M-Space VS The Big Golden Book

[Ian Absentia]

8 minutes ago, g33k said:

So I too would (very much!) welcome more effort in the BRP direction.

Then perhaps the general BRP forum would be an appropriate place to discuss it?  For all the talk of letting people like what they like (for which I was reasonably taken to task), there's a noticeable effort to take the wind out of M-Space.

!i!

[g33k]

39 minutes ago, Ian Absentia said:

Then perhaps the general BRP forum would be an appropriate place to discuss it?  For all the talk of letting people like what they like (for which I was reasonably taken to task), there's a noticeable effort to take the wind out of M-Space.

!i!

Well, but *this* is the thread where the topic is up, and it's not really "thread drift" given the title of the thread...

But, it's a fair-enough observation to suggest that BRP-centric elements might profitably move to the BRP forum.

[g33k]

<duplicate post deleted>

Edited June 9, 2023 by g33k
dup

[clarence]

Using Extended Conflicts for simple number crunching is possible, but not the intention. The players should always describe what they want to accomplish with an action, choose a skill and Conflict Pool, then roll against the opposing force. The narrative bits make the conflict possible to visualise, strike by strike. 

I like the example of a duel at some baroque court, in front of a small, exclusive crowd. The two opponents fight with swords - but insult and ridicule each other as well. In a round, combat proceeds as normal. But parallel to the sword play, a social conflict takes place, also per round. 

The players don’t have to act out the verbal conflict, but they should describe what they say and what they try to achieve. Just like in combat. 

The interesting part comes as the duel approaches a conclusion. Because the opponent who wins the sword fight might lose the social conflict - and as a consequence the sympathy of the court elite. And winning the hearts of the right people might be much more important in the long run, even with a few cuts and bruises to heal  

And what would happen if the social conflict ends first, with one of the opponents at zero CHA? It could mean a lot of things, depending on the situation and the characters involved, but the losing part might break down in tears, leave the duel in anger or even surrender because some juicy insult makes the crowd laugh at him.

To me, all this add new layers and meaning to game play, without introducing complex mechanics. I understand it’s not for everyone and that’s ok. But it’s a simple way to move roleplaying away from its violent roots. 

As for BRP vs. Mythras, I like both. They are similar enough to switch between or move various mechanics from one to the other. Having two rulesets to choose from, with slightly different flavours, is really cool. 

[Mugen]

15 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Yes, but it isn't  always abracted to the same extent or the same way. RQ came about in part becuase it's authors thtoo abstract. D&D pretty much boiled combat down things down to attack, damage, AC, and hit points. RQ added in things like parries, fixed hit points, armor absorbing damage as opposed to redcuing the chances of "hitting" and so on.

So it comes down to how much abstraction. I think that using dice pools can lead to too much abstraction and turn everything into a simple number crunch.

Problem with OD&D Health System is that it didn't chose between abstraction and realism (or Narrativism and Simulationism). PCs had more Hit Points as they levelled because it represents an abstract ability to survive a fight, but :

-CON adds points to HP total,

-Armor could negate hit points loss completely because it follows a "if you don't hit flesh, there's no HP loss" logic.

-That heroic pool takes months to recover for a heroic figure and far less for a commoner becaus it obeys "Natural Healing" logic.

-Similarly, a Cure spell can fully heal a commoner but you need multiple ones to fully heal a hero.

Nowadays, I prefer to have more "abstract Hit Points", and not directly tied to wounds. BRP and Mythras are still influenced by the "if you don't hit flesh, there's no HP loss" logic I mentioned above, and I'm not satisfied by it.

[Atgxtg]

4 hours ago, Mugen said:

Problem with OD&D Health System is that it didn't chose between abstraction and realism (or Narrativism and Simulationism). PCs had more Hit Points as they levelled because it represents an abstract ability to survive a fight, but :

-CON adds points to HP total,

-Armor could negate hit points loss completely because it follows a "if you don't hit flesh, there's no HP loss" logic.

-That heroic pool takes months to recover for a heroic figure and far less for a commoner becaus it obeys "Natural Healing" logic.

-Similarly, a Cure spell can fully heal a commoner but you need multiple ones to fully heal a hero.

Actually that was usually admitted to being a flaw with the D&D model. 

The original concept was that all HP loss reflected minor injuries and loss of stamina save for the final wound that drops the character. As a result it shouldn't take longer for those with lots of HP to recover. That was why Arudin had healing splls heal a percentage of total hit points.

 

4 hours ago, Mugen said:

Nowadays, I prefer to have more "abstract Hit Points", and not directly tied to wounds.

Yes, I can understand that.  Something about who wins the fight as opposed to who needs the most medical attention.

4 hours ago, Mugen said:

 

BRP and Mythras are still influenced by the "if you don't hit flesh, there's no HP loss" logic I mentioned above, and I'm not satisfied by it.

It's perfect as far as Hit/point injuries go, but it's not the best model of handling a fight, since most fights don't follow the Monty Python King Arthur vs. the Black Knight model.

 I've been working on cinematic dueling system where you track who is winning the battle rather than a laundry list of accumulated injuries. Basically rather than tracking hit point loss, it tracks  who has the advantage in a fight and by how much. Most fights in fiction tend to work this way-both for dramatic purposes and to show the audience who is winning. By my idea would be rather than having people run out of "hit points" one side would build up an advantage somewhat similar to how Pendragon works reflexive modifiers (+5/-5). My idea is that eventually one party would accumulate enough of an advantage to ensure the outcome of the fight and "win" the conflict. I was thinking that injuries would be a secondary effect of losing an exchange, one of several such as being driven back, disarmed, tripped and so on. 

I think the idea could work for other types of conflict as well, for instance mass battles where the advantage tracks how the battle i going and casualties would be a side effect of the conflict. You can lose more people and win a battle. In fact I could see the option of deliberately trading off more casualties for a bonus to the die roll. Or taking a wound for the same thing in a duel.

[Atgxtg]

4 hours ago, clarence said:

Using Extended Conflicts for simple number crunching is possible, but not the intention. The players should always describe what they want to accomplish with an action, choose a skill and Conflict Pool, then roll against the opposing force. The narrative bits make the conflict possible to visualise, strike by strike. 

Oh, I understand the concept, but it's basically the same as old D&D. Player imagine that their characters are leaping lunging, riposting, and sidestepping but in merchanical terms it comes down to rolling to hit and taking hit point damage. 

4 hours ago, clarence said:

I like the example of a duel at some baroque court, in front of a small, exclusive crowd. The two opponents fight with swords - but insult and ridicule each other as well. In a round, combat proceeds as normal. But parallel to the sword play, a social conflict takes place, also per round. 

The players don’t have to act out the verbal conflict, but they should describe what they say and what they try to achieve. Just like in combat. 

But note of that matters in game terms. It's like how APP tends to be a dump stat. In theory APP matters but there is usually no actual benefits to it as far as the game rules go.

4 hours ago, clarence said:

The interesting part comes as the duel approaches a conclusion. Because the opponent who wins the sword fight might lose the social conflict - and as a consequence the sympathy of the court elite. And winning the hearts of the right people might be much more important in the long run, even with a few cuts and bruises to heal  

And what would happen if the social conflict ends first, with one of the opponents at zero CHA? It could mean a lot of things, depending on the situation and the characters involved, but the losing part might break down in tears, leave the duel in anger or even surrender because some juicy insult makes the crowd laugh at him.

To me, all this add new layers and meaning to game play, without introducing complex mechanics. I understand it’s not for everyone and that’s ok.

To me it doesn't add any layers, in fact it removed them, since everything just gets reduced to a dice poll vs a target number and hit points, and all the rest is just trappings. 

4 hours ago, clarence said:

But it’s a simple way to move roleplaying away from its violent roots. 

No it isn't Your still doing fighting, just another way. Conflict is conflict. It's also vitial to story telling and gaming. If your character don't have any sort of conflict the story is boring and people lose interest. 

