I don't usually do well with diceless. I like my dice but the concept of going without is intriguing. The problem with diceless is that without a randomizer things tend to be predictable or they're some kind of a bid system which doesn't really intrigue me. I recognize that they probably work just fine, it just doesn't tickle my fancy.

This is mostly just a concept, it's not ready to be used but it's a start. I propose a diceless system where each character has skills and each skill has a number of methods that confer either bonuses or tricks. A skill like swordplay would have a method of "Power Blow" and a trick like "Disarm". There would have to be more, I'm just giving a flavor for what might be possible.

I'm considering a system of magic that allows for multiple ways of evading harm.

1. Will~ Using your force of will and magical training, you can put up a defensive ward that is instinctive and simply moves the enemy spell around you, or makes it vanish entirely. This is the fluffy explanation of Magic Defense.

2. Agility~ Spells that take physical form, such as fireballs, can be evaded, blocked, dodged, etc.

3. Counter Spell~ Casting a spell that acts as a barrier or shield to absorb the damage instead of you.

The problem:
How to write it in. Do i segregate the defense types by their Magic School, or should it be treated on a spell-by-spell basis? Also, should it be done at all? Should i leave Will as the only magic defense and say Agility be left to physical defenses? Should counter spells be used only on your turn? Or perhaps make Counter Spell a skill that can be learned, like a Riposte?

Hey,

I understand that some people have demonstrated an interest in using Mahjong to play a role playing game, but for those that don't own a Mahjong set, that can be the costliest investment in RPG randomizers since you were at the hobby store buying all those specific colored dice to play Bacchanal. (Oh and then replacing broken wine glasses before the second session.)

So I have devised a way to make a Mahjong set out of 5 sheets of card stock.

On your copy of the Character Sheet write down your name in the blank space next to Player, then write down the name of your character in the blank space next to Name. Either choose a race from the available Races list, or invent your own, then write it down in the blank space next to Race. The default Race for Characters is Human. Pick your Character’s gender, male, female, asexual (robots, lizards, etc…), and write that down in the blank space next to Gender.

The blank space next to Class is for you to describe your Character’s role or occupation in the fantasy world you choose to play in. You can choose almost any role conceivable, warrior, wizard, priest, healer, hermit, traveler, tradesman, blacksmith, architect, ambassador, warlord, squire, assassin, pilot, farmer, miner… the options are virtually limitless. The only suggestion I would make is that you pick a role that is in some way realistic, that means you can’t play a god, a ghost, or some other thing that breaks the rules of nature in ways Player Characters weren’t meant to behave in the realm of mortals.

I'm a big fan of BRP because of the granularity of the numbers and there's no need for the GM to come up with difficulty numbers every time a character wants to roll (is this a moderate difficulty or a hard difficulty). I'm sure that's not a big issue for most but it suits what I want in a system. But also the roll doesn't take any addition to test for success, only a comparison, which makes rolling quick and easy.

There are two problems with BRP. One is that contested rolls are pass/fail and not very interesting. I've come up with my own modification to BRP that makes contested rolls work. (I break up rolls into degrees of success)

This may ramble a bit. I am starting to think about Competitive design. I'm not the only one on the ground doing so, as someone pointed out a lot of old TSR games assumed that players would be playing at cross purposes as well(To that person, I apologize, but I seem to have lost where I found that blog entry. It came at an Excellent time, however). It is important that I think about such things because there are a few flaws in TVOS alpha that I would like to fix.

Right now, in the state of that design, it is really really clear how Ravens win a given scenario. All they have to do is accumulate 30 positive points, and/or tell a lot of lies as they play. It is not so obvious how an Owl is suppose to win. In fact, by design, it is explicit in saying "It's okay to lose.". While I still stand behind that statement, I feel it was short sighted of me not to have an official win condition for them that didn't end up killing off a character.

It occurred to me that a gunfight requires far more skill than just the ability to accurately fire a gun. We're used to the contest in a fight occurring when the character pulls the trigger. The contest comes down to "Did the character hit accurately?". This is not very fun for the defender so most games (including mine) allow the other character to dodge, which is pretty unrealistic as has been pointed out.

So how do you fix that? First understanding the problem is important. The problem arises because "Combat" as defined in RPG started out with sword fights, where it is realistic to dodge or parry. When someone decided to introduce guns, we all just used the same test. Combat is combat this kind can just happen at a distance instead of right in front of the enemy. The problem is that there is no defense mechanism like dodge or parry that applies to a gunfight so it simply becomes an issue of who gets initiative and who has adequate aim. On a pragmatic level that's actually accurate. As a game it's not very fun.

I just posted this as a comment on www.realityrefracted.com on a post about player vs. environment. It was something I came up with recently but I think it has broad range of applications. One of the things that make player vs environment not fun is that GMs (myself included) only think in terms of hit points. We need to start thinking in terms of energy reserves for player vs. environment. Some games have this, others don't. A simple way of implementing energy being expended is by giving modifiers to characters rolls so that it gets harder and harder to do what they need to do.

I recently came up with a mechanic for climbing that surprised me how simple it could be and make it really fun. I used to be an avid rock climber and one of the things GMs get wrong is that they think if you miss a roll you fall. That's not how it works. If you miss a climbing roll you can't find a handhold or you tire yourself out. So the three elements in climbing are path, energy and time. If you have all the time in the world to climb it is much easier. If you have to climb because the sun is setting and the only safe place to camp is on top of that rock then it becomes harder.

Hi Again,

Well,
In my last blog post, I've started my first thoughts about everything in the mechanics system base.

STATS
Like I've write before,
I'll use only five stats (Str, Agi, Int, Spi, Sta), all of this stats will start with a number of 20. Race and Class will increase this in 10 points.

Every level you'll gain another three points to improve stats. You have to use these point in different stats.

[Why three points? Because only one point will create "min/max" character, with that, the player choose a primary stat and can use the other points to all other options]

KNOWLEDGE

I was trying to update my post with a mini-revision including just a couple more silly adjectives and managed to delete the whole thing. That was pretty stupid of me.

Basically players make characters by jotting down "written stuff" and roll dice based on how awesome they think they are. The GM can roll dice to see if a PC's self-aggrandizement becomes their undoing.

Anyways here it is again, sorry for the irritating double-post: