from: Le Joueur
³ I need a new word for this one. (Check)
Hmm, instead of contested Check, how about simply calling it a
Challenge, (Since it is effectively the default way your resolve
actions), and call the limited case of static uses a Simple Challenge.
For instance, when a instaneous [Action] Rating is Challenged, you make
a Challenge roll by rolling 2d10 and comparing the your MIB # to the
Challenge roll of your Opponent ... etc, Or, in the case of a Simple
Challenge of a Rating, you make a Challenge Roll, modifying the Rating
for difficulty. Your MIB from the Challenge of your Effective Rating is used
directly to determine your RMIB, ... etc.
Quote from: Le Joueur
* Anyone can also add experience dice to this roll. Experince dice are
six-sided and given out as rewards for play that increases the enjoyment
of the game. They are awarded at the end of a session
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1087&forum=2&0> (by
gamemaster
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1087&forum=2&0>
choice, group vote, or other technique as desired) or they are given 'on
the spot' where and when any participant feels that someone has made a
significant contribution to their (or everyone's) play (when other than
the gamemaster, we are considering if a 'bowl of dice' is appropriate or
if players should use only their own on the chance that the gamemaster
will not agree and refund them immediately).
Experience dice are also the character development mechanic. When a
player wishes to add points to their character they select a number of
experience dice to 'roll for points.' The target number for 1 point is
6, for two it is 10, 3 is 14, and 4 is 18 (and so on by increments of 4
per point). All the 'wagered' experience dice are rolled at once and
added together and then compared to the target numbers.
As I explained in this thread
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1068&forum=2>, the
critical juncture number and the 'looseness' of the supply of experience
dice work together to Transition Scattershot towards more Narrativist
play (when Critical Juncture is low and Experience Dice are plentiful)
or towards Gamist play (when Critical Juncture is high and Experience
Dice are scarce). You'll note that in character development, often
regarded as a Gamist mechanic, Experience Dice become more valuable
because of scarcity.
I like this tailoring methodolgy you have set-up, and I see why Ron
found your game interesting in terms of the Transitional effects of
being able to tune towards Storyist or Gamist roles.
Anyway, that should be enough to keep you reading for a while, for my
next trick I will post a summary of my mechanics and discuss how they
represent more Roleist game language.
Logged
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Muadib -- Kwisatz Haderach Of Wild Muse Games
kwisatzhaderach@wildmusegames.com
<mailto:kwisatzhaderach@wildmusegames.com> --
"But How Can This Be? For He Is the Kwisatz Haderach!" --Alyia - Dune
(The Movie - 1980)
*Rob*
Guest
Email <mailto:>
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1122.msg12378#msg12378>
*[SCATTERSHOT:V] Peeling Back the Layers, The Actual Mechanix
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1122.msg12378#msg12378>*
« *Reply #6 on:* January 28, 2002, 05:48:15 AM »
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: RobMuadib
Where moving into the open at the wrong time, or being caught
flat-footed out of cover has obvious and crushing results. And catching
some poor bastard looking around being uncatious with a short burst, as
you wait in a Kneeling firing stance around solid cover, is SO satisfying!
I know, I got two in a row like that in CountrStrike over the weekend.
;) Well actually I was the short arm on an L-shaped ambush.
Quote
(what can I say, I like to play FPS on the computer too. Oh yeah, that
reminds me of one of my classic mantras, someone needs to convert
Phoenix command to a computer moderated version that would be sweet!)
Well, if you've not tried CS, you should.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled Scattershot thread.
Logged
*contracycle
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=109>*
Member
Posts: 2392
View Profile
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=109>
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1122.msg12379#msg12379>
*Part V: Peeling Back the Layers - The Real Deal
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1122.msg12379#msg12379>*
« *Reply #7 on:* January 28, 2002, 05:51:24 AM »
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weird, thats my post above. Hmm.
Logged
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impeach the bomber boys:
www.impeachblair.org <http://www.impeachblair.org>
www.impeachbush.org <http://www.impeachbush.org>
"He who loves practice without theory is like the sailor who boards ship
without a rudder and compass and never knows where he may cast."