For example you could have a situation where someone is trying to win over a person they love, and it still boils down to the same combat model of attack roll, damage roll and hit points. Only in this case it simply reflect the significant other's reluctance. 

Same with someone trying to find something good to watch on TV, find a service station that is open at 2 AM. It still comes down to the attack roll, damage roll and hit point loss. 

 

4 hours ago, clarence said:

As for BRP vs. Mythras, I like both. They are similar enough to switch between or move various mechanics from one to the other. Having two rulesets to choose from, with slightly different flavours, is really cool. 

Yes, which exactly why I'm not fond of dice pools. You lose the coolness of different flavors and options. Now there are ways to add flavors and options but that usually means more variance, especially in the effects, beyond that of simple hit points. The points are abstract and meaningless until they are all gone. 

[clarence]

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

No it isn't Your still doing fighting, just another way. Conflict is conflict. It's also vitial to story telling and gaming. If your character don't have any sort of conflict the story is boring and people lose interest. 

I would say an argument, picking a lock or piloting a raft down a swift stream are much more acceptable types of conflict than a beating. As you say, conflict is necessary to create a story. Physical violence is not.

I don’t think we will agree on the usefulness (or not) of Extended Conflicts. But I always enjoy hearing your opinions.

[Ian Absentia]

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

To me it doesn't add any layers, in fact it removed them, since everything just gets reduced to a dice poll vs a target number and hit points, and all the rest is just trappings. 

Welcome to the world of RPGs, where you choose the trappings of your abstractions to suit your taste.  In another game, it'd be arbitrarily different systems to model physical combat preferentially versus any other encounter.  Which is clearly what some people want when they complain that a given system makes physical combat indistinguishable from any other conflict.

!i!

[RosenMcStern]

3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Oh, I understand the concept, but it's basically the same as old D&D. Player imagine that their characters are leaping lunging, riposting, and sidestepping but in merchanical terms it comes down to rolling to hit and taking hit point damage. 

But note of that matters in game terms. It's like how APP tends to be a dump stat. In theory APP matters but there is usually no actual benefits to it as far as the game rules go.

To me it doesn't add any layers, in fact it removed them, since everything just gets reduced to a dice poll vs a target number and hit points, and all the rest is just trappings. 

No it isn't Your still doing fighting, just another way. Conflict is conflict. It's also vitial to story telling and gaming. If your character don't have any sort of conflict the story is boring and people lose interest. 

For example you could have a situation where someone is trying to win over a person they love, and it still boils down to the same combat model of attack roll, damage roll and hit points. Only in this case it simply reflect the significant other's reluctance. 

Same with someone trying to find something good to watch on TV, find a service station that is open at 2 AM. It still comes down to the attack roll, damage roll and hit point loss. 

 

Yes, which exactly why I'm not fond of dice pools. You lose the coolness of different flavors and options. Now there are ways to add flavors and options but that usually means more variance, especially in the effects, beyond that of simple hit points. The points are abstract and meaningless until they are all gone. 

Atg, you are misrepresenting how extended contests work in a well designed implementation. Have you actually played M-Space, Comae or Revolution D100 conflicts?

And please don't mention playing Hero Wars or HeroQuest. They have a questionable implementation of extended conflicts (almost as bad as D&D4). It is for this reason that many people used Mark Galeotti's chained simple conflicts instead when playing HQ.

 

[g33k]

37 minutes ago, Ian Absentia said:

Welcome to the world of RPGs, where you choose the trappings of your abstractions to suit your taste.  In another game, it'd be arbitrarily different systems to model physical combat preferentially versus any other encounter.  Which is clearly what some people want when they complain that a given system makes physical combat indistinguishable from any other conflict.

Just theorycrafting for a moment, not trying to argue one case or another...

P'raps some conflicts are inherently different from "combat" per se, and deserve different rules?
Or perhaps they really aren't, and a single "Conflicts" mechanism is the Right Thing To Do, in a "Platonically-Ideal RPG" ?
 

