How many new mechanics are there anyways?

[hawkeyefan]

Take Heart, for example, you can say the system of Stress and Fallout is just a roll-under mechanic but it's doing something radically different from the roll-under mechanic in WFRP. Similarly the way that Heart bases your chances of success on your skill and where you are when you're doing that skill gives a remarkably different feel to the common approach of skill+stat.

I think this is a good point. How the mechanic impacts the game seems to be a significant factor. Accumulating Stress and then making a Fallout roll (which is just a roll with a target number equal to your current Stress, rollover and no Fallout, roll under and you get Fallout). The way this all works and the impact it has on play… and on the character… seems different than something like a to hit roll with a target number.

Another example I’d offer from Heart is the concept of Beats. These are lists of XP Triggers associated with each Calling in the game. A player chooses his Calling along with Class during character creation. The Calling determines your list of Beats, divided into three tiers (Minor, Medium, Major). Each session, you select two active Beats.

Hit a Beat, get a character advancement. Having the player choose their means of advancing seems novel tome. It has the added element of allowing the GM to prep with the characters’ Beats in mind. So the GM can make the game include the elements the players want to see. And this is backed up by the setting because the Heart is a living dungeon that tries to give those who enter it what they want, albeit in some weird, twisted way.

Obviously, the idea of XP Triggers and character advances are nothing new. But the implementation in Heart delivers a different experience than most.

 

[EmperorNorton]

Given the large number of deck builder board games including dungeon crawlers such as Arkham Horror the card game. I have yet to experience a deck builder RPG. Where your character is made of a deck of cards a they pull a set number of cards per round to base their potential actions and/or successes on.

Akham Horror the card game is not a deck building game. At least not in the way the term is used in board games. There is deck construction, but a deck building game is one in which you build the deck during play (Dominion being the originator of the mechanic). Arkham horror the card game is a Living Card Game and has more in common with CCG/TCGs mechanically, in which you prebuild your deck before play.

 

[lategamer]

Another example I’d offer from Heart is the concept of Beats. These are lists of XP Triggers associated with each Calling in the game. A player chooses his Calling along with Class during character creation. The Calling determines your list of Beats, divided into three tiers (Minor, Medium, Major). Each session, you select two active Beats.

Did they copy Chronicles of Darkness or did CoD copy them?

 

[Sloth_in_a_bowl]

Akham Horror the card game is not a deck building game. At least not in the way the term is used in board games. There is deck construction, but a deck building game is one in which you build the deck during play (Dominion being the originator of the mechanic). Arkham horror the card game is a Living Card Game and has more in common with CCG/TCGs mechanically, in which you prebuild your deck before play.

Fair point. I'm getting my terms wrong. But your deck can change during play and between adventures so for the uninitiated, it's not completely fixed.
A better example of a 'deck builder' adventure would include the Talisman adventure game where you start with 7 tokens in a bag standard to your character. You can put new (better) tokens in your bag during play and you draw 3 tokens for each challenge.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Did they copy Chronicles of Darkness or did CoD copy them?

I don’t know, I’m not familiar with Chronicles of Darkness. I know Grant Howitt said he pretty much lifted it from Marvel Heroic, which is a Cortex+ game, I believe.

How did Chronicles of Darkness handle it?

 

[lategamer]

How did Chronicles of Darkness handle it?

Pretty much the same. You have certain triggers. And there are also certain conditions where you are offered beats (5 beats = 1 experience point) as a consolation.

And in Scion it's Deeds.

 

[ffilz]

Well lets see...

Does trading sex for goodies count as a new mechanic if I publish, or is it still the oldest mechanic?

The Monty Python game may open up new possibilities for catapulting dice at minis instead of fucking around with numbers.

There's the one with flicking bullets into shot glasses.

HG Wells's Little Wars resolves miniatures combat by shooting little cannon at figures... So from a "topological" standpoint, physical projectiles hitting miniatures is already covered for sure in a published war game.

I've done D&D as a drinking game, but haven't seen anything seriously published.

I'm not sure that such hasn't been published in an April edition of a magazine...

I saw one once that used a cat as a randomizer. I should look that up again because I don't think it was published, just a joke/meme thing.

Could we do something with exploding stuff in microwaves? That's always fun and hasn't been done yet.

 

[ffilz]

I concur with those two and actually would go a step further: it depends on what counts as "a mechanic".
Why? Well, to me Pendragon is undoubtedly part of the BRP family. Despite the fact that it uses d20 roll-under, has no Intelligence stat, uses an opposed roll instead of attack-parry, and damage is a function of the knight, not the weapon. So the only "new" part in it is Passions. And they're brilliant, though you can argue they were already used in Griffin Mountains.

