PDA

View Full Version : Extinction Event Alpha test



Ardem
January 3rd, 2014, 05:36
Hi guys,

Some of you may know me from the Rolemaster of things.

I have created a new game and Fantasy Ground Ruleset and I am looking for

a) A few players to to test the game out on a Saturday Night or Sunday mornings work well, there will be 1 to 3 session dependent on how it goes.

b) Another GM to test the game without my involvement to see how it works on there side of things. (another game then above.)

To give you an idea about the game I post the intro excerpt, also the ruleset is based on a D10 target number system and a unique cover system. The game is deadly and characters will more then likely go a few through a characters. The dynamics are more whether the group will survive then individuals.

Extinction Event is a Tabletop Roleplaying game that brings together various concepts to suit a modern and post-modern setting. It is a survival game at heart where the setting is unknown to the characters before they start.

This makes character selection and creation very interesting, as well as game play.

There are various settings that this game mechanics are aimed at, however they are not limited to. Some of these setting include
- Alien Invasion
- Post Nuclear Holocaust
- Chemical/Virus induced human manipulation
- Hollow Earth event

The characters start their various lives are normal every day humans, that have a variety of skills. The world over night changes causing these every day humans to stretch for survival.

The gameplay is an hour by hour event, in most cases. The mundane is much apart of the survival as the fantastic, and most time interlinked. The search for food, water and shelter are necessary requirements but hindering this is the setting that the characters find themselves in.

A GamesMaster has a little bit of work to do before a campaign starts, however there are parts of this manual to help a GamesMaster quickly create the desired creature and lore quickly.

Please free to ask questions below or email adam at varidan.com.au

https://www.fantasygrounds.com/calendar/index.xcp?id=1142 to join

Isamill
January 3rd, 2014, 07:49
It sounds very interesting, what time on a Sunday morning would you be looking at (i'm an early riser so the earlier the better for me and the wife and kids sleep in on a Sunday lol)

Ardem
January 3rd, 2014, 09:45
Once we get a number of interested I aim for a time that is happy for everyone, But I do like a early start that way my wife and kids not impacted that much

Isamill
January 3rd, 2014, 10:20
Sounds good to me, I'll chuck my name on the calendar

d1wright
January 3rd, 2014, 16:45
I'd be interested in this concept as well. I've always liked modern post apocalypse. Don't worry about game times. I'm very flexible over the weekends and have played in some 5AM games before. I'll go over and get on the Calendar.

damned
January 4th, 2014, 03:40
whats a hollow earth event?

Ardem
January 4th, 2014, 07:02
A Hollow Earth Event is where new life spring up from under the ground where none thought existed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Earth

From here is could be an invasion of strange creatures.

Extinction Event is a 'what if' ruleset for the modern world. Other more mundane could be the collapse of the financial markets, no more oil (government lied over the year to prevent panic) or the rise of a wealthy subset for the enslavement of mankind e.g illuminati. It really up to the imagination of the GM

cmdisc
January 4th, 2014, 15:51
I'm interested in taking a look at this depending on timing. Sunday mornings for you would be preferable as that lands me on my Saturday nights.

Ardem
January 4th, 2014, 22:35
So far looks like a preference for sunday morning. Since I play a pathfinder game sunday mornings bi-weekly, the 1-3 sessions will be on alternate sunday mornings. Or Saturday Nights for our American and European brethren.

Welcome aboard cmdisc please put you name in the calendar and I will add you to the list.

d1wright
January 5th, 2014, 00:48
Whoops, mispost.

Ardem
January 5th, 2014, 01:42
Very Nice. <smile>

To help with your back stories if you like.

The Story will start off with you about to board a small 11 seater chartered plane in Denver and about to fly to Seattle for what ever reasons you would like to come up with.

Once we have the numbers I will open up the sever for a weekend for you to read the character manual and get familiar with the mechanics.

d1wright
January 6th, 2014, 20:38
A tallish woman in sunglasses of obvious Scandinavian descent with a blond ponytail stuck out the back of an old baseball hat boarded the charter. She looked to be in her late twenties and was dressed in faded jeans, sneakers, and a light green jacket. She stepped into the dim interior of the plane and removed her sunglasses

< Frame freezes with the sunglasses half off as her blue eyes stare directly into the camera. The following caption is displayed. >

Eliza Donner
US Department of Agriculture
Biologist

< motion resumes after a brief pause and the caption fades away>

She perched the sunglasses on the brim of her baseball cap and glanced at her ticket for seat assignment. She found her window seat, slid her computer bag under the seat in front of her, and sat down. She pulled a thick paperback from her purse and began to read, oblivious of any other passengers.

Isamill
January 7th, 2014, 08:01
A large powerfully built man in his fifties dressed in faded jeans and long sleeved shirt with what looks to be about 3 day stubble of greying beard and chillingly cold steel grey eyes looks casually around the aisle for his allocated seat, notices the young lady and offers her a friendly fatherly smile as he shuffles sideways past her seat -

(as she glances up she notices an embroided emblem on his shirt)5806

- trying to get his heavy frame down the narrow isle to the rear of the plane, he rummages around in his small day pack and pulls out what looks to be a magazine before placing the bag in the overhead storage locker and settles himself as comfortable as possible considering the dwarf sized seats

Ardem
January 8th, 2014, 23:28
Well it looks like we have 4 possibles for a start.

My proposal is a 7am AEST start on Sunday, is this too early or to late for people?

I am not quite ready to run this Sunday, however this weekend I plan to open up the server for all to read through the ruleset, and make a start on character creation. So first game session will be 26th of January at 7am. I will put this up in the calender and see how people go in accepting it. The server IP will be put into the calender when I put the server up on Saturday Morning.

Isamill
January 9th, 2014, 10:37
7am is a perfect time for me - earlier is fine as well depending on how our friends around the world can schedule the timing as well.
Unfortunately the 26th is a long weekend so we had organised to go camping that weekend - any other Sundays I am free

cmdisc
January 9th, 2014, 21:29
7am AEDT is fine for me. That is 9pm Sat night local. A 4-hour block is certainly doable. Will get my character intro added soon. If we waited until 2 Feb to start, I don't foresee any problems with this going every other week or so...for my timeline anyway. As one player already has trouble with the 26th and my attendance on 9 Feb is in question, we may want to plan around that depending on everyone else's schedule.

Ardem
January 10th, 2014, 07:50
We could aim for next Sunday, as Argol and my Pathfinder game is off next week. I maybe able to swap game week with Pathfinder group if it works for everyone

d1wright
January 10th, 2014, 12:46
Works for me.

Isamill
January 10th, 2014, 20:51
I'm good for then as well
checked out the system last night with Ardem - I would highly recommend making a second character lol - it looks like it is going to be a blast (Mmm literal sense or fun?? - definately both lol)

d1wright
January 10th, 2014, 22:28
Unless you wanted to use this Sunday for a character building and familiarization session for those who could make it. Or if you just brought the server up at some point for us do download the ruleset so we could poke at it.

Isamill
January 11th, 2014, 01:03
I believe that Ardem is leaving the server up all of this weekend to have a nosy at the ruleset and make your characters (including a back up Bwaaahahahahaha - Ardem just possessed me for a moment there)

Ardem
January 11th, 2014, 08:23
Yes it is up all weekend based on the IP in the calendar, this way you can review the ruleset which the details are in the library, and make your character if you choose.If i happen to be around I will say Hi, as I did for Isamill and gave him a run down.

cmdisc
January 12th, 2014, 20:57
A man in his mid-twenties steps onto the plane. Dressed in a light-tan Valentino sports jacket, dark designer pants, and dark Prada shoes, he carries what looks like a men's European purse over one shoulder while he removes his Armani sunglasses with his free, pedicured hand. He poses, as if for the camera <whose frame does NOT freeze>, and the following caption displays itself across his face, blocking him out entirely:

Gage Phillips
Men’s Fashion Magazine
Model

With an assured smile on his face, Gage notes those that have already arrived as he moves his way down the aisle to his seat across from Eliza. Settling in by the window, he surreptitiously removes a magazine from his bag and slips it onto the open seat cushion next to him. On it is his same assured smile plastered across the cover. He then busies himself with looking around and out the window or through his bag; taking care to appear nonchalant should anyone decide to make comment.

cmdisc
January 12th, 2014, 21:13
Had a busy weekend. Haven't had a chance to look at the server. Will get a chance to review it on Monday if you're ok with leaving it up that long.

I still owe you a write-up, Ardem. Will work on a back-up too, as I'm thinking I'm going to need one. Maybe Gage's sweet, middle-aged, NRA card-carrying, pistol-packing Aunt might do. Just a shame they'll never meet in-game as he'll be dead by the time she comes around. He's the nephew she never wanted...

Ardem
January 19th, 2014, 01:19
Thanks for the games guys.

Was some valuable input as well, first I just write up a quick synopsis.

After a flying, a flash of light as seen by some passengers, all electronics and the engines cut out. The pilot made a good landing under trying circumstances however one the passengers was unlucky obtaining a broken leg in the process. The group of passengers split apart with the co-pilot and 2 passengers staying behind with he wounded person to help. The Pilot and the party lead down through the hills luckily choosing the correct path out of the wooded terrain.

After coming across a war veteran, who unfortunately did like the Eliza did not appreciate the japanese girl in his small wooden shack. However with a bit of charm, the party managed to get a small amount of information with rumours and some weapons however rusty and in some case unusual, gave the part a little comfort.