Offhand, I see several different ways one might differentiate different kinds of "conflict..."
Combat / Social
1:1 / 1:few / 1:many / few:many / many:many
vs. "opponent(s)" / vs. "environment" (puzzle, storm, etc)
asymmetric / symmetric  (i.e. what if the rules were different for the protagonist/PC characters' actions, vs. the antagonist/NPC actions???)

I'm sure there are others!

[g33k]

And yet AGAIN, a dup post to remove!!

🤨

Edited June 10, 2023 by g33k

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, RosenMcStern said:

Atg, you are misrepresenting how extended contests work in a well designed implementation.

No I'm not, I was referring to what the abstraction of Hit Points were in D&D/AD&D. 

1 hour ago, RosenMcStern said:

Have you actually played M-Space, Comae or Revolution D100 conflicts?

No I haven't, but I have read the rules. Let's keep Revolution D100 out of this as no one has mentioned it yet, but quoting from the M-SPACE rules:

"Conflict Pools work like hit points, but for any conflict. They are based on characteristics and used one at a time."

So my aversion to them as being hit points reskiined is valid, since that is what they are. You can say that it is modelling something other than old D&D style combat but functionally it works the same. I find it much more limiting that BRP as you lose the options of parry, dodge, etc as everything boils down to attack roll vs AC, and damage off of hit points. Everything just comes down to one ability score. Tactics, actions, none of that matters. Skill only matters for the attack roll.

It's less creative that D&D because at least in D&D there were multiple things that added to the attack (STR or DEX bonus, magic weapons, level bonus, spells, situation modifiers, class and racial modifiers), AC (DEX, Armor Worn, class bonus, magic armor, rings, spells situational modifiers, damage (by weapon type augmented by STR magic etc.)or hit points (hit die rolls, level, CON bonus, magic items, spells, previous damage).  That's not mentioning the various immunities and special cases that existed in D&D. 

 

But M-SPACE Extended Conflicts comes down to one skill for the attack, one d6 for the damage and and one to two attributes for the hit points. No options, no tactics, no defense, just opposed attack roll and 1d6 damage.

• Does it matter if you got armor in a duel? No.
• Does it matter if you got any good points that could be important when trying to persuade someone in an argument? No.
• Does it matter if there is any background noise when you try to sneak past a guard? No. 
• Does it matter if you got one hundred times the chips as your opponent in a poker game, no. 
• Does it matter if you are in a rowboat or USS Iowa when Boating Through a Storm? No.

Everything boils down to an opposed skill roll with an attribute as hit points. And attributes are mostly fixed. The actual degree of success doesn't even factor into things, all wins work the same.

 

Yes, some people like this but that doesn't mean every does or that they must. I do not care for it, don't consider it a good feature, and won't recommend it as one. Prince Valiant handled this sort of thing simpler and better.

 

1 hour ago, RosenMcStern said:

And please don't mention playing Hero Wars or HeroQuest. They have a questionable implementation of extended conflicts (almost as bad as D&D4). It is for this reason that many people used Mark Galeotti's chained simple conflicts instead when playing HQ.

No more questionable than M-SPACE. HW/HQ at least has augments, the ability to determine the amount of ability points wagered on the roll, the ability to handle groups, differences in success levels, advantage reversals and the ability to regain points. I'll take HW/HQ's extended contests over M_SPACE's any day. I think I'd take Prince Valiant's extended contest rules over HW's too, Greg really did a good job with those game mechanics in PV. 

Edited June 10, 2023 by Atgxtg

[Ian Absentia]

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

No I haven't, but I have read the rules.

Please read them again.  Then play them before commenting on them, especially before making recommendations about them.  Because you were mistaken to one degree or another on most every point you tried to make.

!i!

Edited June 10, 2023 by Ian Absentia
Emojis are not adequate communication. 😐

[g33k]

11 hours ago, clarence said:

Using Extended Conflicts for simple number crunching is possible, but not the intention. The players should always describe what they want to accomplish with an action, choose a skill and Conflict Pool, then roll against the opposing force. The narrative bits make the conflict possible to visualise, strike by strike ... 

