talk

Here's a minor, yet-untested melee idea that came up during chatter over some GURPS combat scenarios:

Closing a distance gap to attack gives the defender more time to react than starting out close enough to strike. Game that with this simple rule:

• If the attacker needs to Step or Move to get within striking Reach, the defender gains +2 on Active Defense.
• If the attacker begins his turn within striking Reach (even if he chooses to Step or Move anyway), there is no mod to Active Defense.
• If the attacker begins his turn and strikes in close combat, the defender takes -2 on Active Defense. 

The first case represents having to first move to get within striking distance, handing the defender extra time (as well as an extra, clearly visible indicator that the attack is coming). 

The second case above is the default combat norm: You're already within range to strike, and you do so. Nothing special going on.

The third case helps model the "roaring and punching" aspect of close-combat free-for-all. Attacks come from so close, and thus come so fast, that it's hard to defend against them (or even see them coming in the first place).

All extremely simple to play out when using a hex map. How will it change combat? I expect the following: Read more...

Here's a quick example of putting the ideas in Game design musing: Pricing breadth in skills to work:

GURPS' Wildcard skills (BS 175) allow purchase of multiple skills for the price of three; Talents (BS 89) allow a bonus to many skills (plus other minor benefits) for a fraction of the eventual cost of full levels in those skills. Both share fuzziness in common: There's no stated limit on on how many skills a Wildcard skill covers (so why stop at 10 if the GM will allow 20?), and you can freely choose the number of skills a Talent covers, within the limits of its group size (gee, should I take one skill or six for the same 5-point cost of a small group?). 

There's no big problem in all that, but what if you wanted more varied costs to reflect the number of skills covered? The "Zeno's method" suggestion in those breadth rules offer a solution: Read more...

In my review of GURPS Banestorm, I briefly mention one of the points that intrigues me about its gameworld: Unexplored pockets of diverse Earth cultures tucked among Yrth's dominant European-, Middle Eastern-, and Asian-descended cultures. From page 9:

...African, Chinese, German, Indian, and Slavic groups popped up across the continent. Dominant local cultures quickly absorbed most of these smaller ones, but even today travelers can find isolated villages where almost all the inhabitants have black skin, worship Krishna and Vishnu, or speak undiluted German.

This is an opportunity for the GM to create any sort of interesting micro-culture that he can envision, as long as it is well off the beaten path!

While that's pretty much all the book has to offer on the overall topic, it's plenty to set the GM mind in motion. A few non-dominant cultures do get a bit more mention (like low-tech Hindi or Mesoamerican peoples around southern Araterre and Bilit Island), yet others remain entirely up to us to flesh out (African tribes? Slavic villages?).

I like the possibilities, and think there's a great supplement concept waiting to be born: Banestorm Enclaves, books detailing outlying clusters of humanity from non-dominant cultures. (Hmm, I thought I picked up the label "enclave" from within Banestorm, but a quick search shows I must have tacked it on myself. I like it anyway!) Read more...

Following up on my post about The Riddle of Steel RPG, here's a broad question for readers at large, touching on many games: What, exactly, is the appeal of the "dice pool" method of generating outcomes?

I know it has a two-dimensional aspect to it, in that you can modify checks in two ways: you can both modify the "target number" that determines whether a die counts as a success, and you can modify the number of dice rolled. That sounds like it offers something richer than the classic one-dimensional, dice-roll-plus-summed-modifiers method, and I don't yet see anything wrong with the dice pool method. But I'm curious: Do dice-pool systems establish a clear, easily-followed master rule for what factors modify the target number and what factors modify the number of dice? Or are GMs often left wondering why the system specifies a modified target number for this factor, and additional dice for that factor (and similarly, which mod should be used for some new factor not specified by rules)?

More importantly, does the two-dimensional dice pool system generate notably more meaningful results than the classic method? If so, in what way? Or, if I may ask, do dice pools add a bit of complexity to rolling without returning some significant added benefit?

If it sounds like I'm a tad suspicious of dice pool mechanics, well, I'll only admit that the method somehow feels more fuzzily abstract to me. But that's doubtless the biased voice of my long experience with classic RPG dicing. I'd be interested in the wise words of gamers more versed in both styles. What say ye?