Oh, yea, the personality scale was in Griffin Mountain and Different Worlds.

 

[ffilz]

While it is not explicitly called out like in Cold Iron the way the math works out in GURPS Magic it can work out to be the same thing with the Recover Energy spell and high skill levels with a particular spell.

Cold Iron
View attachment 58911
GURPS

View attachment 58910

But that's still a fixed rate. Cold Iron magic point regeneration is based on how many magic points you have at the moment, as a continuous function. In other words, it's continuous compound interest. There's also a magic point storage mechanism that 5th level and above magic users have that's effectively a leaky bucket. Filling it up is the same formula as charging a capacitor.

For another comparison, the POW/MP regeneration in RuneQuest is a function of your maximum.

But the other aspect of Cold Iron that seems unique is that the regeneration can be tapped to run spells. Thus, if you are at full magic points, they still regenerate, that MP can be used to maintain spells without causing any change in your MP total. This allows spells that have a sustainable continuing cost to be maintained indefinitely.

 

[ffilz]

Not the same as this but 'similar' is the way in SCION where you can 'imbue' points of Legend in an activity rather than 'spending' them. I like the ides of having stuff that takes up your 'magicalness' without necessarily having to be concentrated on all the time

That sounds more equivalent. Cool.

My own attempt at a "generic" game system simplified the Cold Iron idea by allowing you to "reserve" magic points to maintain spells or regenerate. Still compound interest on regeneration, but periodic rather than continuous, which means you can do the math without a calculator if you want.

 

[ffilz]

I just took a look at GURPS Thamautology and if you use Threshold Magic (or unlimited mana from S. John Ross article) it is even more functionally similar. Basically you can cast using all the mana you want but have to keep a tally of what is spent. Once you exceed a threshold (usually 30 mana) "bad things" start to happen to the caster. Your tally gets reduced by 8 at sunrise. So it is possible to maintain spells indefinitely as long you don't spend more than 8 mana a day maintaining them.

Oh, that's another "similar but not quite the same" idea.

 

[Skarg]

I sympathize with the OP, as someone whose favorite RPGs are still the ones he started playing in 1980 and 1986.

However I question the relevance of the question "How many new mechanics are there?"

Because, why would that matter?

And to indulge the question, there could be infinite new mechanics. Or if the question is about how many new mechanics are getting published in recent products, then the answer would depend on how you define new, and would tend to seem irrelevant to me, because I don't see why it matters how many there might be.

Especially when I dislike almost all new RPG designs, and/or see them as not the same type of game I like, and/or not specific games I like.

P.S. Oh, and also, many of the mechanics in recent games seem to often get discussed as "new", but yes, are very much not "really" new ideas for mechanics.

And also, I agree with EmprerorNorton on this:

I think the question is flawed from the start though. As each game is the sum of its parts, and not individual mechanics. We may be rebuilding everything with the same cogs and pullies that we've been using for decades, but the arrangement of them can create something unique.

 

[chuckdee]

I think that pretty much every usable mechanic has been tried at this point.

I would disagree. I see several pop up- a lot of time in indie games.

Just a few that I've seen that have not been listed here:

Resource Management with pools of Tokens: Marvel Universe and my own Bridgers
Roulette Wheel - FastLane
Card Hands and several variations on that - Age of Ambition, Dust Devils
Dominos
Jenga Towers - Dread, Wretched and Alone
Candles - 10 Candles


Hell, if you go to RPG Geek and look for games with unusual randomizers not using dice or cards you get 87 pages of them

Unusual Randomizer (not using dice or cards)

Covering all manner of things used as a randomizing device but not dice or cards. For example, games of "rock-paper-scissors" or the well-known use of Dominoes, etc.

rpggeek.com

And you can see all the mechanics that they've catalogued here

Browse RPG Mechanics | RPGGeek

rpggeek.com

It's just a matter of imagination and creativity.

A couple I really want to get around to designing are engine building and worker placement. Those are primarily board game mechanics, but I think they have untapped potential in RPGs.

 

[ffilz]

I would disagree. I see several pop up- a lot of time in indie games.