Leaving the old man, they headed to the west, down the only road out of the mountains, coming across at late teen girl, who obviously been raped and physiological damaged, no sooner had the found the girl a pair of bikers come around aiming to separate her head from her shoulders. However they did no expect to see what appeared to be a bearded lumberjack in the middle of the road. This put them off where the girl suffer a wound to the head and soon after ran off into the forest.

Gage after pointing a rusted rifle that he knew did not fire scared the bikers off, as Mark swung and missed as they flew by.

The party continued down the road until they found the biker group with had come across a group of campers who was slowly doing the most foul things to them one by one. Outnumbers and Outgunned the party made the wise choice of going around.

Then disaster struck. The decided to traverse down a slope, where Hershel Walker slipped and fell rupturing his spleen. The old guy just who had absrobed so much damage over the years caught a sharp rock, that put him in all sorts of pain and needing medical help. He screamed like a little girl not once but twice, which alerted the bikers.

He managed to redeem himself by pushing through the pain and walking with the pilot helping him.

The ganger came on however the rifle all but stopped one bike in there tracks again which was nonfunctional. The single biker tripped and fell allowing for some damage to the target. The biker ran away as did the others after the damage he received.

Thus ended the game for this week

Ardem
January 19th, 2014, 02:04
Some rule changes that were suggested that i going to implement for next week, based on feedback please let me know if you believe this will improve or take away from the game. Also remember this help you as much as your opponents.

Changing
- Skill Values are rounded up and not down, as skill of 3 give you two dice in action dice.




Undecided
- Initiative currently is Perception + Intelligence + 1d10 roll, I came to the reasoning on this, the longest wait time in a combat arena, is not how coordinated a person moves. Aka a person diving will tend to dive the same speed as a a more highly coordinated person, the longest time I feel it is the thinking of what a person is going to do with the limited information at hand. However some people feel it should be Perception + Coordination, I would love feedback on this and will make it so for the next game.

- Skill amount currently we have (determination + intelligence)x15 to work out a number of skill of 90. Based on a real life civilian. Is it too little or is it too much, I have had a call on both sides.

- Max skill on character creation, is it smarter to put a maximum of 8 or would we have a character like Stephen Hawkins playing that would have a skill of 10, or should we limit a maximum of 2 skills that can be over 8, so far I not seen a plus or minus on specialized versus generalists characters however I found some like Mark currently johnnie on the spot as he is more generalists. But I have felt everyone has had something to contribute.

- Target number and rolling higher then, I don't think this matter much as if I was to change it, it mean the base target number will be 6 rather then 5, to me it unimportant once you know it then it does not matter.

- Rule of one, this can be taken out of reducing success however if you roll a 1 and have no success its a critical failure, this will reduce critical fails at the same time, this does allow the GM to create interesting events, as long as they are realistic.



Decided
Some things I have decided not to be changed, and I understand it may not be to everyone liking, much likes other rulesets, for instance there are aspects of pathfinder I love and hate. The reasons I have is made this decision, I built the ruleset with a vision in place and around a chage here for s single value, it would not work as I aimed for. Hopefully people can understand and I really do understand if this is a ruleset you do not like and want to pull out, at the end of the day its all for fun. <smile> sorry for the general disclaimer above.

- Action and Knowledge are separate, with action at half the points however we are testing rounding up. Action skill more then 5 is too much. I limited opposing rolls where possible, another roll that I feel does not enhance the game and also its another roll that slow down combat, I need combat to be very fast, as in circumstance you may have more then normal amount of enemy and friends in a combat game. I need more then 5 dice for knowledge checks, as it give a gamesmaster the ability to block out based on success different outcomes on success, one or two or three is sometimes not enough detail.



Why did I use a certain test latest game
- Performance Check, instead of deception, I feel deception is more of an oral skill, in this case I felt gage was performing a) showing he knew how to fire a rifle and b) look like a experience combat veteran. It hard to determine if a gun is loaded so the lie was in the performance, he was also putting on a show to expose himself and say look at me I have a gun now run away. This is why I used performance.

Coordination Check on the slope, it was a pretty steep slope of about 70-80 degrees, which was do able but if you slipped you would fall and hurt yourself, perhaps it was a GM slip up and made it sound more easier then what it seemed. A slip would of bounded down the slope and impacted quite hard on a rock until you stopped. You had no aids such as rope or even hold each other hand to help. Two people fell however one walks away with a bruise the other injures themselves as bad as it could of gotten.


Feel free to tweak you characters for the next game as long as you do not change the general feel of the character. Thanks so much for the play test it was a blast.

Ardem
January 20th, 2014, 07:30
Some comments from Gage which I would like to share.

Rolling
This game has a LOT of rolling in it and that means a lot of randomness. Falling down an embankment and suffering a mortal wound is certainly possible (realistically speaking), probably not heroic in any sense, and definitely frustrating for the player cursed with the lousy string of rolls. But is it needed? If that’s the flavor of game you’re aiming for, go for it. Otherwise maybe a little less rolling. This coming from a guy that uses D&D’s “Take 10” rule as often as possible.

This is more a GM personal play style then the ruleset then I can however scale back the rolling, that is more a personal preference in the way of GM then the ruleset. Also I used a lot of rolls this game to get used to the ruleset. Nothing in the ruleset tells a GamesMaster when to roll, they make the decision. As for the falling down I think I think I understated the slope. As for Take 10, personally not a fan, I would rather the character come up with a better way of achieving verbally and if the solution is worth of a non roll that in itself is an award.

Also the mechanics right now seem tipped toward Critical Failures without offering any means of Critical Successes. With 1’s stripping away successes it doesn’t take much when we’re only rolling 1, 2 or 3 dice. 10’s, however, don’t end up being anything special beyond counting as a success and a whole boatload of successes don’t gain you anything beyond a regular success. It can be a downer when I roll 3+ successes on a hit and then proceed to roll a 1 on damage. Maybe you want to keep it this way. Or maybe you can relook at cutting back on 1’s power, boosting 10’s power, or otherwise working in some kind of Critical Success. I know you talked about being cautious when adding to the damage roll since the d10 roll can generate a 9 or 10 just as easily as it can a 1 or 2. More on that later, though.

Hmm I do not want to make it too complexed, and I am not sure if the number of 1's that appeared were an unlucky amount of normal, it had to say in a single session, one thing I can toy with is a 10 can not be removed by a 1. I do not want to head down the road of 10 equal a reroll like in WOD, also we not seen it in melee but multiple bullets will see a wound per bullet making combat even deadlier. At this stage I not wanting to change this until i seen more evidence it there is more failures then success in a game. But will keep a count next game to see where we stand at, I would like to see 10% Critical Failures 30% failures and 60% successes. On damage, in many respects the disappointment is no different then if a person successful counter rolls, many times I had in Shadowrun 3-4 success and see the opponent pull out 4 body checks for 0 wound. The difference is I have removed counter roll, more on damage below.

Lastly on this topic, I have to agree with others that needing a 6+ on a TN 5 roll is a little confusing. In my mind the Target Number is the number you want to hit. That’s how I associate it anyway. So if you’re looking for a 6+ generally, maybe just set the default TN to 6. If not, well the cognitive leap for players isn’t THAT big. heh

Target Number to Beat v Target Number to Get, this is not a huge leap and more of an adjustment for me as Game Designer cause I can make these changes for next game, happy to try it and see if it works better for you as a player

Attributes
I like them. They appear to cover a decent spread of abilities and we’re 3pts above average. This is good, but since the game doesn’t allow for these points to advance any, would you consider bumping up this number a point or two? Also perhaps the rolling option offers too much of a spread. 2d10+4 means 6 is painful and 24 is overpowered. Maybe something like 10d10 (with a default TN) plus 10 would give a range of 10-20. And a way to start with slightly more than 15 (or 10-20) would be to offer 5 Bonus Points to help round things out; 2 to raise an Attribute or 1 to raise a Skill.

You are right attributes do not change because the time to change it would be much longer then the event. Having said that there is nothing to stop a person saying I going to weightlift every day for 6 months to increase my strength and the GM says yup no problem.There is nothing stopping me add a third method of 1d10 + 10 (you actual do start with 15 points as you get a +1 on male or female so the base score is 15 not 14.) There is a risk and there should be a reward on the average being higher, so I might make it 2d10+5 for the other method.

Skills, Part 1
I like the variety of skills you offer. If you’re wanting to make sure you have enough, a good source I’ve looked to is the Alternity game system. Their skill sets are broken down pretty well with lots of areas to look. Also, I understand your reasoning that Attributes don’t necessarily have to be included in skill rolls, but I have a hard time putting aside the concept that a big, strong man punches harder and better than a little, weak woman. It would seem that Strength would factor into that somehow.

Skill are unlimited, I have only listed the base skills you would need. I have chosen a base set that is really aimed at survival rather then everything. Having said that if I see a really good base skill I would add it.

We also talked about how a 3 in a skill is as good (or bad) as a 1 when halving Knowledge checks into Actions. The suggestion at the time was to round up. But this might make scores of 10 next to useless. At 9, one extra d10 on a Knowledge check isn’t going to do much more and you already get 5d10 on the Action check. So why burn the point on a 10? I can think of a few ways around this if that is something you’d like to explore. Otherwise tweak it or keep it as you like.