- Leonardo da Vinci
*Le Joueur <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=73>*
Member
Posts: 1363
View Profile
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=73> WWW
<http://www.scattershotgames.com>
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1122.msg12668#msg12668>
*[SCATTERSHOT:V] Peeling Back the Layers, The Actual Mechanix
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1122.msg12668#msg12668>*
« *Reply #8 on:* February 01, 2002, 08:16:02 PM »
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: RobMuadib
One problem I have on this thinking, while true for normal abilities
that define an ability to succeed at something, there is a diminished
return for each greater investment. But what about abilities such as
super powers and such, ones which are applications of a UE derived Value.
Since they are based on a Geometric progression. Having unlimited points
to spend on the "effect" portion means a player could create a character
that can destroy planets and all while someone else might have just made
batman. How do you address this, Self-established limits?
I know the I-V stuff is terribly laden with designer notes, so I can
understand what's happening here. You're confusing the ability Rating
with the effect's Magnitude.
This was one of the earliest compromises we made to mathematics, you
need two numbers to model enough situations for our satisfaction. It
didn't follow that you'd be better and better at doing something as you
became more powerful. Where would you model people who had fantastic
power but lousy control or vice versa? That's why almost all Ratings
have a Magnitude (for skills the Magnitude is 'hidden' by having each
skill define its own parameters). Superpower, magic, and et cetera are
linked to the Power Stat. The only Ratings that do not have Magnitudes
are the Stats themselves (and actually, in most cases, they function /as
their own/ Magnitudes - and this is the only case of that).
What does that mean? Well because of the sigmoid graph of probabilities
associated with a 'this number or less' roll of dice, the more points
you spend, the less return there is. For example; if you have an
Invoked Rating of 15, the chances of succeeding on an unmodified *MIB*
roll is 85% (god, I love calculating with 2 ten-siders). Spend a point
(going up to 16) and that becomes 90%. If it were linear, another point
would get you 5% more, but it doesn''t. (17 is 94%, 18 is 97%, and 19
is 99%.) This is diminishing return.
With Magnitude Ratings, it works geometrically. Weight on the UE Chart
can be calculated (if you don't like charts) at 3 times the Rating
squared in pounds. For a Magnitude Rating of 40 (40 x 40 x 3), that
would be 4,800 pounds, just under 2½ tons. Adding 10 points makes it
7,500 pounds, a 56% increase. Adding 10 more is 10,800 pounds, another
69% (compared to the original).
As you can see, turning the Magnitude up to the point where planets get
destroyed becomes both cost prohibitive, and bloody obvious. As I
described in another thread, what follows this part of character
creation is more-or-less negotiations on the part of the players to
reach an idea of what kind of game they all want to take part in. I
will be formalizing that exact process, when I /find those damn notes!/
It isn't precisely about establishing limits, it has to do with shared
expectations.
Quote from: RobMuadib
This doesn't result in a shortchange in either Basis Traits or
Proficiency, despite the diminishing returns in your chance of Binary
Success, as higher Trait Scores offer a geometric increase in related
Values, and a Linear increase in scaled ability. For Proficiency,
although your Binary Success is subject to diminishing returns, the
magnitudes of your Success scale linearly. (and thus require a
geometrically increasing cost to achieve.)
We took the opposite approach (if I am reading this correctly). Our
'proficiency' scales with diminishing returns (see above), and our
magnitudes scale geometrically. The UE Chart is rarely about the
magnitude of success and more about the magnitude of success attempted.
Strength doesn't even require a roll unless you're doing something
'chancy,' you simply are able to lift Strength squared times 3 pounds.
The only time success is scaled by the UE Chart is for things like
attacks; an attack superpower 'powered' by a Power of 40 has a
'multiplier' of 16; after the *RMIB* is determined you multiply it by 16
(so an *RMIB* of 4 nets 64 points of basic damage). The multiplier is
static (and in a game with a Critical Juncture number of 5, you would
only need to note these values to avoid in-play calculation: 16, 32, 48,
and 64, because anything higher would be a Telling Blow).
Quote from: RobMuadib
I like this idea of allowing of success out of failure. Seems like a
good mechanic, especially when trying to emphasize story elements. This
is somewhat novel approach. I have seen modifiers applied for
hurrying/Taking extra time on an Act, but this is first I've really seen
anyone use a reverse application of it. Pretty slick.
My only caveat would to be label "optional" in that, it that it could
cause short shrift to Roleist elements for people who want to emphasize
it. Hardcore "Sim" play being the classic example, and possibly Gameist
play as well. Imagine the following exchange.
"Hah, you failed, prepare to die dewd."
"Wait!, <rules ouija by desperate Gameist player to snatch victory from
the jaws of defeat."