Just a few that I've seen that have not been listed here:

Resource Management with pools of Tokens: Marvel Universe and my own Bridgers
Roulette Wheel - FastLane
Card Hands and several variations on that - Age of Ambition, Dust Devils
Dominos
Jenga Towers - Dread, Wretched and Alone
Candles - 10 Candles


Hell, if you go to RPG Geek and look for games with unusual randomizers not using dice or cards you get 87 pages of them

Unusual Randomizer (not using dice or cards)

Covering all manner of things used as a randomizing device but not dice or cards. For example, games of "rock-paper-scissors" or the well-known use of Dominoes, etc.

rpggeek.com

And you can see all the mechanics that they've catalogued here

Browse RPG Mechanics | RPGGeek

rpggeek.com

It's just a matter of imagination and creativity.

A couple I really want to get around to designing are engine building and worker placement. Those are primarily board game mechanics, but I think they have untapped potential in RPGs.

It would be nice to see that table in a spreadsheet for easier searching and filtering.

 

[robertsconley]

One consideration that unlike boardgames the point of mechanics is a means to an end. Either to adjudicate something when the odds are uncertain. Or as a concise description of how a setting operates like the nuances of how magic works in the discussion that ffilz and I had.

Somebody like Klaus Teuber could come up with a set of new mechanics to make an interesting new game and that would be fun in and of itself. But with RPG the mechanics are in service of different goals other than playing a game, running a tabletop RPG campaign.

Outside of the fantastic (like magic, super powers) how much room is there for innovation for things like describing a character, handling jumping, or swinging a mace? Sure we can do a lot varying the level of detail and what is emphasized but it circles around two poles, how the setting works, and what a character can and can't do in that setting.

 

[VisionStorm]

I think this is a good point. How the mechanic impacts the game seems to be a significant factor. Accumulating Stress and then making a Fallout roll (which is just a roll with a target number equal to your current Stress, rollover and no Fallout, roll under and you get Fallout). The way this all works and the impact it has on play… and on the character… seems different than something like a to hit roll with a target number.

I'm still not 100% sure how this mechanic works, but from what I'm gathering, appears to be some sort of Stress mechanic that imposes some sort of impairment once a character reaches "Fallout", which is something I've seen done before in different games, calling it "Stun", "Strain" or whatever. This could be handled through some type of nonlethal "HP-like" mechanic, or making a type of "Saving Throw" whenever a certain trigger comes up during play. Both of which have been done before, though the specific games escape me right now, cuz it's been ages since I read them and most games I normally play don't have them, but I've considered adding similar stuff to my games, partly based on stuff I've read before (cuz it's been done).

But the idea that certain events during play trigger some type of condition isn't new. It might not be commonly implemented in most games, and it may add something special to the game play experience, but that doesn't make it innovative or novel. It's been done before.

Another example I’d offer from Heart is the concept of Beats. These are lists of XP Triggers associated with each Calling in the game. A player chooses his Calling along with Class during character creation. The Calling determines your list of Beats, divided into three tiers (Minor, Medium, Major). Each session, you select two active Beats.

Hit a Beat, get a character advancement. Having the player choose their means of advancing seems novel tome. It has the added element of allowing the GM to prep with the characters’ Beats in mind. So the GM can make the game include the elements the players want to see. And this is backed up by the setting because the Heart is a living dungeon that tries to give those who enter it what they want, albeit in some weird, twisted way.

Obviously, the idea of XP Triggers and character advances are nothing new. But the implementation in Heart delivers a different experience than most.

So basically a setting-specific, metagaming floating XP Trigger that functions exactly like old D&D class XP awards, except that the player chooses each session which type of event award it? In other words: It's been done before. Only this time you get to pick when it applies and have an setting justification for doing it (i.e. a "gimmick"). I pretty much address this in my prior posts.

I would disagree. I see several pop up- a lot of time in indie games.

Just a few that I've seen that have not been listed here:

Resource Management with pools of Tokens: Marvel Universe and my own Bridgers
Roulette Wheel - FastLane
Card Hands and several variations on that - Age of Ambition, Dust Devils
Dominos
Jenga Towers - Dread, Wretched and Alone
Candles - 10 Candles


Hell, if you go to RPG Geek and look for games with unusual randomizers not using dice or cards you get 87 pages of them

Unusual Randomizer (not using dice or cards)

Covering all manner of things used as a randomizing device but not dice or cards. For example, games of "rock-paper-scissors" or the well-known use of Dominoes, etc.

rpggeek.com

And you can see all the mechanics that they've catalogued here

Browse RPG Mechanics | RPGGeek

rpggeek.com

It's just a matter of imagination and creativity.

