Open 3d6 Proposal

[David Johansen]

Here I go again. I want to talk about the whys before rewriting a variation on the same damn system I keep ending up writing.

Objectives

Compatibility is a key issue. People need to be able to move stuff rom any source into their own games. As such universality is key.

Tight Core Stat Block. You shouldn't need a quarter page block of stats to run cannon fodder.

Characteristics
I've generally wound up with Coordination, Physique, Intellect, and Resolve as attributes that break down into other attributes. I think this is a bit of a mistake as they aren't universal or easily mapped to other systems. I think Strength, Resiliance or Toughness, Intelligence or maybe Knowledge if Intelligence is too political these days, Perception though it might be better just to break down its elements as advantageous traits, sight is good for some things, hearing and smell for others, and Reflexes as opposed to agility which is largely a measure of strength relative to size and dexterity which denotes hand eye coordination in particular and should exist as a variable trait to represent everything from horse's hooves to masses of manipulator tentacles, and maybe Willpower or Character or Personality as a social and sanity stat.

Intelligence - mental skills and confusion resistance
Perception - spotting and ambush resistance
Reflexes - initiative, shooting and fighting
Strength - damage output and physical force resistance
Toughness - hit points and metabolic hazard resistance
Willpower - social skills and social and psycological resistance
Charisma - ?

The range is 3 - 18 with 10 being average of course. It's really tempting to have the cost double every point but it would make templates harder to apply. I think, instead, resisitance should be at 1/2 the attribute. So a 10 would give a -5 resistance modifier. Posibly 1/4 stat or (stat -10 )/2 but I'm not fond of negative modifiers for low stats.

Skills should default to 1/2 attribute with broad skills costing 4 points per +1 and Narrow skills costing 2. The reason for this is that an odd attribute value could still provide 1 point towards a skill, thus getting rid of the break points issue. Working from that attributes probably cost 8 points per level.

Muscle based weapon damage is probably Strength / 5 dice + Strength - 4 * n dice Thus a 5 strength would be 1d + 1 and a 10 strength would be 2d + 2 and 15 Strength would be 3d + 3. A chart would exist but I think consistancy across the range would be good. Ideally that would help with damage scaling issues.

The direct relationship of real world stats should be exponential. x2 per point is too high and x2 per 5 points is too HERO. The core real world measures would be distances in meters, mass in kilograms, weight in newtons, distance in meters, time in seconds, velocity in meters per second.

Powers and traits would be built on the same mechanics but traits are generally self limiting or zero sum things or at least relatively cheap. Powers are open ended and can be magic or super science or psionics with different lenses, limitations and so forth. As one of the goals would be to keep book keeping limited I think the cost per level should be around 10 and modifiers applied to that. So say flight is 10 points per level but wings that require air and cost a limb set might reduce the cost to 5 per level.

 

[David Johansen]

I forgot to mention that I think SIZE should be a trait made up of a +1 to Strength and Toughness +1 to be hit and a -1 to Agility skills.

While I like armour as damage resistance it's often too indestructible / invulnerable. One method I've used in the past is an armour hardness factor as the number of points the armour can absorb from a single hit with each point having a number of hit points to represent thickness. This means armour can be whittled down. As a further factor, if the armour resists an attack type, the hardness factor acts as damage resistance, whereas attacks that specially penetrate the armour simply inflict damage on it until they get through. Possibly too complex but it lets you have it both ways.

I'd like combat to be fairly wargamey / boardgamey. I like tactical combat but I also believe it's easier to move from concrete to abstract than it is to move from abstract to concrete. There's really no reason there can't be multiple combat systems or options as long as there's core compatibility.

I think the core focus should be realism and simulation but with the unrealistic being purchasable.

Vehicle design in particular should take into account power to mass ratios and the cube/square law. Sure there should be work arounds as hypothetical technologies but an X-Wing shouldn't be able to pull 1700 Gs without them.

I've fiddled with a lot of vehicle design systems over the years. Those who've followed my game design threads have certainly seen those threads devolve into vehicle design a few times. Still, I think setting some standards and parameters from the start would help a lot with compatibility across the line. As we don't have examples of super tech, it's probably best to work from modern materials like steel and gasoline and extrapolate from there. I know some people would prefer meticulously researched data here but I'm thinking a basic technology factor of 10 as modern and applying that to power out put and armour is probably flexible enough and adequate to the task.

I think vehicle design is a good place to stand out as others have abdicated it entirely.

 

[David Johansen]

Okay, so stupid dice tricks yea or nay?