I've just managed to identify the thing that has made me uncomfortable here (and, to be clear, with *many* systems that re-skin "combat" mechanics for non-combat conflicts (which is an approach I've seen before)):

Sometimes, particularly for "soft skills" / "social skills," there can be many many different ending conditions; an analogue to "zero hit points" isn't really adequate.

Honestly, I'd be much much happier if "Extended Conflicts" reskinned the full-on Mythras combat system, specifically-including action-points and especially Special Effects.

It'd be a *LOT* of extra work, and you'd need a bunch of different SE's for a bunch of different sorts of Extended Conflicts.  You might even need a booklet filled with tables of SE's, I dunno...

But I think it would model those conflicts even better.

Edited June 10, 2023 by g33k

[clarence]

To keep this thread as focused and to the point as possible, here are the bullet points again - with some misunderstandings ironed out.

Does it matter if you got armor in a duel? Yes, Armour Points apply as normal. Weapon damage as well, if you want.

Does it matter if you got any good points that could be important when trying to persuade someone in an argument? Like in every other skill roll, skills in Extended Conflicts can get a bonus or penalty depending on the situation. This is a basic mechanic in most BRP/d100 games.

Does it matter if there is any background noise when you try to sneak past a guard? Same as above. 

Does it matter if you got one hundred times the chips as your opponent in a poker game? Same as above. Though I would recommend against joining a poker game with such imbalanced odds.

Does it matter if you are in a rowboat or USS Iowa when Boating Through a Storm? Yes, this comes down to the basic principle of skill bonuses and penalties again. Or you might simply not roll any dice at all in USS Iowa, because success is automatic. 

[clarence]

4 minutes ago, g33k said:

Honestly, I'd be much much happier if "Extended Conflicts" reskinned the full-on Mythras combat system, specifically-including action-points and especially Special Effects.

It'd be a *LOT* of extra work, and you'd need a bunch of different SE's for a bunch of different sorts of Extended Conflicts.  You might even need a booklet filled with tables of SE's, I dunno...

But I think it would model those conflicts even better.

Check out the rules on Lenses in Comae Engine. They work a bit like Special Effects in Mythras combat, but turned into more generic and flexible forms. 

As for different outcomes, I fully agree. The GM and players should be clear on what losing/succeeding in a conflict means. In general, I ask myself “What is the worst possible outcome of this conflict?” Those are the consequences of a Conflict Pool at zero. In social conflicts, perhaps making an enemy, being thrown out from a party or getting arrested for bribery. For INT conflicts, you might break essential equipment or just feeling too mentally strained to continue. 

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, clarence said:

To keep this thread as focused and to the point as possible, here are the bullet points again - with some misunderstandings ironed out.

Does it matter if you got armor in a duel? Yes, Armour Points apply as normal. Weapon damage as well, if you want.

 

Notaccording to the extended contest examples,. Note I'm talking about that as opposed to regular combat.  Oh, and if armor applies then you'd would need regular damage or else someone with 6 points of armor can't lose.

One of the things I don't like about the extended conflicts is that the damage is 1d6 with no adjustment due to the difference in skill. This makes it impossible for someone who is markedly better than an opponent to defeat someone quickly. Someone with a stat of 11 is going to take on average 3 losses to defeat, no matter how skilled their opponent, or the actual skill rolls. Personally I think it would be better if the damage take was tied more closely to the outcome of the opposing skill rolls. Opposed rolls is s something that games not based on D100 do better. Games like Pendragon, FUDGE, Prince Valiant, D20 3.0+ all do opposed contests better.

 

1 hour ago, clarence said:

Does it matter if you got any good points that could be important when trying to persuade someone in an argument? Like in every other skill roll, skills in Extended Conflicts can get a bonus or penalty depending on the situation. This is a basic mechanic in most BRP/d100 games.

 

But not well implemented with the extended conflicts. There no example of modifiers for such things, or what aspect of the contest to apply them to. Do they add to your skill, take away from the opponent's or do they modifier one of your die pools? There is no sort of standardized suggestions. Now I could see some nice options, like maybe armor adds to the die pool, prolonging the conflict, damage die based on skill, but there isn't much there. 

1 hour ago, clarence said:

 

Does it matter if there is any background noise when you try to sneak past a guard? Same as above. 

 

Would the noise boost the sneak skill, reduce the spot/listen skill of the opponent, or the relevant die pools. Speaking on which should the player get a die pool? I mean once the guard hears something, the contest is sort of over, or at least changes to a different type of contest where the player has to convince the guard that it was a normal noise or just part of the guard's imagination ("Meow?")

1 hour ago, clarence said:

 

Does it matter if you got one hundred times the chips as your opponent in a poker game? Same as above. Though I would recommend against joining a poker game with such imbalanced odds.

 

Would you apply the adjustment to the gambling skill or the conflict/hit point pool?

 

1 hour ago, clarence said:

Does it matter if you are in a rowboat or USS Iowa when Boating Through a Storm? Yes, this comes down to the basic principle of skill bonuses and penalties again. Or you might simply not roll any dice at all in USS Iowa, because success is automatic. 

But at what point do you get a bonus or a penalty. And is it automatic (Battleships can capsize and sink). And what about bailing water, or the actions of the other people aboard? 

Look, I get that you like this approach, and that fine. But if we all agreed on things there would be no reason for you to have written your own game in the first place. That's sort of the point in having other games, we can all pick what rules we prefer. I'd prefer to do things differently that's all. I'm sure there are game mechaics that I'm fond of that others do like,skill category modifiers,for instance. C'est la vie. 

 

[Old Man Henerson]

I think I am pretty sold on getting M-Space now, (unless BRP Spaceships comes out soon) but I have a few more questions. I have heard that the weapon damage and health stats in M-Space are higher than in the Big Golden Book, I have also seen that M-Space uses hit locations. So I was wondering if would it be very difficult to convert between the two damage systems and/or hit locations and total hit points?

[clarence]

M-SPACE follows Mythras regarding damage, Hit Points and Hit Locations. But the book also includes a simplified version of combat, dropping Hit Locations and using only 11 Special Effects. So, it’s quite easy to dial in the amount of crunch you need - from full Mythras, over Mythras Imperative, to M-SPACE’s simplified version. And there’s even a variant using Extended Conflicts to keep it really rules-lite. 

As for damage, I was under the impression that Mythras has lower weapon damage in general, to compensate for Hit Locations. But I could be wrong. 

[Old Man Henerson]

21 minutes ago, clarence said:

M-SPACE follows Mythras regarding damage, Hit Points and Hit Locations. But the book also includes a simplified version of combat, dropping Hit Locations and using only 11 Special Effects. So, it’s quite easy to dial in the amount of crunch you need - from full Mythras, over Mythras Imperative, to M-SPACE’s simplified version. And there’s even a variant using Extended Conflicts to keep it really rules-lite.

Thank you sir, that is just what I needed to hear!

22 minutes ago, clarence said:

As for damage, I was under the impression that Mythras has lower weapon damage in general, to compensate for Hit Locations. But I could be wrong. 

I thought I had read it somewhere on these forums earlier, I might have it backwards though so I do not really know. It does not particularly matter though since I am planning on using M-Space in tandem with my Big Golden Book for running other things like a sanity/dark side corruption meter.

As an unrelated question, does M-Space's weapon list include something light a lightsaber?

[g33k]

On 6/10/2023 at 1:31 PM, clarence said:

... 

As for different outcomes, I fully agree. The GM and players should be clear on what losing/succeeding in a conflict means. In general, I ask myself “What is the worst possible outcome of this conflict?” Those are the consequences of a Conflict Pool at zero. In social conflicts, perhaps making an enemy, being thrown out from a party or getting arrested for bribery. For INT conflicts, you might break essential equipment or just feeling too mentally strained to continue. 