Skills, Part 2
The way I categorize it in my mind, a rank of 1 means barely familiar with the skill, a 3 is average, 5 trained, 7 advanced, and 9 masterful. This is especially true if the Action check rounds up. I’m curious what you think is reasonable as far as how many skills a character will have points in. Can Average Joe have two 7’s, four 5’s, a bunch of 3’s, and a scattering of 1’s? Or does average keep you to a few 5’s and mostly 3’s? Plus is it possible to assume a base understanding of concepts that don’t require points? I’m sure any competent adult without skill in cooking can read the directions on a box and make himself some noodles or a frozen dinner. This came up once when Eliza tried to bluff the Biker but doesn’t have any skill in Bluff. There are basic skills that don’t require special training to attempt (anyone can try to jump or climb something) and specialized skills that do require training (I couldn’t even begin to perform brain surgery). So is there a way to allow rolls on basic skills even if you don’t have points in them? Going down that road might require a slight restructuring of the skill system.

I was thinking the same thing that 10 is useless, so the maximum for a skill would be 9. On the parts where a skill of 0 makes a no attempt, the best I can think of is a +3 to modifiers, however this still does not sit well with me, the reason being say some the harder skill other then deception, such as military, ground. A attempt to start the engine would be a 5 for a person with this skill this would then make it an 8, they could start the engine and possible drive the tank, even though in there widest dreams never even know what the tank was. This is more unbelievable to me. I think the important area is more around character creation, perhaps there needs to be certain skills where you must have a single point aka deception, negotiation and trading. But in character creation there may be a great reason why you have 0 concept in trading. Lived your life in a hippie commune and never left until now. More thoughts needed.


Damage
Currently the damage is a straight 1d10. This means that a grazing scratch has the same likelihood of showing up on the roll as a headshot that kills outright. Is this your aim? If so, enough said. If not, there are a few ways to introduce a Bell Curve so most damage lands in the middle with the lesser and greater results turning up less often. This has the added benefit of being able to add in bonuses due to high strength or good attack rolls without pushing everything up to 10 too easily. More on that later if interested.

Damage is designed, there is no active dodging or defending. I conclude wrong or rightly that the ability to hit a target via is on the onus of the attacker, as all people will do the best they can to move out of the way. However damage done in these certain are a combination of factors and I believe luck is an important attribute. You can get a full blooded swing and the target has stepped back 1/2 inch, on grazing him, which would of been a deep gouge. Or you have lined up a shot only for the person to pivot his torso 20 degree missing the heart and getting a standard wound, or vice versa the person is unlucky as it was a crap shot although on target they moved in such a fashion which causes them death. This is a deliberate game design choice, it was also a way to remove counter rolls which legth the combat and I feel is unrealistic behaviour, read comments on dodging below.

Lastly, have you set down rules concerning daily food and water intake? I haven’t read through the rules fully, so maybe I’ve missed that. In-game we haven’t really dealt much with the fact that no one has eaten anything for the past 20 hours.

Yes they are in there modifiers are applied, however these might be relaxed as I don't kick food modifiers in till day 5 and water ones till day 3.

Ardem
January 20th, 2014, 08:07
Thoughts on dodging.
My view on dodging or defensive counter rolls is very negative, I believe that if you are dodging a bullet you are either diving or moving at haste which gives you modifiers already. I dislike where I see someone diving and avoid combat only to not be penalized by it when they attack. I do have actively defending which gives you a +3 in melee but unable to attack that round, and and you do have the ability to move, aka dive for cover or run fast for cover. My view on combat differs from the oWOD, Shadowrun and DandD concept of defensive combat. I know the where an case can be made, I am a better sword fighter then my opponent we both using sword so I should be able to beat him by blocking him. My suggestion would be to walk around your opponent, which adds a +1 modifier to you and him, if you have more dice this will not impact you as much. I am stronger then my opponent I should be able to get my attacks in better, then I would say grapple the play this is where strength tests are used well a counter strength you can get an attack where the opponent cannot. Perhaps there is some new modifiers that can be thought up rather then changing the system, perhaps additional to 'actively defending' could be 'parry and attack', which give +2 to both you and your opponent.

cmdisc
January 20th, 2014, 14:27
I like those thoughts on dodging. I agree that bullets cannot be dodged. Those things are just moving too fast for people to track and react to. If someone pulls a gun, the best way to defend yourself is to run away or dive for cover. This is probably the case for other high speed projectiles too, like arrows. I also like the idea of lots of moving around in combat. D&D actually frowns against that with their Attack of Opportunities when running through threatened squares, but it would make sense as you're beating on your target that you're dancing around each other (boxing, wrestling, fencing, and cage fighting all come to mind).

I think incorporating some kind of dodge component in melee is a good idea. A professional boxer or martial artist is going to have an easier time of blocking, ducking, or knocking aside your attacks before they beat you senseless. I don't know if you need to make it +2 though. +1 might be enough. Or maybe players could choose one or the other depending on whether they're performing a Light Defense or a Heavy Defense? My question is, what happens if you have 2 guys on you? Does this penalty apply to both of them? Or just one? Maybe this is where skill comes in? Someone with a 5 in unarmed combat is going to have an easier time fending off multiple opponents than someone with Skill 1. So what if you can apply this penalty to 1 target for every d10 you have in your Action check?

Now at the risk of sounding like WoD, what about firearm attacks that are made within melee range? It happens in movies all the time. Bad guy pulls gun and monologues as he walks up to hero. Once within reach, Hero jostles the gun away so the shot misses. Wrestling ensues and then bad guy ends up shooting himself, but not before the Hero gets off some stinging comeback comment. Basically if your attacker is within reach where you can knock his gun aside and spoil his attack, would you be able to perform an "Actively Defending" maneuver then?

cmdisc
January 20th, 2014, 16:33
Oh and for the record, Gage misspoke when it came to the Bikers. The word he was looking for was "savages" or "barbarians", not "cannibals". I realize that changed the whole meaning. heh. They were not eating the people they killed. Just having sex with the dismembered bodies. Neither of those a real pleasant image.

Ardem
January 20th, 2014, 20:33
There are already +1 modifiers for firearms in melee range for long barrel guns, cause it hard to hit a person who swinging an axe at you having said that, the best thing a person can do when the other has a gun is a grapple.
Grapple should be used more as in real life it used more to defend once self against a gun or knife, If you in melee range and the opponent has a gun first thing you try and do is grapple his pistol hand so he cannot aim it at you.

cmdisc
January 20th, 2014, 21:10
<perks up> I like that idea actually. I don't have a copy of the rules and modifiers and can't access them unless you have the server up, but it sounds like cover from ranged and grappling in melee should be pretty common. That and thumping your target as you dance around him to stay on the move. What are the rules for Grappling? (really wondering now if my next toon will be a gun-toting aunt or a cage fighter).

A few other things you asked feedback on:

I looked at the Attributes you have and I saw them lining up nicely in two groups; Physical and Mental. Strength and Intelligence seemed to come together as the physical and mental counterparts of prowess. Coordination and Perception seemed related in their focused acuity. And Determination and the other stat I can't recall atm (Bodily Resiliency or some such?) come together as the physical and mental versions of fortitude. If this is the case, it argues for Coordination and Perception as being the Initiative-contributing Attributes as these are related to speed and finesse. High Intelligence doesn't always mean fast off the mark. Many great thinkers, philosophers, and theologians were "slow and steady" as it were. As smart as Einstein was, he would never be able to outdraw Billy the Kid. =D

Also about "Rule of 1", if you want to keep it where 1's strip successes, maybe include a "Rule of 10" where 10's add an extra success. A 10 means you've already succeeded, so an extra one doesn't mean much in itself other than a bit more info on a knowledge check, and that extra one is what would get stripped when a 1 shows up in the same roll, thereby protecting any other successes you might have gotten. An idea anyway. Otherwise maybe just remove the whole "strips a success" thing as you've suggested on the previous page. That way Critical Failures would just pop up when no successes are generated but one or more 1's rear their ugly heads. I don't know what this does with the odds of one appearing, but frankly I thought the 10% crit fail rate that you're aiming for seems a bit high. In a gunfight police and soldiers can fire off dozens and dozens of shots without shooting themselves, their friends, or jamming their weapons. :P

Ardem
January 21st, 2014, 05:56
Critical Failure does not always mean nasty, I use the example the other day where we were testing you character in a gun fight and you rolled a critical failure, the failure was you thought you fired all your shots. A quick check of the pistol would of seen you had not and you can move on. I chose that event cause you had a skill in hand guns, I would not choose that event if you had a 7 in hand guns.

Think of it not so much as Critical failure but GM Event, sometimes it will be not nice but livable, sometimes it will be nasty, taking into account skill, attempted action. Also some critical failures prevent a person attempting the same thing aka a lock smith who jams a wire in the lock and the wire breaks. No harm to all.

Shooting a friend or a well maintained weapon jamming, only a foolish gm would do that, how about a fly buzzed your eye and now you got to duck losing sight of your enemy for one round. Yes it gives a GamesMaster power to be evil, but those GamesMaster suck. A good Gamesmaster will give some interesting doses of reality. But a foolish skill attempt deserves a foolish event.

Aka a person leaping from a bank crossing water that is 2-3 feet, which is covered in all sort of rocks and uneven ground which is ankle height and then tries a round house kick, deserves to fall down in the river, against those very dangerous rocks. I considered myself in my hay day to have a (4) in coordination now I am a 3 I would never attempt such a feat I know I would fall on my face and beak something. <sorry argol>

We need to play a couple more games before I would consider changes this yet but I am taking on board your thoughts as well.