A couple I really want to get around to designing are engine building and worker placement. Those are primarily board game mechanics, but I think they have untapped potential in RPGs.

That's a lot of stuff I'm unfamiliar with that I would need to download and read through to assess (at least the stuff that can be found free online anyway), so I can't really comment. But the question is, how new are these really (look at the replies above for "new" stuff that isn't really new, just different ways to use existing mechanics), and how "usable" are they outside of the specific games they've been made for? Are they gimmicks, or do they present innovative ways to do stuff I would want to port to other systems or build new systems around?

And note that I'm not saying that stuff that's technically "new" can't be done. My claims have been about "usability", and that a lot (#NotAll) of this stuff is just variants of existing stuff, or existing mechanics with added complexity or gimmicks.

 

[Voros]

Maybe some granular discussion of what counts as a mechanic might help us out here? I think it might. Some people seem pretty focused on mechanics as core resolution, so what die/system (or whatever) a game has us roll to do stuff generally. So, generally, die type and combinations that govern success in declared PC actions that effect the game state. So d20 roll under, d20 with rising DC, PbtA's 2d6, etc etc. I'd call these something like core mechanics, as they tend to be the core of how a given system actually functions.

In addition to these core mechanics, there is also a whole universe of specific mechanics, which is an easy general term for mechanics designed to do something specific in a system. Sometimes these are a version of a core mechanic and sometimes they are their own thing. I might ad a third catch-all called bespoke mechanics that escape the core/specifc dichotomy, but it's probably not essential. In many cases these rely less on the die being rolled and more on the constraints and description of the specific case in question. For example, the Panic mechanic from the Aliens RPG isn't new in terms of die being rolled, but was quite revelatory in terms of the results of the roll and how the input/output form the mechanic ties into the rest of gameplay. I'd probably put the Usage die in all it's forms here as well, although you might argue for it as a core mechanic and I wouldn't argue.

Neither of these terms is supposed to be final or absolute, but simply useful in discussing what a mechanic is based at least in part on its design and relationship to whatever fundamental game play looks like for the system in question. Perhaps what I'm getting at is that a 'mechanic' is more than just die type, but refers to anything in a rules set that defines, governs, or impacts playloops and/or adjudication.

Hunger Dice and the Hunger Mechanic in VtM 5e also struck me as novel although it is quite possible there's some precursor I'm unaware of.

I prefer games where the mechanics are built from the ground up with the intention of capturing some aspect of play, the setting or genre. That often leads to mechanics that feel novel in my experience.

 

[ffilz]

One consideration that unlike boardgames the point of mechanics is a means to an end. Either to adjudicate something when the odds are uncertain. Or as a concise description of how a setting operates like the nuances of how magic works in the discussion that ffilz and I had.

Somebody like Klaus Teuber could come up with a set of new mechanics to make an interesting new game and that would be fun in and of itself. But with RPG the mechanics are in service of different goals other than playing a game, running a tabletop RPG campaign.

Outside of the fantastic (like magic, super powers) how much room is there for innovation for things like describing a character, handling jumping, or swinging a mace? Sure we can do a lot varying the level of detail and what is emphasized but it circles around two poles, how the setting works, and what a character can and can't do in that setting.

Yea, that's the key I was trying to get at about the fluff mattering. That is the setting, or to be specific, the setting of play which is a subset of the grand setting, and specific to what is being played right now. In this vein, if the setting of play is PC merchants that trading rules will be important but the same rules might be ignored in the same setting under the same GM using the same base RPG system for a different group that is not playing merchants. - BUT - The rules are there to be pulled out if some other PC group DOES shift into merchanting, or maybe even if they just decide to be bandits attacking merchant caravans.

Those are the nuances that make each RPG campaign and session unique. Sometimes the nuance is accomplished by what rules the GM focuses on, sometimes the nuance is accomplished by a house rule or two or three, and sometimes the nuance is not such a nuance and a whole new RPG system is warranted.

Thus robertsconley is working on his own OSR system to capture the nuances of his setting. And I made house rules to Cold Iron to better fit that setting.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'm still not 100% sure how this mechanic works, but from what I'm gathering, appears to be some sort of Stress mechanic that imposes some sort of impairment once a character reaches "Fallout", which is something I've seen done before in different games, calling it "Stun", "Strain" or whatever. This could be handled through some type of nonlethal "HP-like" mechanic, or making a type of "Saving Throw" whenever a certain trigger comes up during play. Both of which have been done before, though the specific games escape me right now, cuz it's been ages since I read them and most games I normally play don't have them, but I've considered adding similar stuff to my games, partly based on stuff I've read before (cuz it's been done).