No, you have missed my point.

In many conflicts -- particularly fluid, social situations -- the end-goal isn't clear going in; and there may be any of several "satisfactory" goals.

Going back to combat for a moment -- your goal is to "win."  But that doesn't necessarily always look like "enemy is at zero or negative HP's, bleeding or dead at your feet."

Maybe, in the course of combat, their left leg went down to just 1 HP; thereafter, everyone in the fight was going for a called-shot (in Mythras, "Choose Location") to the left leg, downing the foe in RQ-Classic fashion.

Maybe you got a "Covered" special-effect, and they opted to drop their weapon.

Maybe you knocked them Prone, and everybody just dogpiled on until they couldn't move.


Returning to the Social Scene... maybe you want to impress people; maybe you don't care about "people" but want to impress one person particularly; maybe you don't really care what impression you make (you just want another person discredited); maybe you're not there to cause (social) damage:  you want to make sure the event is a "social success."

Maybe several of these are desirable outcomes... this begins to look (to me) like a "Social Special Effects" system:

Quote

Hmm... 2 levels of success?  I'll take the Bon Mot effect -- people are laughing at the other guy -- but also the Double Entendre:  I want La Principessa reminded of the other day in the garden when I complimented her ravishing looks after she was caught out in the thundershower.

But -- going into the social event -- you couldn't be sure what opportunities would be available, who would be attending, what mix of attendees would be in any given scene, etc etc etc.  You can't (realistically (IMHO)) arbitrarily pick any result up-front; as ONJ put it, you've got to "feel your way."

Edited September 26, 2023 by g33k
typo

[clarence]

On 6/16/2023 at 2:51 PM, Old Man Henerson said:

As an unrelated question, does M-Space's weapon list include something light a lightsaber?

Yes, it does : )

[RosenMcStern]

On 6/10/2023 at 10:11 PM, g33k said:

Sometimes, particularly for "soft skills" / "social skills," there can be many many different ending conditions; an analogue to "zero hit points" isn't really adequate.

 

On 6/11/2023 at 12:08 AM, Atgxtg said:

One of the things I don't like about the extended conflicts is that the damage is 1d6 with no adjustment due to the difference in skill. This makes it impossible for someone who is markedly better than an opponent to defeat someone quickly. Someone with a stat of 11 is going to take on average 3 losses to defeat, no matter how skilled their opponent, or the actual skill rolls. Personally I think it would be better if the damage take was tied more closely to the outcome of the opposing skill rolls. Opposed rolls is s something that games not based on D100 do better. Games like Pendragon, FUDGE, Prince Valiant, D20 3.0+ all do opposed contests better.

But not well implemented with the extended conflicts. There no example of modifiers for such things, or what aspect of the contest to apply them to. Do they add to your skill, take away from the opponent's or do they modifier one of your die pools? There is no sort of standardized suggestions. Now I could see some nice options, like maybe armor adds to the die pool, prolonging the conflict, damage die based on skill, but there isn't much there. 

Would the noise boost the sneak skill, reduce the spot/listen skill of the opponent, or the relevant die pools. Speaking on which should the player get a die pool? I mean once the guard hears something, the contest is sort of over, or at least changes to a different type of contest where the player has to convince the guard that it was a normal noise or just part of the guard's imagination ("Meow?")

Would you apply the adjustment to the gambling skill or the conflict/hit point pool?

But at what point do you get a bonus or a penalty. And is it automatic (Battleships can capsize and sink). And what about bailing water, or the actions of the other people aboard? 

All of the above points are valid. And i do not see them implemented in detail in M-Space.

However, all of these points are addressed in Revolution D100's implementation of conflicts. And you can apply these solutions to M-Space, too, or even to core Mythras task rounds with a minimum of creativity. You don't need  much tweaking of the rules, given that the context is really generic and does not use complex variables.

As you said, Atg, the idea is certainly correct, but the implementation (or its description) may not be of everyone's liking.

On 6/16/2023 at 5:36 PM, g33k said:

No, you have missed my point.

In many conflicts -- particularly fluid, social situations -- the end-goal isn't clear going in; and there may be any of several "satisfactory" goals.

Returning to the Social Scene... maybe you want to impress people; maybe you don't care about "people" but want to impress one person particularly; maybe you don't really care what impression you make (you just want another person discredited); maybe you're not there to cause (social) damage:  you want to make sure the event is a "social success."

Maybe several of these are desirable outcomes... this begins to look (to me) like a "Social Special Effects" system:

 

I would say "definitely not". Most special effects (bar Compel Surrender) are about a temporary advantage, not the end goal of the contest. You can add effects to contests, but you need different sets of effects for different types of contests. A monumental work.

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, RosenMcStern said:

 

All of the above points are valid. And i do not see them implemented in detail in M-Space.

In all fairness to clarence M_Space started as, and still remains a supplement for another core game system, which probably has more detailed rules. It real claim to fame was that it covered SciFi stuff for D100 based RPGs. It's kinda like the original Worlds of Wonder boxed set. RQ/Stormbringer and CoC had more detailed and comprehensive rules, but Magic World, Furture Worlds, and Super World covered stuff that hadn't really been dealt with before in BRP  games. Even Magic World gave a different take of Fantasy RPGing that RQ or Stormbringer did, and one more in line with traditional FRPGs. So I look at M_SPACE the way I look at the original 3 book Traveller.

1 hour ago, RosenMcStern said:

However, all of these points are addressed in Revolution D100's implementation of conflicts. And you can apply these solutions to M-Space, too, or even to core Mythras task rounds with a minimum of creativity. You don't need  much tweaking of the rules, given that the context is really generic and does not use complex variables.

I'm not as familiar with Revolution D100, and was commenting on M-SPACE. Again I wasn't bashing the method, I just didn't consider it to be one of the games better features and so didn't mention it as a merit - and then had to defend why I didn't do so. 

1 hour ago, RosenMcStern said:

As you said, Atg, the idea is certainly correct, but the implementation (or its description) may not be of everyone's liking.

Yup, but if we all felt the same about rules there be no M-SPACE, Revolution D100, or even RQ or T&T. All these differernt RPGs came about becuase not everyone liked the way D&D did everything.

 

There are cases where a different approach might work better for some people. Case in point, I was thinking of a system for dueling or arm wrestling based on a clock dial. Basically a conflict would start off at 12 Noon, and the advantage marker would shift one or more ticks to either side depending on who won, and by how much. At around 3 o'clock or  9 o'clock one side would win. You could have more than three ticks to win (i'd go with half the pool pool of M-Space as it can shift back and forth) and apply an advantage modifier based on how far the track is to one side. You could even apply the stressed modifier at the half way point. This could also work out well for chases where the track could represent the distance between the parties, and I believe would be more dynamic than "hit point" attrition TO me seeing vehicles get closer or further apart with one finally escaping to getting cornered is more interesting that marking off generic points.

 

Outside influences could either apply a modifier to the skills or even shift the advantage track.  For instance stuff like side street, obstacles, and jumping a ditch could all be special situations to add to a chase that could adjust the advantage track. Maybe even have a doubling down option where a task has it difficulty increased but the rewards are also doubled. 

1 hour ago, RosenMcStern said:

I would say "definitely not". Most special effects (bar Compel Surrender) are about a temporary advantage, not the end goal of the contest. You can add effects to contests, but you need different sets of effects for different types of contests. A monumental work.

Althought not directed at me this does fit in well with my advantage track idea. Nor do you necessarily need differernt effect for each contest. You could start by simply giving a die roll modifier based upon the degree of advantage, with the amount of shift indicating how severe the special effect was.

Optionally you could do something like in FATE where a player could take a complication of some sort to avoid suffering a change in the advantage track or even defeat. For instance being disarmed and losing your lightsaber to avoid a large swing/loss.