To give you a sense of how I approached the ruleset here was to make you not feel like a hero. Most games out there are made to aim for you to win this game mechanics are not set you up to fail. This hopefully passes the sense of desperation and hopelessness the characters would feel, as if everything was against them. This ruleset I know is not for the faint hearted, if I changed it to be too easy I could not convey those thoughts. D&D I can come across dragons and feel invincible or 10 orcs without a sweat I know the game mechanics are on my side. My aim is to create a game opposite to that, but still obtain fun out of it, yup a hard thing to do.

I think I need to convey this in the manual at the beginning so people know what they are in for.

cmdisc
January 21st, 2014, 07:15
I understand your thought process. I think it is a good thing that Critical Failure means something different with you. Of all the tables and house rules in the games I've played before, my understanding of a Crit Fail usually has come to expect something nasty. Hence my reaction to "He wants 1 of every 10 rolls I make to screw me over? I know this game is a non-heroic grim-n-gritty setting, but really now..." But what you're describing isn't so bad. They're more like hiccups in the action than massive failures as when your gun blows up in your face.

And just to be clear, all I'm tossing out are thoughts, ideas, and questions for clarification. I'm the type that likes to pick apart the rules, house rule things, and hop on message boards to discuss or even argue certain points. Of course once the Game Developers make their intentions known through a posting or a FAQ, then the matter is settled. Well you're the Developer here, so my focus is not to argue the rules. They are whatever you say they are. I'm more like offering a different angle to view them from. But in the end, no toe stepping intended. :)

In the meantime, I'll try to shut up now and let others post their thoughts on here. It's been quiet. And if you get a chance to give a quick summation on the Grapple rules, I'd be interested in those.

Ardem
January 21st, 2014, 08:36
No they are great ideas and what seems obvious to me needs to be obvious to the GM. So I need to spell out in the manual, what a critical failure really means. Fortunately this is all the feedback I need.

No Toe stepping felt. I like to be challenged, sometimes I am stubborn and sometimes I can be shown a better way, and this process is exactly what I was after else I would of said nothing about alpha test and said hey who want to play this game :)

Did you get the manual I sent in the private messaging?

Review Tackling and Grappling.

cmdisc
January 21st, 2014, 10:12
I didn't notice the message because my Perception score is really low. That or I flubbed the roll. Got it now. Not a problem with the request; I'll use it just for my familiarization with the rules. Thanks. :)

Incidentally would throwing a rock at a target fall under armed combat? Or is that a straight Coordination check? I see you describe Coordination as "The ability to physically catch, deflect, aim, strike or avoid objects." I wasn't clear on if that applied to combat at all, or just other things...like catching a branch before you tumble down a hill and break your crown (poor Jack). I'm curious about the various applications of the Attributes and how they differ from regular Skill Actions as the rules do not have the two interrelated, but that's something that can be discussed and worked out as we play.

Ardem
January 21st, 2014, 20:11
Do you always find my flailing :)

Throwing should be a coordination check, I realized this after combat when Eliza threw a rock, she used a melee check. Coordination would be also like throwing a grenade on target, or tossing someone a magazine. I have ummed and arggh about this one, should throwing be a skill or coordination check for combat?? for me throwing is not really something that is learnt. I have tossed throwing knives which I never learnt and did as good a job as if I was throwing a rock. Special throwing objects such as a javelin and boomerang, do need a technique so there is an element of skill. Thoughts...

cmdisc
January 21st, 2014, 21:18
Thoughts are percolating, but I did say I'd shut up and give time for other people to chime in on this. I'll sleep on it tonight. If I still think it's worthwhile to toss out there, I'll post it tomorrow sometime.

cmdisc
January 22nd, 2014, 20:38
Ok, I said I'd shut up, but since no one else is chiming in so far...

I think Throwing is a perfect example of Actions that are in the grey area between Attribute checks and Skill checks. It seems to me that things like throwing are actions that anyone can try to do without any training or skill. So that would suggest it’s an Attribute check. Yet, a person is perfectly capable of learning proper throwing techniques and increasing their accuracy without actually increasing their Coordination. Sports Athletes and Olympians everywhere train to do exactly that. This would then point to a Skill check.

So which is it? I’ve looked through the ruleset and noted several actions that I think fall into the same grey area; possibly an Attribute check, but can be improved like a Skill. A few of them are Climbing, Jumping, Deception, and Stealth. Others are Grappling, Throwing, Running (long distance training), and Cooking. There are a couple more that I think should be included also (like Diplomacy, Intimidation, Trading, and Memorizing), but that final list (if there is one) is up to you.

So what do you do with these grey areas? Maybe you have some better ideas, but off the top of my head, I would suggest:

Treat all these actions as Attribute checks. Jumping was a Skill? Now it’s a Strength check (or Coordination check if you’re so inclined). Then introduce a new feature of the game called “Talents.” When you take a Talent you choose a specific Attribute action; lifting, throwing, grappling, intimidating, etc. You have trained this use of your Attribute extensively using tried and true techniques to optimize your ability. That action enjoys a -1 bonus to TN. If you take another Talent on the same action, then you gain an “Advanced Talent” and enjoy a -2 bonus to TN. Basically you’ve focused intensively on this ability. Maybe you could even take it a 3rd time (call it “Masterful Talent”?) for a -3 bonus. And how many of these “Talents” do you start with? Say 5 or more to distribute between the various Attribute checks.

The beauty of this idea is that you don’t have to define every single action that can happen within an Attribute before the game begins. You’re free to play the game and discover new uses for them as you go. Plus this tightens up Skill definitions and means Skills will be actions that must be trained first in order to use. So a 0 in a Skill means you truly can’t do it. No more grey areas.

Maybe off the rails, but thoughts?

Ardem
January 23rd, 2014, 06:58
I may be thick, cause I am not actually following your concept.

I see what you mean by grey areas. However to me climbing is definitely a skill, jumping perhaps grey, deception is a skill as is stealth. Throwing is grey, grappling is grey cause it could be a skill as in weaker opponents taking down a bigger person cause they know martial arts or college wrestling. Diplomacy, Intimidation and Trading are all skills. Memorising I would put under intelligence but I understand that intelligence does not always mean memorizing, but I want the aspect of the ruleset streamline.

I think I need to think of this any think about the grey areas.

damned
January 23rd, 2014, 07:48
Outsider looking in... If you have a specific (trained) skill at something it can compensate for a lack of native (attribute) skill.
You could use whichever was most suitable - if you had specific skill at throwing you could likely throw just as well as or better than someone who has a naturally good dexterity.
Likewise a good dexterity could translate to you being quite handy at throwing too.
If you had both training and natural ability you might apply the bonuses from one to the other...?

cmdisc
January 23rd, 2014, 09:43
Nah, you're not thick. I'm just wordy. Ask d1wright, he knows. He’s been gaming on and off with me for 25 years (the poor sap). heh Let me put things a different way.

EE is unique from other RPGs I’m familiar with (admittedly few) in that it doesn’t have Skills and Attributes interrelating at all. Where D&D says your attempt to Jump is [Jump Skill + Strength modifier + d20], EE says that your attempt to Jump is your Jump Skill only (expressed by xd10) and it doesn’t matter how Strong or Coordinated you are. In D&D, even if I didn’t have any skill in Jump, I could still attempt it by applying only my Strength modifier to the roll. But in EE, a 0 skill means 0 attempts. I don’t get a roll.

This is fine when we’re talking about skills that require training, such as Biology, First-aid, Carpentry, or Explosives. If I have 0 in Carpentry, then I don’t know anything about it. But there are some “innate” actions like jumping, lying, and sneaking up on someone that I think any Average Joe could attempt even if they don’t have skill in it. It doesn’t make sense to me to say that a Strength 4, Coordination 4, Jumping 0 character can’t leap across a small stream or over a low wall. But that is exactly what the rule as written states.

As for Attribute checks such as grappling, lifting, memorizing, and throwing, these are actions that can be improved with training. But the rule as written doesn’t allow for this. So the pro baseball player with Coordination 3 can only throw as well as Gage and the Pro Light-weight Wrestler with Strength 3 is evenly matched with Gage.

This is what I mean by a Grey area. Your Technical Trade Skills and Trained Skills are fine. But Skills I would refer to as Innate Skills (common things anyone can try to do) need clarification.

So what do you do? Possible options:

#1 Emphatically state that characters MUST put at least 1 point (3 average) into these kinds of skills, just like characters MUST put at least 1 point (2 average) into every Attribute. These skills will have to be highlighted and extra points should be given out at character creation.

#2 Say that a 0 in a skill means you can still attempt it, but with a single die at a penalty on the TN. Maybe Innate skills suffer a +2 on the roll (you’ve never practiced it), Trained Skills suffer a +4 on the roll (maybe you heard something at some point about it), and Technical Trade Skills can’t be attempted at all (I don’t care if your aunt told you about the surgery she once had, you still can’t perform an appendectomy on someone).

#3 Remove these “innate” skills from the skill list and make them Attribute checks instead. See #5 below.

#4 Tie every Skill to an Attribute and average the dice together. Low Attributes will hinder high Skills (that 10 in Jumping is great, but your 2 Strength limits your potential) and Attributes in general may help or even allow rolls for low or no Skill values (That 2 Strength comes in handy if you have 0 Jump...now at least you get 1d10 to attempt it).

#5 For Attribute checks like grappling and lifting, create new rules to allow these to be improved. i.e. my “Talents” suggestion in the previous post.

Just my nickel in the pot, anyway. And again, wordy. Meh.

cmdisc
January 23rd, 2014, 10:51
And I should just add that my comments above don't mean I think the game is broken. I like various aspects of it and I think most of it is very well thought out and put together. I'm just commenting on the stuff that might need tweaking. My wife deals with communications within the Army, and as she'd say "They never call to tell us the lines are working just fine. They only call to complain that something's broken."

cmdisc
January 23rd, 2014, 18:39
Ok, apparently I have no Perception Attribute. I was looking through the rules and didn't see this until now:

"Knowledge Checks are influenced by the Intelligence Attribute."

...and this...

"Skill checks are influenced by certain character attributes. These attributes modifiers are influenced by a primary attribute. When a player requests a new skill that is not listed, GamesMasters should determine the primary stat."

(Both on page 13 for reference).

What do these statements mean? They would suggest that Attributes provide modifiers to Skill checks. I was of the understanding that Attributes and Skills were not interrelated at all. What modifiers are being applied? Or am I misunderstanding this?

Ardem
January 24th, 2014, 06:13
I was originally going to have them influence, and what your reading there I had cut out of the module manual. <I think>

The document I gave you was a working document unfortunately I had missed removing these completely.

I removed the influence of these attributes after trying to simplify it, as to many rules although realistic made the ruleset unwieldy. I could aim the rolemaster route, and have a 100 rules or minimise the rules aiming for the average. I end up choosing the average.

I think there is a case here for optional rules where attributes can give you a +1 or -1 to modifier on skill rolls. I would then have to link skills to an attribute. However I prefer the base set to be separate and go for an average and simplify the ruleset.

Ardem
January 24th, 2014, 06:17
@damned: Thanks for your input, and I believe your saying much the same as cmdisc, however it is a good point you could make throwing a coordination check(dexterity) but if you coordination is bad you could train in throwing. I think there might be something in this.

Ardem
January 24th, 2014, 06:26
#1 Emphatically state that characters MUST put at least 1 point (3 average) into these kinds of skills, just like characters MUST put at least 1 point (2 average) into every Attribute. These skills will have to be highlighted and extra points should be given out at character creation.

This is currently the way I am leaning towards, however I am reluctant to give more points at this stage, I made several good characters with good points and realistic, also now that we are scaling up on roll I think there is enough points

#2 Say that a 0 in a skill means you can still attempt it, but with a single die at a penalty on the TN. Maybe Innate skills suffer a +2 on the roll (you’ve never practiced it), Trained Skills suffer a +4 on the roll (maybe you heard something at some point about it), and Technical Trade Skills can’t be attempted at all (I don’t care if your aunt told you about the surgery she once had, you still can’t perform an appendectomy on someone).

I can see some positives in this as well, however the option above alleviates this need, and I think we have enough modifier atm too many more will be creating a GM nightmare.

#3 Remove these “innate” skills from the skill list and make them Attribute checks instead. See #5 below.

Not a fan of this one

#4 Tie every Skill to an Attribute and average the dice together. Low Attributes will hinder high Skills (that 10 in Jumping is great, but your 2 Strength limits your potential) and Attributes in general may help or even allow rolls for low or no Skill values (That 2 Strength comes in handy if you have 0 Jump...now at least you get 1d10 to attempt it).

I think I can add this as an optional skill, again its nice but increasing rules, maybe I can had some optional rules for players and GM to decide.

#5 For Attribute checks like grappling and lifting, create new rules to allow these to be improved. i.e. my “Talents” suggestion in the previous post.

I thought about talents and I going to have to pass on that sorry as it is not going with the aim I had.

--------------------------------------------

My thoughts are now to shake up Character creation and Skills a little.

I will make Innate Skills Section and Trained Skills

Innate Skills must have a value of 1 minimum, they will consist of various learnt school skills and art and physical attributes, and unarmed melee

Then I will have trained skills, these can have a 0 skill.

The character creation will split up a minimum percentage for innate, I am thinking around 60% but will need to look at it. This way I am not really modifying the rules to a great extend however making sure some of those required skills are filled in. This way I am still achieving my vision, however fixing up the issue where characters have 0 skill in those necessary skills.

As for attributes, I think there is something I can do here. If a Attribute is 4 for 5 they get an extra skill point to throw in each innate skill that applies to that ability.
Aka Strength will be Unarmed Melee, Jumping, Coordination Climbing, Intelligence, Maths, The Sciences, etc etc. This increase skill points for higher attributes in that section.

However it does not impact trained skills

cmdisc
January 24th, 2014, 12:27
I was originally going to have them influence, and what you’re reading there I had cut out of the module manual. <I think>

No problem. I just ran across that and was confused. I wasn’t sure if it was old info or a new adjustment.

@damned: … it is a good point you could make throwing a coordination check(dexterity) but if you coordination is bad you could train in throwing. I think there might be something in this.

I think this is a great idea. Would you consider a few new “companion” skills that can be used in place of a straight Attribute check? Players have a choice to go with the base Attribute roll or to develop a skill that provides him with better dice and it represents real world abilities to improve on things such as throwing, lifting, and memorizing. Example; my Coordination is average (2d10), but since training as a Baseball pitcher, my throwing accuracy has increase greatly (Combat, Throwing 5; 3d10). Some Skill ideas:

Power Lifting (in place of STR checks to lift and carry heavy loads)
Combat, Unarmed (already exists, but can be used in place of STR checks for Grappling and Tripping)
Combat, Throwing (in place of COOR checks for throwing)
Memorization Tricks (in place of INT checks for storing/recalling info)
Codecracking (in place of INT checks for figuring puzzles, riddles, codes, etc)
Observant (in place of PER checks for noting details)
Focus (in place of DET checks for pushing on with a dedicated action despite stress or distractions)
Overcome Pain (in place of Body Resistance checks for whatever this is used for. :P )

These don’t have to be hard-coded in. Players might be free to talk with their GMs about specific new skills that they can train in when they discover an Attribute check that they want to enhance.

In fact, while on the subject, other possible regular skills to consider:

Farming
Cooking
Empathy (detecting moods, lies, emotions…good for counselor types)
Music (writing, singing, instruments)
Forgery
Disguise
Astronomy
Street Law (gangs, black markets, etc)
Sleight of Hand (palming objects, picking pockets)

#1 Emphatically state that characters MUST put at least 1 point (3 average) into these kinds of skills, just like characters MUST put at least 1 point (2 average) into every Attribute…

This is currently the way I am leaning towards, however I am reluctant to give more points at this stage, I made several good characters with good points and realistic, also now that we are scaling up on roll I think there is enough points.

The options I posted were various thoughts, although I wasn’t keen to all of them. This one, however, was my favorite. I agree with you shaking up the skills some. I can see a distinction between skills that everyone should know and skills that people may or may not be trained in. However, as 75-90pts are needed to nicely round out characters and our Average Joe only has 60, I’m still of the mind that more skill points are needed at creation so that players aren't "forced" to play above average INT and DET characters. But before discussing that further, I’m curious to see the changes you apply to the skill system. Then I’ll try to build an Average Joe under the new rules and see what happens.

As for attributes, I think there is something I can do here. If a Attribute is 4 for 5 they get an extra skill point to throw in each innate skill that applies to that ability.
Aka Strength will be Unarmed Melee, Jumping, Coordination Climbing, Intelligence, Maths, The Sciences, etc etc. This increase skill points for higher attributes in that section.If you link

Innate Skills with matching Attributes, then consider for these only:

Action Check = (Skill Rank + Attribute – 2)/2 versus TN. This number is rounded up and capped at 5d10. It makes above average Attributes grant a boost to these skills. Knowledge checks could either not include an Attribute or factor in INT only.

cmdisc
January 24th, 2014, 12:32
BTW, it may have gotten lost in the discussion, but was there any update on how you want to handle the "Rule of 1"?

And have you given thought to a "Rule of 10" (i.e. 1's remove a success and 10's add one...or some such)?

Ardem
January 24th, 2014, 13:52
More Skills this is why I have a second section for skills, the list of skill in the modern world can go on forever. I think the list of common skills that I have done I will stick with, it a slippery slope. Cooking putting something in a pot and eating it is rudimentary, however making a resturant quality meal, a person should add the chef trade in the skill set. Cutting up an animal for use, then a butcher trade is needed. These call can be added in the additional trained skills.

Due to how I am approaching it above, I now added 'throwing' to innate skills (catching and grabbing and reflex checks cordination attribute however, I did throwing as it used in combat and more of an skill in aiming), innate skills are now influenced by higher attributes. However trained skills are not, how have I determined what is innate, these are skills we learn between the ages of 0-11. Children lie, children punch, children play hide and seek.

I think skills like power lift and perception skills are not needed if you character is a body builder he will already have 4-5 in that trait again it is also about simplifying the ruleset, house rules can always be done but for the base set I think we need to keep it more simplistic.

Thought for the rule of 10 is 'not needed'.

I just did a roll test where I rolled 30 dice
On the average target of 5 (to beat)
5 dice 80% success, 10% Fail, 10% GM Event aka critical fail
4 Dice 85% success, 10% Fail, 5 % GM Event
3 Dice 75% success, 15% Fail, 10% GM Event
2 Dice 65% sucess, 30% Fail, 15% GM Event
1 Dice 55% success, 25% Fail, 20% GM Event

As the target number goes up so does the failure but the GM Event stays the same roughly. This is exactly the numbers I am after.