But the idea that certain events during play trigger some type of condition isn't new. It might not be commonly implemented in most games, and it may add something special to the game play experience, but that doesn't make it innovative or novel. It's been done before.

Yeah, it's kind of representative "damage" in the form of Stress, which then can eventually become specific debilities, conditions, or consequences which are Fallout. Ther are also five different kinds of Fallout... Blood, Mind, Echo, Fortune, and Supplies (this is the list for Heart; the one for Spire is a bit different based on the games' different themes).

As for the novelty of it, I'm not claiming that it's entirely new... but I do think the way it's implemented seems novel. It brings the cost of delving into sharp focus. What toll will this life choice take on the character?

To describe it simply as "certain events during play trigger some type of condition" seems uselessly broad.

So basically a setting-specific, metagaming floating XP Trigger that functions exactly like old D&D class XP awards, except that the player chooses each session which type of event award it? In other words: It's been done before. Only this time you get to pick when it applies and have an setting justification for doing it (i.e. a "gimmick"). I pretty much address this in my prior posts.

Again, I don't claim it's never been done. As has been pointed out, the author Grant Howitt, said that he took it from Marvel Heroic and then gave it some tweaks, and as lategamer mentioned, Chronicles of Darkness had something similar.

I do think there are differences (though I admit to being unfamiliar with the Chronicles of Darkness version)... first, that there are different levels to it... Minor, Major, and Zenith... and that when you hit the Beat, you get an advance. So it's not an XP point towards leveling up or something incremental like that. You hit the Beat, you get to pick a new ability from your class list. And as I said, the way it works also influences how the GM prepares the game... he's meant to look at the selected Beats and offer opportunities for those to come up in play.

It certainly feels different to me than many other character advancement systems, as both player and GM.

That's a lot of stuff I'm unfamiliar with that I would need to download and read through to assess (at least the stuff that can be found free online anyway), so I can't really comment. But the question is, how new are these really (look at the replies above for "new" stuff that isn't really new, just different ways to use existing mechanics), and how "usable" are they outside of the specific games they've been made for? Are they gimmicks, or do they present innovative ways to do stuff I would want to port to other systems or build new systems around?

And note that I'm not saying that stuff that's technically "new" can't be done. My claims have been about "usability", and that a lot (#NotAll) of this stuff is just variants of existing stuff, or existing mechanics with added complexity or gimmicks.

I think maybe there's a matter of the application of a mechanic and how that shapes the gaming experience. Maybe novelty can be found by applying an existing mechanic in a new way? Or a combination of mechanics in a way that really suits the game in question?

I don't know if the quality of a mechanic can be boiled down to how portable it may be to any old system. Sometimes, it's how different mechanics interact with each other that can seem different than either element might on its own. In that case, yanking one thing out and shoving it into another system may not work at all. That doesn't mean that the rule in question is bad.

Take Karma from the Marvel game and take Stress from the Alien RPG. Swap them. The results would likely be pretty poor. But it's not that the mechanics aren't good... it's that they're suited toward the genre/setting of the game they're actually a part of.

Also, FYI, the Heart Quickstart is available as PWYW on Drivethru or from the publishers, Rowan, Rook, and Decard.

 

[chuckdee]

But the question is, how new are these really (look at the replies above for "new" stuff that isn't really new, just different ways to use existing mechanics), and how "usable" are they outside of the specific games they've been made for? Are they gimmicks, or do they present innovative ways to do stuff I would want t

I've used some of the ideas as basis for things I've created (see the use of resource pools and Bridgers) and have been inspired by others and played yet others, so I'm not just quoting them for the sake of quoting them.

 

[VisionStorm]

Yeah, it's kind of representative "damage" in the form of Stress, which then can eventually become specific debilities, conditions, or consequences which are Fallout. Ther are also five different kinds of Fallout... Blood, Mind, Echo, Fortune, and Supplies (this is the list for Heart; the one for Spire is a bit different based on the games' different themes).

As for the novelty of it, I'm not claiming that it's entirely new... but I do think the way it's implemented seems novel. It brings the cost of delving into sharp focus. What toll will this life choice take on the character?

To describe it simply as "certain events during play trigger some type of condition" seems uselessly broad.

Based on what you're describing that IS what this mechanic appears to do, though.

Again, I don't claim it's never been done. As has been pointed out, the author Grant Howitt, said that he took it from Marvel Heroic and then gave it some tweaks, and as lategamer mentioned, Chronicles of Darkness had something similar.

