You are not logged in (log in or sign up)
RPG Laboratory

The proto-mechanics of the Nevercast system.

|

1. Attribute Comparison
The most basic mechanic of Nevercast is to compare the attribute required for the action/technique you're using against the attribute required for the action/technique your opponent is using. The higher score is successful.

2. Gradation of Success / Failure
How acute your success or failure is is determined by how many points your check was above or below the opposition's. There are 4 gradients: minor (+/-1), moderate (+/-2), major (+/-3), and maximum (failed or succeeded by 4 or more points).

3. Randomizers
Some instances will allow you to apply a dice roll on top of your success check. This is typically a 4-sided die(?). Upon rolling a 4, apply another roll on top of your result, repeating until you bypass the opposition's number by the maximum gradient of success.

4. Modifiers
Many instances apply a penalty or a bonus to your success check. For example: "Power Strike" (Sp -2) means that when you perform a power strike, the attribute of the action you are using is "Speed", but your speed score is considered at a -2 penalty when you attempt the action.

5. Passive Opposition
When making a check against a non-responder, such as a still target or an opponent who has no actions to counter your own, then you will make your success check against either A) a passive defense score or B) a difficulty level determined by the GM

Let's give a demonstration of all the core mechanics in the following example:

Kanu Gon and Lo Din are engaged in a martial arts contest. Kanu Gon studies Lo Din's movements while Lodin waits in a poised stance. Kanu Gon quickly rushes within range to attack, but Lo Din spends an extra combat action to time his blow, and stops him with a quick, stiff jab. The jab stuns Kanu Gon.
Mechanics:(A moving-to-attack penalty is applied to Kanu Gon at -2. His attack uses the speed attribute, so speed -2. Lo Din's Poise technique grants a bonus of +2 to his response. Since Lo Din responded with a jab, he also gets a quick strike bonus of speed +2, for a total of speed +4 vs. Kanu Gon's speed -2. However, Lo Din also focused his blow, which granted him a dice roll bonus (he rolls a 2). Let's say that both opponents have an equal speed of 6, which makes the exchange at 12 for Lo Din vs. 4 for Kanu Gon. Therefore, Lo Din beats Kanu Gon to the punch. And, since Kanu Gon was attacking, he must use his passive defense score against Lo Din's attack. Lo Din's attack beats it by at least 4, which means the success is maximum, which results in Kanu Gon being stunned.)
So, what Kanu Gon can safely assume from the exchange is that if he rushes in to attack, Lo Din will consistently interrupt him. He needs to use a wiser tactic of breaking past his defenses.
In the next exchange, Kanu Gon instead decides to use a feint against Lo Din, which bypasses Lo Din's poise bonus for the success check. So, they both must check reflex vs. reflex. Kanu Gon has 7, and Lo Din has 5. Lo Din is about to choose a response action, but it doesn't matter because he failed his reflex check. He falls for the feint, which breaks his poise and takes away an extra action because his timing is now off, and Kanu Gon rushes in with a combination of a jab and a powerful cross. Lo Din barely manages to parry the jab (dexterity vs. speed), but he has run out of actions and the cross hits him with hard force (moderate success). The power strike also increases damage, so the blow knocks Lo Din down.

A suggestion.

This is great, it sounds as though combat will be fast and fairly easy to learn. It seems exciting and forces players to make smart choices. A suggestion (whether or not you use it is up to you) is perhaps to use a bluff system. Say each player has a set of cards representing all their abilities, at the start of a round all players place a number of cards face down equal to their combat actions. These are then turned up and resolved in order. This way a player can't react in retrospect. If they think an opposition is going to lunch and they want to set up a parry and counter, they must prepare to do so. Perhaps knowledge of stances/techniques will allow you to percieve an oppositions style, not revealing which card is played, but lets you know what cards they can play.

The other benefit of this is that all the relevant stats can be recorded on the card.
____________________________________________________________
Don't steal... The Government hates competition.

You read my mind

I read the example and I also thought, "Wow, I'm going to need to put all these on cards, poise, focus, move in, jab, feint, in order to remember them and combo them in any sort of meaningful way. Fortunately I have roughly 50 3.5 x 2.5 blank cards with rounded corners sitting in front of me on my desk." After that I thought, "If I play against someone else, I'll make up one card that says 'Kamehameha' just for laughs."

Keeping track of things

A player won't automatically start out with all of these techniques. Poise, feint, bridge, reversals, etc...these are all higher techniques. They are earned through experience. In every skill discipline, a character starts out with only the rudimentary techniques:
Example:
1. Strike (Speed)
2. Parry (Dexterity)
3. Block/Cover Up (Reflex +2)
4. Evade (Agility +2)

That's pretty easy for any GM or player to memorize. The implications of usage will be understood through play when patterns start to emerge. The player will understand why he gets his ass kicked every time he tries to charge head on at a quick fighter.

Then, if he is inclined toward the particular skill, a player earns techniques on an incremental basis: one by one. Therefore, the learning curve for the techniques is quite gentle.

Furthermore, the character sheet will provide slots for your skills to plug in your modified attributes, so you always have a quick reference at hand.

This is a good idea, but...

I think "En Garde!" implements that method. I learned about it just a few weeks ago, actually. I thought of how such a model might work in my game, but I felt it wasn't compatible with my system. I'm not sure how I would pull off the more complex techniques, like reversals, which are extremely sensitive to the technique your opponent uses. Furthermore, I believe this design would work best for melee combat only. The system must handle all forms, and consistency of the rules without special alterations is important.

In the system I pose above, the player is not always going to know the best strategy. This is because the GM is not going to tell the player his opposition's attributes. He won't say, "Because Lo Din has 8 speed, he hits you before you can parry." The GM probably shouldn't reveal the gradient of success either, but instead describe the result qualitatively.