Some that come to mind are criticals or maybe flukes on tripples. Adding dice to the task for special effects. "I'll try to make the roll on five dice and have the smoke look like the Mona Lisa." Numbers of dice as difficulty levels. Half dice / d3s. Using high, medium, or low die for damage. Polyhedral dice for some purposes. Tipping a die as a benny. "I can tip a die by one side because I'm wearing knickerbockers." Roll three pick one, roll four pick three as a soft alternative to numbers of dice as difficulty levels or as a way to represent some advantage relating to the task. "My fingerless gloves let me roll four dice and pick the best three when picking locks." Roll a black, white, and red die. If the total is less than the character's skill the action succeeds. If the red die is higher than the black die you can opt to marry the princess.

Personally, I think these things are overused in modern game design and are mostly confusing and of little utility. I do kinda like triples as flukes.

Even so, for a really accessible, universal game, I think they're best left to optional or house rules. "I took my top off so they have to roll four dice to hit me."

I'd suggest the core mechanic be roll 3d6 equal to or under modified skill. Every 5 points under the modified skill gives a degree of success.

Some people like mechanics that give an 'and' or an 'or' switch. I suppose that's like the flukes on tripples things but other methods may be possible.

So far I'm seeing a lot of views, a few likes, and no comments. No idea how to read that. Is a view without a like a "don't like" I never can tell

 

[Taelin]

Okay, so stupid dice tricks yea or nay?

Some that come to mind are criticals or maybe flukes on tripples. Adding dice to the task for special effects. "I'll try to make the roll on five dice and have the smoke look like the Mona Lisa." Numbers of dice as difficulty levels. Half dice / d3s. Using high, medium, or low die for damage. Polyhedral dice for some purposes. Tipping a die as a benny. "I can tip a die by one side because I'm wearing knickerbockers." Roll three pick one, roll four pick three as a soft alternative to numbers of dice as difficulty levels or as a way to represent some advantage relating to the task. "My fingerless gloves let me roll four dice and pick the best three when picking locks." Roll a black, white, and red die. If the total is less than the character's skill the action succeeds. If the red die is higher than the black die you can opt to marry the princess.

Personally, I think these things are overused in modern game design and are mostly confusing and of little utility. I do kinda like triples as flukes.

Even so, for a really accessible, universal game, I think they're best left to optional or house rules. "I took my top off so they have to roll four dice to hit me."

I'd suggest the core mechanic be roll 3d6 equal to or under modified skill. Every 5 points under the modified skill gives a degree of success.

Some people like mechanics that give an 'and' or an 'or' switch. I suppose that's like the flukes on tripples things but other methods may be possible.

So far I'm seeing a lot of views, a few likes, and no comments. No idea how to read that. Is a view without a like a "don't like" I never can tell

Personally I like the idea of making more use of the dice rolled than simply checking to see if they individually or collectively pass a threshold.
I too have spent ages working on and reworking various systems of my own brewing and have tried to do more interesting things with dice.
However, every time you do something extra it puts more 'cognitive load' on the players and GM so you need to consider if what you gain by doing so is worth while.

 

[robertsconley]

Compatibility is a key issue. People need to be able to move stuff rom any source into their own games. As such universality is key.

Define compatibility.

For example

• Attribute centered on 10 and generally conforms to a 3 to 18 range. There are only four.
• Several secondary attributes exist like Hit Points, Fatigue, Willpower exists based on the primary attribute.
• Skill rolls are 3d6 roll under or equal to the target number.
• Target number for skills is the attribute plus a modifier (+/-)
• Skills have a default modifier that lowers the target number making it harder.
• Skills are improved by buying a modifier that increases the target number making it easier.
• Combat consists of characters doing one thing per round.
• Combat is resolved via an attack roll based on a combat skill.
• Defenders have a defense roll that if made causes the attack to miss.
• If the attack is successful and the defense roll is missed then damage is rolled.
• The armor value is subtracted from the damage roll.
• The remaining damage is modified by the type of blow (blunt, pierce, slash, etc.
• Hit points start out based on a Con score. The average is 10 for a human character.
• Damage is subtracted from Hit Point. Hitting zero may result in unconsciousness. Negative Con may result in death.
• Damage is compared to the Max HP total. Debilitating conditions may apply at a certain point like taking more than 1/2 con in damage. Or HPs are below 1/3 the max total.

While there are a lot of moving parts I feel the above is the minimum to be considered GURPS compatible.

Another I do first is work up what a character would look like.
This is what I did for for the Fudge based system I worked on using 4DF (roll high).


This is what I would imagine the start of a GURPS like 3d6 system would look like. Although after playing AGE, what I prefer now is a merger of idea of from AGE and Fudge using 3d6 roll high. The use of doubles to represent special results works out very well in actual play.

 

[David Johansen]

Ah, sorry Robert, my bad. Internal compatability within the open 3d6 game if people are contributing to it. I'm afraid I still see no point in being compatible with GURPS. In fact, I'm convinced it can't be achieved without being legally actionable because GURPS is so very much about terminology.

My definition of 'compatible' is that the words and numbers match up between supplements written by different people.

 

[David Johansen]

okay mechanical objects
I think keeping the number of objects to a minimum is a good idea. If you've got a way of doing something stick with it already.