I do think there are differences (though I admit to being unfamiliar with the Chronicles of Darkness version)... first, that there are different levels to it... Minor, Major, and Zenith... and that when you hit the Beat, you get an advance. So it's not an XP point towards leveling up or something incremental like that. You hit the Beat, you get to pick a new ability from your class list. And as I said, the way it works also influences how the GM prepares the game... he's meant to look at the selected Beats and offer opportunities for those to come up in play.

It certainly feels different to me than many other character advancement systems, as both player and GM.

That sounds a bit more metagamey than I'd prefer, and it's still a variant of character progression based on stuff that matters to them, which ties it to class XP awards. Though, picking a whole new class ability based on a single event deviates quite a bit from D&D/XP based progression, so maybe it's different enough to count as its own thing, IDK.

I think maybe there's a matter of the application of a mechanic and how that shapes the gaming experience. Maybe novelty can be found by applying an existing mechanic in a new way? Or a combination of mechanics in a way that really suits the game in question?

In that case we're not really in disagreement, cuz that is part the underlying point I was trying to make. Genuinely new mechanics are unlikely to truly be made at this point in the hobby. Only new rearrangements of existing mechanics in novel ways that are not truly new mechanics per se, but rather new ways of using existing mechanics. Or (on the negative side) new ways of complicating them, depending on how they're implemented. Sometimes it might even be both (added complexity that might be innovative in some ways, but not worth it, unless that's what you're really going for).

I've used some of the ideas as basis for things I've created (see the use of resource pools and Bridgers) and have been inspired by others and played yet others, so I'm not just quoting them for the sake of quoting them.

I've seen resource pools in other games, though, "resource pools" can mean a lot of things and I don't know how different these might be. I would have to check it out at some point if I have the time.

 

[chuckdee]

I've seen resource pools in other games, though, "resource pools" can mean a lot of things and I don't know how different these might be. I would have to check it out at some point if I have the time.

This is resources instead of a randomization effect. When I'm talking about different mechanics, in general, I don't mean as an adjunct to dice, but instead of them. In my case, it's also a wagering mechanic.

 

[Ravenswing]

I don't find this a particularly useful way to analyse mechanical differences. To me this feels like saying that there have been hardly any real innovations in car design since the Model T Ford - they all have four wheels driven by an engine and control direction by rotating a steering wheel. Changing the dice, especially changing from a single dice to adding multiple dice, gives a very different experience due to the big differences in probability.

Yes ... "experience" that's often times just fluff and window dressing. Gimmicks like "exploding dice" are the RPG equivalent of tailfins on 1950s cars: attempts to Be Radically Different when designers know full well that there's not a whole lot that legitimately can be done to pull it off. With a nod towards VisionStorm's comment, anyone who argues that there's any significant difference in "experience" between rolling under 3d6+Mod and rolling over 1d20+Mod is a mook.

 

[Mankcam]

Regarding the opening query, I think 7th Sea 2E approaches action resolution a little differently to most other trpgs I have.

The dice mechanic itself is pretty standard, but you only roll it once when you move into a dramatic action scene.
As a player, you roll the dice once the GM determines that the scene is turning into an action sequence. You then roll a certain number of dice, determined from what you feel will be your most helpful or appropriate Attribute and Skill used in the scene. The results grant you a number of successes ('Raises') that you have available to 'spend' on narrating the parts of the scene as it unfolds around your character.
Basically it is the number of actions you can do in the scene.

No further dice rolling within that scene, it is all about 'cashing in' the Raises to justify what actions you are getting up to in that scene.
As the scene plays out, you spend Raises whenever it is your turn in the scene. An action costs a Raise if it is in keeping with the Attribute/Skill mix that you determined at the start of the dramatic scene. The further away an action is from the initial Attribute/Skill mix, the higher cost of spending Raises to achieve that action.

You are generally automatically successful with whatever you do with each action, although some actions may cost more than one Raise. The GM/NPC can also spends Raises to oppose your successful actions at times.
It means you need to get the most out of your Raises within each scene, and have to be strategic otherwise you simply run out of achieveing actions in the scene.

It sounds similar to other systems, but at the table it tends to feel pretty different
It tends to play more 'narrative' than most of my games, and certainly will not be to everyone's tastes.
Not sure it's to mine either - I do enjoy 7S2E, but would never use it as my main system.