With the 3 now being 2 dice and the little buff on 4 or 5 attributes, this make more then up for spreading out the innate skills. If you look at 3-4 being the average person. An average tennis player server 65% of the ball over the net. A Junior Professional 5-6 75%, A Professional 7-9 85%

cmdisc
January 24th, 2014, 15:01
I agree that 4 is a good breakpoint for those bonuses you're looking for since you will rarely, if ever, see a 5 on any character Attribute.

I also think "Combat, Throwing" or just "Throwing" is an excellent addition to the list. The 3-7 extra skill points now being used on it since it's no longer just a flat Coordination check creates a slight drain. But more on that later once we've had a chance to check out the new system.

Would you consider an "Optional Rules" section to the ruleset for GMs to reference with regards to extra skills? Gage will definitely keep some of his points in Chef. :)

As for the "Rule of 1"; are 1's still stripping successes? Or have you toned that down like you were considering before?

cmdisc
January 24th, 2014, 15:42
Forgot to add:

Regardless of whether we're playing this Sat/Sun, is it possible to have the server up over the weekend so people can jump in to look over and modify their characters?

Trenloe
January 24th, 2014, 15:57
Regardless of whether we're playing this Sat/Sun, is it possible to have the server up over the weekend so people can jump in to look over and modify their characters?
Does the ruleset support "Manage Characters"? If so, if you use the same PC you used to play last time you can go to "Manage Characters" and select the campaign you played it - your character from that game will be available and any changes you make in Manage Characters will be stored locally in your PC cache and available to use when you next join any game with the same ruleset. *If* the ruleset supports manage characters...

cmdisc
January 24th, 2014, 16:34
I'm thinking it doesn't. I tried it and the FGII program just closes without doing anything. It's a custom ruleset. Not sure if that matters any. I only have about a 4 in computers, so I wouldn't know. heh

Ardem
January 25th, 2014, 03:06
At this stage it does not support manage characters but hoping to get that in future.

Optional rules definitely, I am leaving mod open for innate skills, so you can add any number you wish. I not put a mod on for trained skills but it could be done, but trying nut down the basic rulest first.

If you catch me on skype adam.sheridan - Sydney Australia I can launch it when I am on I am at the moment in and out of it as I am coding changes atm

Ardem
January 25th, 2014, 03:08
As for the "Rule of 1"; are 1's still stripping successes? Or have you toned that down like you were considering before?

Those figures I displayed where on the the 'Rule of 1'. The percentages work for where I am at.

Without the Rule of 1 the success would be up in the 90% for two dice and more, Think as the Rule of 1 being a counter roll from another player in WOD, it works out to be the same, if anything WOD counter rolls create more failures..

cmdisc
January 25th, 2014, 11:45
Ah, I totally missed it in your earlier posts, but "Rudimentary" was exactly the word I was looking for when talking about innate or common skills. Thank you. That is perfect. Anything basically a pre-teen could attempt (whether they do it well or fail miserably). That was basically the sticking point with the rules for me before this discussion; that a 0 in a skill meant no roll even for rudimentary actions...which didn't sound realistic. But your applied fixes sound good and I look forward to testing it out again next weekend.

It's just a shame that no one else from the game has wanted to jump in on the conversation so far. It would be nice to hear what other people think.

One little point (question really) I'd like to put out there. You've made Throwing a skill because it is an action that can be improved upon, which I agree is a good idea. You didn't feel a need to do the same thing with things like lifting or memorizing, which is fine. What about grappling? I think most untrained people would certainly rely on their brute strength to grab someone and throw them to the floor. But professionally trained wrestlers, street fighters, police, and martial artists know that grappling is more technique than all out strength. So Gage with his 3 Strength would have a hard time staying on his feet if facing off against a 3 Strength Olympian Light-Weight Gold Medalist Wrestler. Do you see either Unarmed Combat or some other skill or ability affecting this? It would seem that there should be some way to improve Grappling beyond just a Strength check when factoring in training of some kind (i.e. a Skill or something).

Actually, just thinking of this as I type. Were you completely taking Throwing away from Coordination? Or were you making it more in line with what Damned suggested by keeping it Coordination, but making it a skill as well so a character can expand beyond Coordination? Example; 2 Coordination allowing for 2d10 for a throw, but if I train up to a 5 Throwing skill, then I get to use 3d10 from then on. Not sure if this is what you meant or were considering, but it would be an interesting way to explain how people can use Attribute abilities as their base and then find ways to train up better for things like lifting, grappling, memorizing, etc. In essence, at the core it's an Attribute check, but you can also train in it as a skill to expand beyond your natural ability through practice. Hmm...this makes me wonder if all rudimentary skills might actually just be untrained Attribute checks at their heart...

Ardem
January 25th, 2014, 14:26
I am taking away throwing and making it a skill. You can make other skills and put them in the secondary skills like wrestling and martial etc. However they would not be the basic skill set, the secondary skill set is up to individual GMs in what they allow. Because throwing is used in combat it seemed to fit better as a skill. Catching, grabbing, stumbling will all still be attribute checks.

No a rudimentary was never a roll, however what everyone rudimentary is different cause a grey shade, the innate skills ability has taken this away. So I am happy with this change. Rudinmentry does not need a roll, aka I am not rolling on opening a door or using elevators, however if opening a door is under pressure the knob is greased and there is a fat enemy with a machete behind you I may request a coordination check, which in essence what your described above. The check are for the GM to decide and use at his disposal based ont he situation.

cmdisc
January 25th, 2014, 14:49
Ok, good. That clarifies things. I was using different terms to describe the same things, but I see your distinction between "rudimentary" and "innate". Just musings on my part. I like how Throwing is a skill. Tossing a ball to a friend is one thing, but hurling a hatchet at a moving target so that it spins the blade into striking home is different.

cmdisc
January 28th, 2014, 14:21
Checking out the updates. They're looking really good. To make sure I understand correctly, Innate Skills are those you typically pick up in childhood. Therefore things like Biology and Technology, although they are learned skills, are typically learned (at least minimally) during the growing years. Is this correct?

Also, had questions regarding other rules:

#1 Foraging covers food prep now as in "kitchen cooking" or as in "preparing wild game such as rabbits and deer"? Or both? And if not both, which skill (if any) covers the other food prep type?

#2 Camping includes food prep over an open camp fire? Or just shelter and fire building?

#3 What is the difference between Moving and Moving Quickly for purposes of adding to difficulty against ranged attackers? You have 3 move speeds to choose from.

#4 For Fire Mode on ranged weapons, I can understand that a Burst requires a single roll since it is one pull of the trigger followed by a hail of bullets. Is a Semi-Automatic attack of 2 bullets treated like a burst (i.e. a single attack roll) or are they resolved as separate attacks since they are separate pulls of the trigger?

#5 Were you going to add in a "fighting defensively" element such as voluntarily increasing your TN by 1 or 2 which increases your opponent's TN as well? I know there was discussion earlier on about this, but I don't recall if you decided to go with this or not.

#6 The Melee Combat section does not include modifiers for movement. Does walking/dancing around your target increase the TN? I seem to recall you suggesting this idea, but since it is not in the rules, I wasn't sure if you decided to discard this idea or just something you haven't updated yet.

Ardem
January 29th, 2014, 06:29
At some stage I will write a description of each of the skills, in the manual.

But to answer you questions Technology and biology are learnt skills but in many ways they are common skills. My daughter who is 5 can wiz around an Ipad or my iPhone, in my youth I learnt how to use the telephone and later before 14 a computer (c64) and gaming console (amstrad with ping on it), and we all learnt biology at 2-3 years of age. E.G. Cat starts with C what sound does a Cat make, this gives everyone a skill of 1 in these common skills, biology example may be a bit basic but you see where I am going with this. In many ways innate skills are skills that everyone would have at the age of 14.

I know some of the trained skills could apply before 14, however you still get an opportunity to a single skill in trained skills, You can modify your backstory to suit, the rules are split so a person does not pump all there points into trained skills more then the base skills. This does not make them realistic characters.

#1 Foraging covers food prep now as in "kitchen cooking" or as in "preparing wild game such as rabbits and deer"? Or both? And if not both, which skill (if any) covers the other food prep type?

Foraging cover preparation of wild game, plants and herbs, also the finding of these things.

#2 Camping includes food prep over an open camp fire? Or just shelter and fire building?

Camping includes cooking of prepared foods over an open fire, however cooking to survive is rudimentary, cooking for pleasure is a roll, kitchen cooking is rudimentary, cooking for pleasure is a added trained skill.

#3 What is the difference between Moving and Moving Quickly for purposes of adding to difficulty against ranged attackers? You have 3 move speeds to choose from.

Moving is around Walking speed - Moving Quickly is Jogging or running or fast speed.

#4 For Fire Mode on ranged weapons, I can understand that a Burst requires a single roll since it is one pull of the trigger followed by a hail of bullets. Is a Semi-Automatic attack of 2 bullets treated like a burst (i.e. a single attack roll) or are they resolved as separate attacks since they are separate pulls of the trigger?

Exactly the same as burst including only the 1st shot in a called shot action will be on designated target, other wound rolls will be random. The only difference is 2 bullets instead of 3.

#5 Were you going to add in a "fighting defensively" element such as voluntarily increasing your TN by 1 or 2 which increases your opponent's TN as well? I know there was discussion earlier on about this, but I don't recall if you decided to go with this or not.

Yes, may not be in the manual yet but they are in the modifiers I have added to the FG modifiers section.

#6 The Melee Combat section does not include modifiers for movement. Does walking/dancing around your target increase the TN? I seem to recall you suggesting this idea, but since it is not in the rules, I wasn't sure if you decided to discard this idea or just something you haven't updated yet.

As above, will add it to the manual tonight.

cmdisc
January 29th, 2014, 07:28
I built an Average Joe on the server and am coming up short on Skill points (2 Intelligence, 2 Determination). Can someone try building an Average Jane and see if you're running into the same issue? Maybe I'm not spending my points right. I'm assuming 3 in a skill is average, so most Innate skills are 3's with some 1's sprinkled in and most Trained skills are blank except for a 3 in Automobiles and a few 1's here and there (i.e. at least a 1 in Outdoor Navigation because Average Joe would know how to follow a map and which way the sun rises and sets).

Everything else is looking great! =) Thanks for the answers and the updates, Ardem.

Ardem
January 29th, 2014, 07:50
2 and 2 your skills would be slightly below skill average, based on attributes it would be common to see at leave one a 3, if all points are 15 (include sex bonus) you would see 3 2's and 3 threes. you would normally see one of the points in determination or intelligence a 3. Else it would look like str 3, coo 3, intel 2, det 2, br 2, per 3. I would see this as the high school jock but did not do great at school but just passed now works in the a storeman.

Perfect average man would be str 3, coo3, intel 2, det 3, br 2, per 2. A woman would be str 2, coo3, intel 3, det 2, br3, per 3. Make that what you will, I am sure someone will see some sexism there or sterotypical behaviour from me, however my wife thinks all men should get a -1 for perception.

I know where you coming from, but you have to look at the system as a whole.

cmdisc
January 29th, 2014, 08:43
My wife would agree with your wife. :P

I see where you're coming from with the Attribute point spread. My concern was just if we're treating 2 as stat average and if most people are going to go average in each stat to start (taking a 1 reduces Life and Death rolls to a coin toss), this leaves 3 points left to spend. The skill point system really requires people to put at least 1 of these points into Intel or Det. If you don't, then the points fall a little short. So this limits build options. I could make Big Dumb Jock with a spread of Str4, Coor3, Int1, Det3, BR3, Per1 (I'm thinking of Biff Tannon in 'Back to the Future' or Gaston from Disney's 'Beauty and the Beast'). This means he's mostly average in Innate skills, has several 1's spread around in them, can drive a car, and might know which way to hold a map if he finds one, but that's about it. He doesn't actually have the points to be great at Throwing, Jumping, Swimming, or anything sporty. And if I reduce his Str to up his Int or Det for the points, then he's not big anymore...just average for a man. I suppose I could drop his BR to 2 (he's big, but no more healthy than anyone else) to up his Det to 4. Big dumb jock who is clueless, but doesn't stop at anything.

So in short, I'm of the mind there needs to be a few more Skill points added. But that's just imho. Unless you're adamant on this, I'd suggest bouncing it off everyone else to see what they think. If no one else agrees, then no biggie. It's possible I'm just in the minority with it.

Ardem
January 29th, 2014, 23:06
My wife would agree with your wife. :P

I see where you're coming from with the Attribute point spread. My concern was just if we're treating 2 as stat average and if most people are going to go average in each stat to start (taking a 1 reduces Life and Death rolls to a coin toss), this leaves 3 points left to spend. The skill point system really requires people to put at least 1 of these points into Intel or Det. If you don't, then the points fall a little short. So this limits build options. I could make Big Dumb Jock with a spread of Str4, Coor3, Int1, Det3, BR3, Per1 (I'm thinking of Biff Tannon in 'Back to the Future' or Gaston from Disney's 'Beauty and the Beast'). This means he's mostly average in Innate skills, has several 1's spread around in them, can drive a car, and might know which way to hold a map if he finds one, but that's about it. He doesn't actually have the points to be great at Throwing, Jumping, Swimming, or anything sporty. And if I reduce his Str to up his Int or Det for the points, then he's not big anymore...just average for a man. I suppose I could drop his BR to 2 (he's big, but no more healthy than anyone else) to up his Det to 4. Big dumb jock who is clueless, but doesn't stop at anything.

So in short, I'm of the mind there needs to be a few more Skill points added. But that's just imho. Unless you're adamant on this, I'd suggest bouncing it off everyone else to see what they think. If no one else agrees, then no biggie. It's possible I'm just in the minority with it.

Are you including the +1 bonus for str attributes?

But I see where you coming from and I think your right, The mid range of 75 and 90 is where I aimed things at, but after this you either get OP or Underpowered in your case. Current numbers are
30,45,60,75,90,105,120,135,150

Would it look better on ((Int + Det)x10)+30 giving numbers of
50,60,70,80,90,100,110,120,130

Thoughts?

On BR, BR is for infections and internal related stuff, not external physical. But even so you thinka athlete can fight off injection fast so a 3 is probably where it should be at.

cmdisc
January 30th, 2014, 07:37
Correct, I was including the +1 STR in those figures to get a total of 15 pts.

I definitely agree that 75-90 is the sweet spot. :) Gage gets 90, but for some reason in our first session I built him out with 80. Not sure why that was. I think my brain was just stuck. He's fixed now, but I'm sure not in the way the ladies would rather him be. :P

I think the formula is good. It boosts up the low end some while keeping the high end reined in.

My thoughts anyway.

cmdisc
January 30th, 2014, 07:59
As for attributes...If a Attribute is 4 for 5 they get an extra skill point to throw in each innate skill that applies to that ability.
Aka Strength will be Unarmed Melee, Jumping, Coordination Climbing, Intelligence, Maths, The Sciences, etc etc. This increase skill points for higher attributes in that section.

However it does not impact trained skills

This is an older quote, but I wasn't clear on it, so just for clarification:

Is the extra point added to the Knowledge check? (i.e. a COOR of 4 bumps up Throwing 3 to a 4 but it's still 2d10 on the Action)

or added to the Action check? (i.e. a COOR of 4 bumps Throwing 3 from 2d10 to 3d10 on the Action)

or acts as a bonus to the TN of the Action? (i.e. Your Throwing 3 gives you 2d10 dice, but your COOR 4 drops the TN from 5 to 4 for the check)

Ardem
January 30th, 2014, 10:56
Yes an extra point in knowledge points, sure you not got an armenian background. My wife is armenian and she as well as her whole family engage in constant mission creep, next thing I be giving 200 points for you haha.

cmdisc
January 30th, 2014, 18:02
HA! Yeah, I wish. I just wanted to make sure I understood the change correctly. This is your show, after all. ;)

Good to go for Sat/Sun.

cmdisc
February 1st, 2014, 23:51
Thanks for the game. I enjoyed it very much, thanks for hosting, Adam. We had some great rolling and some really sucky rolling. So that seemed to be working well. I just have to make sure to do a better job watching the chat box. In looking back I see poor Eliza was saying a bunch that I missed. Also I commented to Dave that without Hitpoints to track, a fight really seems deadly and can spin on a dime. It keeps me on the edge of my seat because I don't know what's coming. Nice effect there.

Anyone have any idea how to handle Dog repellent/Pepper Spray for the rules? The only part I could think of is that it'd probably require a called shot to the head. No use spraying the guy's foot. And would that be a Small arms check or Armed Combat or what?

Ardem
February 2nd, 2014, 10:19
Pepper spray or other various non-descriptive attacks (special attacks ) the fall back is always attributes such as a coordination effect since very easy weapon and you point and click it will need to be a call shot and within the next square.

Yeah I though Mark was in trouble, where any roll can be a kill or atleast a critical wounding, however so far combat has not been deadly as I thought. So far we had 3 major battles and 0 deaths. I think the risk of death is so high people surrender very quickly. Having said that more then likely the gut shot guys is probably a dead man in a day or two.

Ardem
February 2nd, 2014, 10:37
The party find Al the grump and Mavis the Hershel life saver, Al after some convincing and some wifely persuasion give up the working Road Scaper and putt down the road at 30km/h this is almost the speed of sound for the party, and much relief that they will get Hershel to a doctor in time. A visit to Grangeville, find the town in disarray, the medical staff over worked, the 4 man in the sheriff dept overworked, and only two working police cars besides there road scraper.

After a feed from the local high school catering for the homeless, they round up a trailer for the scrapper and make there way back late afternoon to pick up there friends at the downed plane. The visit to the local pawn (not porn) shop atleast for the M1 Garand in working order with some oil a rag and tube to clean the barrel. Gage driving and Hershel chatting about the rifle they completely missed the 5 year old girl standing in the middle of the road. Gage swerve at the last moment missing her, the girl yells please help and runs off into the scrub, there is a little confusion on who was going to follow here before Marks grandfather instincts take over running into the forest. When Mark spot a man swinging a branch in his direction then he knew something was wrong.

He was able to duck one below but the other blows fracturing his leg, and breaking a rib, put Mark on his back still clutching his rifle. Mark almost contained the situation when SnakeBelly burst through with a tackle that missed, and the scuffle was on again. A desperate struggle for the rifle, a lot of missed blows, it was only when Gage stepped onto the scene that the numbers turned against the two wannabe thieves.

Mark got the gun back again and shoots one of the men in the belly who slumps down in shock. The other gives up the fight and the party leave them. Heading down the road that talk to a shocked Al, that they returned now in a much better mood. they drop the trailer and let AL and Mavis pack and head up the plane site to collect there friends and bags.

