[APEX] Free Universal System Feedback
Devon Oratz:
I am not that interested in mechanics that exist divorced from a setting or concept, because "generic" mechanics aren't custom suited to reinforce the Color and theme of the game they are wedded to like, well, non-generic mechanics are. I also don't particularly like "Die Step" systems like Earthdawn and Serenity, although I prefer yours to most of the ones I've seen for its simplicity. Even with those things, I might wind up messing around with your system for one of my games, but that's mostly because I just inherently like screwing around with systems, mechanics, and numbers.
Your website looks pretty good but MAN that's a lot of links. There are also a few typos on the start page that you might want to fix.
So there's your one, two, three, and four in a bit of a scramble.
By the way, the concerns Steve brought up could be addressed pretty elegantly just by lowering the universal target number to 4 instead of 5. That way you get:
d4: 25% (unchanged)
d6: 33% (unchanged)
d8: 62%
d10: 70%
d12: 75%
It would also more or less increase the rate of success across the board for actions, which IMHO is definitely a good thing.
Parylus:
Thanks Devon!
I must admit when it comes to looking at systems, non-generic ones are usually more interesting to me too for the exact reasons you outlined. When a system is strongly tied to the setting, its definitely more appealing but only if you're interested in that setting. To flip the script on you, I find your P10 rules to be interesting, but I'm just not that interested in grindhouse horror, so I'd probably never actually play the game.
I think the disconnected is inspiration. A set of rules strongly tied to a setting can feel more inspiring, but I'd consider that a side-effect of the setting. To me, it's not the rules that inspire me, it's the setting, so rules tied to an inspiring setting will probably feel more appealing out of the box. My hope is that I can provide FREE, simple, generic rules so people can worry more about what setting inspires them and less about how they'll be able to jury-rig an existing system to fit their needs. All of the game systems I've designed in the past have always been strongly tied to their intended setting.This is my first foray (and first spark of interest) into generic systems in years. The whole reason why I went generic this time around is because I'd like a set of rules that don't have be tweaked that much to go from one setting to another.
I can see how the number of links could be a bit overwhelming. I have gotten feedback saying the linking is a good thing though, so I won't worry too much about them unless I get more complaints. Some people just prefer to look at rules in book-format, which I totally understand. The website is nice though because it lets me worry about content more so then appearance, which I often get distracted by :)
As far as lowering the universal TN to 4, I had that thought as well, but remember that you succeed when you roll equal to or above the target number. The success chances would be more like this if I'm not mistaken:
d4: 25% (1/4)
d6: 50% (3/6)
d8: 63% (5/8)
d10: 70% (7/10)
d12: 75% (9/12)
That said, it seems like a nice and simple way to solve the issue. I think my pattern-oriented brain prefers intervals of 5, but given the fact that players are more interested in succeeding than failing, I think this would be a good adjustment to the system.
Thanks for the input Devon!
Devon Oratz:
Quote
To flip the script on you, I find your P10 rules to be interesting, but I'm just not that interested in grindhouse horror, so I'd probably never actually play the game.
Touche. I do think I will be developing at least one other game in another genre with a very similar rules set. Originally, Phantasm was one of three games I'd made with the same overall system, before I rewrote it.
Quote
As far as lowering the universal TN to 4, I had that thought as well, but remember that you succeed when you roll equal to or above the target number. The success chances would be more like this if I'm not mistaken:
I think I had some kind of major brain fart there when looking at the d6. Embarrassing as most of my games involve d6.
Quote
My hope is that I can provide FREE, simple, generic rules so people can worry more about what setting inspires them and less about how they'll be able to jury-rig an existing system to fit their needs. All of the game systems I've designed in the past have always been strongly tied to their intended setting.This is my first foray (and first spark of interest) into generic systems in years. The whole reason why I went generic this time around is because I'd like a set of rules that don't have be tweaked that much to go from one setting to another.
A good number of products already provide this, though (although you could argue the 'free' in some cases, the 'simple' in other cases, and the 'generic' in still other cases). For instance, off the top of my head, I can think of the FuZion system, and as a rule for every RPG I'm aware of there's nine similar ones that I'm not.
I suppose the question to ask yourself is: how is your system different, how is it better, and what you want it to do that existing "generic" and/or "free" systems like Fuzion, d20, HERO System, Basic Roleplaying (Chaosium), GURPS, etc. aren't doing for you. (I know some of those aren't free but a few of them have more-or-less free iterations, like the OGL/SRD for the d20 system, or have become abandonware, which is kind of the same thing.) The last thing--what you want this system to accomplish that similar products aren't--is arguably pretty important.
(I am sorry in advance if I made any embarrassing mistakes in this post. I am not used to not being able to edit my posts and it is really taking some getting used to.)
Chris_Chinn:
Hi Zack,
Quote
Okay, now for Chris. From what I understand, you're saying there just isn't enough substance there to be useful, correct? So your suggestion would be to give example of how to handle different situations? Like, "If you want to climb a tree, use Agility."
Things like that?
Not quite.
You're designing a game because right now, another game isn't doing what you already want. What kind of play is it you're designing to create? What is it that your game is/will be doing that other games aren't, and how will it do it?
Don't worry about answering those questions here- instead take the time to answer those questions by working on your rules further.
I can't really say much about the rules because all I'm seeing is a resolution mechanic. It's like judging D&D on the statement, "On a roll of a 1 or 2, you kick open the door"... there's not enough context to work with.
Chris
SteveCooper:
*** mostly written earlier today, before other posts ***
Hi, Zack.
I think adding dice helps stretch the curve out, and that helps you model characters who are amazing. d12+d12+d4 (Chuck flies a plane) actually comes out at 99.3% likely to pass a difficulty 5 challenge. So that's great. I still think that you might need to be clearer about when a character rolls; The more common rolling is, the more often characters will fail at seemingly easy things.
Even if d12 represents 'really competent professional' and not 'world-class', then you have to account for the high rate of failure. Imagine you are playing a professional bomb-disposal expert and you have to make a 'disable IED' roll at difficulty five; you've got, on average, about three bombs before your character is dead. Poor characters have much less chance; an untrained person has only 1% chance of passing three successive rolls.
Also as written, better characters are more likely to botch, since the chance of botch increases with dice; you are more likely to roll a '1' on 2d12 than on 1d12.
*** TROLL ***
As to TROLL: open the page and paste in this code;
Code:
dice := {12,12,4}; \ this means 'd12+d12+d4'
bonus := 0; \ this is the bonus to the roll
roll := sum (foreach die in dice do (sum accumulate score:=d die while score= die)) + bonus;
roll
Then hit the 'calculate probabilities' button. You'll see a bar graph with the chances of achieving different scores. It's a nice way to 'explore' the stats of your system. By varying the first two lines, you can explore the effects of different dice pools and bonuses.
*** 4 as the target number ***
I think 4 as the target number helps a lot. That spread seems a bit more reasonable. You still have to be happy with the numbers because they still imply a great deal of failing if too many rolls are requested.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page