 

[ffilz]

Yes ... "experience" that's often times just fluff and window dressing. Gimmicks like "exploding dice" are the RPG equivalent of tailfins on 1950s cars: attempts to Be Radically Different when designers know full well that there's not a whole lot that legitimately can be done to pull it off. With a nod towards VisionStorm's comment, anyone who argues that there's any significant difference in "experience" between rolling under 3d6+Mod and rolling over 1d20+Mod is a mook.

As someone who grasps probability intuitively I can assure you that the fact that a 1 or a 20 on 1d20 is more than 10 times more common than a 3 or an 18 on 3d6 is quite noticeable. And exploding dice really do something. Now how various other exploding dice actually compare to Cold Iron's normal distribution, I don't actually have a good feel, but in any open ended system, I can assure you that the feeling when you roll really really good and the system actually grants you something for that is very satisfying.

 

[TJS]

I feel that this thread has a lot of talking at cross purposes.

I don't think that anyone is saying that there's no difference between a 3d6 roll against a target number and 1d20, but people just are perceiving that difference from a different perspective.

Eg:
A: There not much difference (only the distribution of results)
B: It's completely different (the distribution of results!)

It's a glass half full/half empty situation.

Or an armchair may seem big when compared with a block of cheese but not when you're comparing it to an elephant.

 

[Ravenswing]

As someone who grasps probability intuitively I can assure you that the fact that a 1 or a 20 on 1d20 is more than 10 times more common than a 3 or an 18 on 3d6 is quite noticeable. And exploding dice really do something. Now how various other exploding dice actually compare to Cold Iron's normal distribution, I don't actually have a good feel, but in any open ended system, I can assure you that the feeling when you roll really really good and the system actually grants you something for that is very satisfying.

So for how many dozens -- hundreds? -- of games can you say the exact same thing? I got awesome feelings rolling very well on 3d6/d20/d100 the better part of a half century ago and all the times in between. Get a critical success, that's a good feeling. Get a critical failure, that's a bad feeling. Me rolling an open ended roll in the mid-400s was great, and that was in a game with a publication date of 1980.

With that, I do probabilities very well myself, and I'm scratching my head at that comment: yes, an integer on a d20 roll is significantly more common than the integers on the extreme ends of the 3d6 bell curve. What's your point? Does that diminish the fun a D&D player has over achieving the best possible roll? (One might suggest the opposite, in that the payoff's more frequent than in 3d6 games.)

When someone pitches a "new" mechanic to me, I expect that mechanic to be unique ... and "unique" in the old-fashioned definition of "no one's ever done anything like it before." I firmly believe that this is vanishingly rare in the RPG field, and new dice "mechanics" don't qualify: all they do is either fiddle with probabilities, make gauging those probabilities far more opaque, or both.

 

[Dr Jack]

Yes ... "experience" that's often times just fluff and window dressing.

Even were that true, so what? Fluff and window dressing are critically important to an entirely subjective experience like playing a roleplaying game.

With a nod towards VisionStorm's comment, anyone who argues that there's any significant difference in "experience" between rolling under 3d6+Mod and rolling over 1d20+Mod is a mook.

It is a significant difference, hugely changing the feel of a game. When I say experience I'm not talking about the experience of lobbing some dice onto the table, I'm talking about how it changes the experience of success and failure. 3d6+x vs TN is hugely more stable than d20+x vs TN and the changes in TN move the chances either rapidly or slowly depending on where you are on the range of the dice. Contrast that with d20+x where any change moves by the same amount all the time. That changes how different playing a competent character feels compared to incompetent character.

 

[Sharrow]

They absolutely are different. The bell-shaped probability curve of 3d6 and the flat distribution of 1d20 feel so much different in play that even if they're both "roll under" it's like chalk and cheese.

Roll under vs roll over are mathematically the same. It's just that roll-under games tend to treat the top end of the dice range as a cap on skill, but there's not actual reason this has to be so (GURPS, for example, does not cap skills like this).

Opposed rolls are also mathematically the same as a single roll with the same number of dice as the total of both sides of an opposed roll (once you've added modifiers to get the range the same), but they feel different because of who is rolling the dice.

 

[PolarBlues]

One consideration that unlike boardgames the point of mechanics is a means to an end. Either to adjudicate something when the odds are uncertain. Or as a concise description of how a setting operates like the nuances of how magic works in the discussion that ffilz and I had.

Somebody like Klaus Teuber could come up with a set of new mechanics to make an interesting new game and that would be fun in and of itself. But with RPG the mechanics are in service of different goals other than playing a game, running a tabletop RPG campaign.