Picking Al and Mavis up the party get back to grangeville. A weave of diplomacy and some great scrounging and people using there unique talents they are tasked to head to Lewiston, in a wagon with horses. How the world has changed in a week.

cmdisc
February 5th, 2014, 09:42
Hey all. Just a question for clarity purposes about the Target of Opportunity/Ready an Action/Delay thing. Take a combat scene where the Initiative runs something like Guy A, Guy B, Mark, Gage, Guy C, Eliza, and Snakebelly.

Round 1: Guy A runs up and punches Snakebelly. Everyone else cycles through their actions doing this or that. Then at the end of the Round Snakebelly, who is holding a knife, says out loud for everyone to back off and then declares that he is going to stab at anyone who attempts an aggressive action toward him.

Round 2: Guy A ignores the warning and tries to take another swing at Snakebelly. Snakebelly gets to act first since he was ready for it and stabs at Guy A. Guy A then gets his action followed by everyone else. We then come to Snakebelly at the end of the Round again.

This is where we run into what I'm confused about. Snakebelly's action at the start of Round 2 was really his Round 1 action that was prepared. So did that slight delay count as his action for Round 2 (meaning he's basically lost his Round 1 action entirely)? Or was the readied action truly his Round 1 action and now he gets to go again on his regular turn at the end of Round 2? I'm of the impression that it is the latter rather than the former, but maybe I'm thinking of it wrong.

So...the correct answer is...?

Ardem
February 5th, 2014, 10:36
Opportunity/Ready an Action/Delay is tricky concept, he is actually delaying his turn, so he can do it at another stage, however if his select reason for acting does not eventuate he actually loses a turn.

In your example what if Guy A does what he says, or takes the turn to aim a weapon, he hasn't attacked aggressively to Snakebelly however he gained an advantage, when it snake belly turn he actually lost of round to act. There is plus and minus, you can not hold multi ready actions together you only get one.

yes we have played he will have a second effort when it is his turn again. But i should change the rules to the alternate is to do what D&D does which then changes his initiative on the turn he acts, which is probably the more logical conclusion.

cmdisc
February 5th, 2014, 13:48
Ah ok. So EE's "Target of Opportunity" and "Delay" actions are equivalent to D&D's "Readied" and "Delay" actions in how they behave. Delaying affects initiative, but taking a Target of Opportunity ("Readying" in D&D terms) does not. This sounds good.

Ardem
February 16th, 2014, 00:37
This week Update:

After travelling via wagon and meeting some farmers on horses heading in the opposite direction, it was almost relaxed and calm time, upon reaching the town of craigmont and making friends with the Diner/Truck Stop owner Sandy, the guys enjoyed a well earn cup of office, as they rubbed there sore butts and Eliza walked very strangely after being in a saddle the whole day.

That night them camped near the truckstop but were awoken by growls or 4 large dogs, who attack. The lack of a fire made visibility reliant on a couple of wind up head lamps that caught to dog as the swiftly come in for a bite and then move back out of the light. Hershel received a bit on the thigh. But Gage stabbed one through the chest and Hershel managed to kick the other dog in the head knocking it, as the other dogs scampered.

Back on the road in the morning, and feeling the warms on there back after the night ordeal the group headed further along the 95. after winding through a canyon of sorts for some time and spot a limo on the side of the road. There they find Steve Ballmer and his bodyguard. Steve yelling and rant to the point eventually the bodyguard snapped and popped in two in the head and 3 in the chest.

Sit down and describes the a unbelievable story of Steve waking him up to drive him to the east coast, no sooner does he leave his family and out of seattle where is told to turn off the engine unclip all the batteries from electronic devices then the EMP hits, he then connect it all back up and drives to where they reach here after running out of Gas because Ballmer paranoia to get gas from towns.

He then relates that Seattle is gone, it was hit by a nerve agent and every living thing there is dead. He removes his handgun hands it to the group and walk off into the wood, with his family gone his world is dead.



The party presses on they hear some motorbikes coming up there rear, after unhitching the wagon and getting the horses into the woods, they watch as there wagon is scavenged. After two of the bikers stayed behind to torch it as the rest road off.

The Party decides to jump the two bikers. A gun fight ensured bullets firing everywhere and the people are only 15-30 meters apart, rounds hit trees and the wood of the wagon. The Party is lucky to get away with Eliza taking a minor wound to the leg, much of there food is gone however they now have two extra sawn off double barrel shotguns, and some shells, but have also lost a lot of ammo in the firefight.

The party is now setting up and ambush for the other bikers.

cmdisc
February 16th, 2014, 07:01
Everything went well last night. We had some good rolls and some bad rolls. Not too many GM Events to worry about although those that DID show up weren't too bad. If anything I can remember 2 of them actually saving us some ammo.

2 thoughts I had as I drifted off to sleep last night:

#1 You noted that on the main tab the weapon section is coming up "Weapon Check" or something like that in the chat window. So that's on your "to do" list of fixes. Is there a way, not only to change that, but to install a damage roller in the weapon section on each line of a weapon? That way the -2 for unarmed hitting or the +1 for the rifle would auto calculate and players and GMs wouldn't have to track that. I'm not sure what kind of script-work goes into arranging that.

#2 Hershal seemed to have a few very nice attacks on the dogs only to have his damage roll come up pretty lousy. I understand we want to avoid adding pluses to that since we're only talking a d10, but would it make sense to maybe up the minimum amount some on really good rolls? For example; If Hersh rolls 3 successes on a hit, then the minimum damage roll is a 3...so any 1's or 2's are automatically upgraded to a 3. Or something else if this is too much of a bump.

Thoughts?

cmdisc
February 16th, 2014, 10:12
Actually, I'm not sure how much work it would be to customize, but what if FGII were arranged so that the GM has the master TN adjuster...that way us players don't keep forgetting to change the number before we roll. Then whenever a Player rolls a weapon attack from the Weapon section on the Main tab, the dice will compare themselves to the GM's master TN adjuster, and if it registers a hit, automatically rolls the damage dice. The only thing that would have to be manually adjusted would be a 2nd roll if two bullets were fired or ignoring the hit location if the shot was called.

It might be a lot of leg work to do the scripting right though.

cmdisc
February 18th, 2014, 08:00
Meanwhile, Gage is beginning to have a hard time with this. The long hikes and hunger and all that are bad enough. But now he's killed someone. He was thinking about how all of this seems to really bring out either the best in people or the worst in people. He's seen those reduce themselves to animals and those that have taken the time to help others out. So what is all this bringing out of him? Is this his best? Or his worst?

He ponders this as he looks down at the rifle in his hands and realizes the ambush that they are considering. Flashing through his mind are also the images of what the bikers did to that family. He might not remember the faces of the bikers. He never DID really get a close up look at them. But things with wheels were really his thing. The bikes, he'd recognize. It was important. Before he could go on, he'd have to make sure these bikers were 'those guys'. It was the only way to justify what he had done and what he was considering...

Ardem
March 1st, 2014, 07:04
#1 You noted that on the main tab the weapon section is coming up "Weapon Check" or something like that in the chat window. So that's on your "to do" list of fixes. Is there a way, not only to change that, but to install a damage roller in the weapon section on each line of a weapon? That way the -2 for unarmed hitting or the +1 for the rifle would auto calculate and players and GMs wouldn't have to track that. I'm not sure what kind of script-work goes into arranging that.

#2 Hershal seemed to have a few very nice attacks on the dogs only to have his damage roll come up pretty lousy. I understand we want to avoid adding pluses to that since we're only talking a d10, but would it make sense to maybe up the minimum amount some on really good rolls? For example; If Hersh rolls 3 successes on a hit, then the minimum damage roll is a 3...so any 1's or 2's are automatically upgraded to a 3. Or something else if this is too much of a bump.

Thoughts?

#1 Done and done

#2 This one a tough one cause say you come up against soldiers that have 4-5 dice to hit and this get 3 success they also get that plus 1 bonus which could kill you quicker. Again nothing stop for an Optional rule however as a base rule I think we will leave it as it is. Survivalibility has been pretty good however, the party not been in a really tough scrap. But they been realistic also not run into 20 armed soldiers with air support yet <smile>.

Ardem
April 1st, 2014, 06:32
Thanks to everyone who helped me with the Alpha test, this was a blast and I gained valuable information.

I am surprised apart from a few broken ribs a busted spleen, everyone lived, so well done. I hope you all enjoyed playing it as much as I did GMing it. It is really a dirty gritty game and look forward do doing another game like this in the future.

damned
May 12th, 2014, 11:23
So... do you plan to release the ruleset?

Ardem
May 13th, 2014, 00:51
So... do you plan to release the ruleset?

I do, I just want to polish off a few more graphics to give it that unique style, not so much core. However I do plan to use a lot of the core icons.

And a couple of other minor things I noticed in the CON in coding that can be fixed, so in about a month. perhaps earlier if I can get my arse into gear.

damned
June 10th, 2014, 07:04
Hey Ardem - what gear is your backside in? :)

cmdisc
June 10th, 2014, 09:32
Someone sounds eager to get his hands on the ruleset. :P

Ardem
June 10th, 2014, 11:18
The gear of I have to give a presentation tommorrow and I am only now just sitting typing it out now gear. <smile>

If you want it in it current stat Damned I can just send it to you. email me adam @ varidan.com.au