"What? that sucks, pulling some lame rule out of your ass just so you
won't lose."
Actually, it doesn't need to be optional. Sooner or later, the Gamist
player will run out of the resources necessary to 'put off' losing.
(You can only overdraw your 'adharmic bank account' so much before it
'comes back to haunt you.')
Quote from: RobMuadib
I am going to agree to disagree with you, well done initiative systems,
provide a nice modeling of factors resulting in very tense involved
Gameist gameplay.
Where moving into the open at the wrong time, or being caught
flat-footed out of cover has obvious and crushing results. And catching
some poor bastard looking around being incautious with a short burst, as
you wait in a Kneeling firing stance around solid cover, is SO satisfying!
You seem a little confused my friend. Scattershot is not without a
initiative system. It has a pretty sophisticated one actually. What it
lacks is a randomized 'who strikes first' system. It also does not take
away 'first strike' from those who have the initiative due to the
direction of the narrative.
As far as I am concerned, systems that games have called 'initiative
systems' are actually some attempt to collapse the detail of who gets
the upper hand in a battle into obscure, wargame-like number-based
mechanics. Instead of awarding 'first strike' as the only means of
modelling the upper hand, we have the Combat Advantage system. It's
another of my 'favorite bits' in Scattershot. Now that I have the 'just
the mechanix' up; why don't you read it and tell me what you think?
Your example would never work in a 'who goes first' mechanic (well it
might, but only because the players 'turn it back into story' after the
fact).
Quote from: RobMuadib
Oh, I am reminded of something in Contracycle's post regarding your
terminology. Invoked is probably overly-obfuscated. In terms of previous
design, Acting/Opposing or Action/Reaction might be a clearer term.
Invoked is not as intuitive and heavier on the formal side in your
Formal Language.
And 'Acting/Opposing' intuitively means anything? I guess Invoked has
been hard for even /our/ people to swallow, but I am still open to any
word that a person, unencumbered by our years of gaming experience would
think means an 'you use it' ability (as opposed to an 'it gets used up'
or a 'how big?' rating), that won't be confused with our word for an 'it
happens right away' ability (as opposed to an 'it takes a little work'
or 'it takes quite a while' ability) or our word for an 'it happens when
you want' ability (as opposed to an 'others trigger it' or a 'lingers
on' ability), so they can all be used together. MEGS-style terminology
is almost completely opaque to never-gamed-before people. (Heck, I
still don't follow DC Heroes jargon, /and I've got the books right over
there!/
Quote from: RobMuadib
Quote from: Le Joueur
³ I need a new word for this one. [referring to 'Check']
Hmm, instead of contested Check, how about simply calling it a
Challenge, (Since it is effectively the default way your resolve
actions), and call the limited case of static uses a Simple Challenge.
For instance, when a Instantaneous [Action] Rating is Challenged, you
make a Challenge roll by rolling 2d10 and comparing the your MIB # to
the Challenge roll of your Opponent ... etc, Or, in the case of a Simple
Challenge of a Rating, you make a Challenge Roll, modifying the Rating
for difficulty. Your MIB from the Challenge of your Effective Rating is
used directly to determine your RMIB, ... etc.
Whoa! Wrong way. You're thinking noun, I'm thinking verb 'as in Check
your Rating.' We considered Test and Try, but they just don't have
'that feeling.' Got any good verbs?
(Roll the 70s music...VERB! That's what's happening! - Ah, I miss
grammar rock....)
Fang Langford
Logged
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fang Langford is formerly the creator of the Scattershot Role-Playing
Game System. This project has been permanently suspended. If you have
any questions regarding the implementation of it or anything else, he
can be reached at ripjack@mad.scientist.com
<mailto:ripjack@mad.scientist.com>
*Pages:* [*1*] Print
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=printpage;topic=1122.0>
« previous
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1122.0;prev_next=prev>
next »
<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=1122;prev_next=next>
Jump to:
Powered by MySQL <http://www.mysql.com/> Powered by PHP
<http://www.php.net/> The Forge | Powered by SMF 1.0.5
<http://www.simplemachines.org/>.
© 2001-2005, Lewis Media <http://www.lewismedia.com/>. All Rights Reserved.
*Oxygen* design by Bloc <http://www.bloczone.net> Valid XHTML 1.0!
<http://validator.w3.org/check/referer> Valid CSS!
<http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/check/referer>