That is a point that resonates strongly with me, but maybe not with everyone. My preference is very much for fade in the background sort of systems. I don't need the system to wow or entertain me; the characters and situations will do that for me. All I need is something that gets me there with the least amount of fuss. That said, there are plenty of roleplayers who enjoy a bit of "game" in their roleplaying games and who view fade in the background as synonymous with bland.

I don't know exactly where we are in terms of trends and fashion in our hobby, but my experience with some recently released games (Sentinels of the Multivers, Dune, Avatar) was that they were all geared towards making playing the game, not just playing the character, fun. The game as an end it itself.

That really doesn't really work for me (it is actually a bit of a buzz kill), but I know players who view"I tick off one Fatigue to shift his Balance towards Freedom" is exactly the level of rewarding interaction with the game mechanics that they enjoy.

 

[ffilz]

So for how many dozens -- hundreds? -- of games can you say the exact same thing? I got awesome feelings rolling very well on 3d6/d20/d100 the better part of a half century ago and all the times in between. Get a critical success, that's a good feeling. Get a critical failure, that's a bad feeling. Me rolling an open ended roll in the mid-400s was great, and that was in a game with a publication date of 1980.

With that, I do probabilities very well myself, and I'm scratching my head at that comment: yes, an integer on a d20 roll is significantly more common than the integers on the extreme ends of the 3d6 bell curve. What's your point? Does that diminish the fun a D&D player has over achieving the best possible roll? (One might suggest the opposite, in that the payoff's more frequent than in 3d6 games.)

When someone pitches a "new" mechanic to me, I expect that mechanic to be unique ... and "unique" in the old-fashioned definition of "no one's ever done anything like it before." I firmly believe that this is vanishingly rare in the RPG field, and new dice "mechanics" don't qualify: all they do is either fiddle with probabilities, make gauging those probabilities far more opaque, or both.

I acknowledged that at a high level, roll dice is roll dice. But the different probability curves do make a difference. But it IS a reasonable question whether we are to the point now that there are truly no new dice mechanics. To some extent the answer is yes, because even if we declare that Cold Iron's use of the normal distribution means even if some other game pops up with pretty much that mechanic, that game would not represent an innovation. But there are other distributions that could be used the same mechanism of generating a random number between 0 and 1 exclusive as some kind of mechanic and they would be as different as the difference between 3d6 and 1d20. Actually I have used the dice mechanism to generate a number between 0 and 1 to make a "when is the next encounter" roll. The probability curve is then the cumulative probability of a x% chance of encounter occurring after N intervals.

You could even significantly change the scale and the difference is just as much as the difference between 1d20 and 1d100. An interesting normal distribution scale would be +1 per standard deviation instead of the +20/3 per standard deviation Cold Iron uses. The ratings used with that would be: 0 = normal, has a 50-50 chance of success, 1 = superior (~85% chance of success - note NOT 70% which is what you would expect, the 70% is that 70% of outcomes are between -1 and +1, which means of course between the 15% chance of a 0 or better with a -1 base and the 85% chance of a 0 or better result with a +1 base - 85 - 15 = 70%), 2 = exceptional (~98% chance of success).

I will ALSO grant that not all designers actually understand statistics, and whether they do or not, they also don't analyze the results of their cute dice mechanic.

But also, as I have noted, beyond the probabilities lies the realm of exactly what a roll means. How is it used? What other rolls does it trigger? What are the inputs to a roll? When do we even roll? All of that stuff is where the game design actually lies because all of that stuff is actually important to our experience of the game.

While I happen to prefer systems from the early days, I absolutely concede that there are systems from 2000 and later that are DIFFERENT than the systems of the early days. I don't play they because I don't prefer the way they work, not because they are the same old same old. Now yea, there ARE also recent systems that ARE the same old same old. Heck, I don't even play RQ2 because I don't like the changes made from RQ1. In some ways it would be easier to play RQ2. But no, to me the differences matter. So I play RQ1. Of course back in the day, I didn't get into RQ2 because it was the same old same old. I didn't understand how much had actually changed until I did a section by section comparison, carefully reading.

 

[zanshin]

Given the large number of deck builder board games including dungeon crawlers such as Arkham Horror the card game. I have yet to experience a deck builder RPG. Where your character is made of a deck of cards a they pull a set number of cards per round to base their potential actions and/or successes on.

Gloomhaven (as you say, a dungeon crawler board game) does something like this.

I would definitely be up for something like this; but might be too much mechanics for many RPers.