Rated values like characteristics and skills on the 3 -18 scale are used to determine success, set skill rating defaults, and relate to real world values. Strength relates to the mass that can be moved, lifted and carried. A Speed attribute might relate

Modifiers applied to rated values like characteristics and skills to reflect circumstances like equipment quality. Range would be an example of a modifier that relates directly to a real world value: distance.

Damage is rated in dice and relates to Strength and momentum. Damage points are a rated value on a uniform scale relating to mass. Emotional damage and stress modelling would probably fall into this category.

Actions in combat are quantifiable. I lean towards having aiming represented by not moving and having movement as a free action. Again, optional rules might quantify more complex relations. There may be a relationship between multiple actions per round and the amount of work that can be done. A super speedster might be able to get twice as much done in a day. On the other hand, long action time might be a thing that has to be bought separately. I think fatigue should apply per action. I could see it scaling. But being able to rest twice as fast is certainly an advantage. Ideally you should be able to play out interesting chases.

Movement and distance are real world values that relate to game values.

Duration and available time are also things that should be model. Fatigue kind of falls into that category. I'm not a huge fan of fatigue and encumbrance tracking but there should be reasonable limits that are structured enough to force resting and exhaustion.

Quantity Ratings
Quantities are often expressed as a number of dice, possibly modified by a characteristic. For example, Muscle powered weapon damage is based on Physique + Strength - 3 +1d6. So 2d6 + 4 for a 10 Strength. Whereas Hit Points are based on Physique + Endurance.

Qualifications
There are many benefits that are tied to specific skills and abilities. A skilled fighter pilot who is an active member of the air force is more likely to have access to a state of the art fighter plane than a multi-billionaire. A number of skills which are of little use in combat are considered “wealth generating skills” meaning their rating directly increases the character’s wealth.

Relationships
Family relationships are basically automatic. Social associates are gained through volunteer work, attending church, and hobbies. Professional associates gained on the job. A character qualifies for connections much like equipment. Having an appropriate skill indicates a number of connections in the field equal to the number of points spent on that skill. That is to say that if you want your character to know a priest they should put a point into religion.

Status and Careers
Position in society is generally earned. A military officer must meet qualifications to obtain that position just as a physician must get a degree to work in that field. Careers are a list of qualifications and equipment that can be accessed from work.

Wealth
A character’s wealth level is generated by totaling the points spent on wealth generating skills. Wealth is a qualification for access to expensive equipment and services. Since counting pennies is out of fashion in roleplaying games these days a character has a “petty cash” level where they can simply ignore the cost of a purchase without tracking it, though they cannot simply purchase the item an unlimited number of times without impact.

It might be good to have some kind of narrative currency. I'm not a huge fan but they are popular.

 

[David Johansen]

One other thought. If you model social abilities and can buy and sell them it is essential that player characters be vulnerable to them. It's a bit of a conundrum but there it is.

I'm not a big fan of how Disadvantages work in most points games. Being a hunchback doesn't make you a king. I'm leaning towards social traits impacting social activity.

It would also be good to have some kind of combat balance system or rating. Though, in a realistic game, equal numbers is often a fairly solid measure.

 

[robertsconley]

Ah, sorry Robert, my bad. Internal compatability within the open 3d6 game if people are contributing to it. I'm afraid I still see no point in being compatible with GURPS. In fact, I'm convinced it can't be achieved without being legally actionable because GURPS is so very much about terminology.

My definition of 'compatible' is that the words and numbers match up between supplements written by different people.

On the same page. Then I strongly recommend looking at AGE and especially Fudge (but not the 4DF).

Also, I think it would help if you just draft some characters first and then flesh out the numbers and specifics from there.

 

[robertsconley]

One other thought. If you model social abilities and can buy and sell them it is essential that player characters be vulnerable to them. It's a bit of a conundrum but there it is.

Mind Control of any sort is problematic. I found the line for the average hobbyists is that special effects like Charm Person is fine, but baked into the social skills like Persuasion, Intimidation, etc. is generally note. The players in general want to reserve the right to decide how to act as their characters to themselves.

I'm not a big fan of how Disadvantages work in most points games. Being a hunchback doesn't make you a king. I'm leaning towards social traits impacting social activity.

In my last few GURPS campaigns, my group decided to ditch disadvantages unless it was something that had a specific game impact like having a pegleg, one-handed, blind, etc. The reason being is that while we all roleplayed our characters we found that it was too fiddly to muck around with list of disadvantages (and certain advantages) to keep up with what was going on with the campaign. A lesser version of the problem that Transhuman Space has with PC changing biology or form.

So when I set out to design my own system I decided to go far more free form and swiped the basic idea of aspect of Fate. But to be clear aspects only have an impact on how you roleplayed your character and what the referee has to work with in running the campaign with your character in it.

Here is what I had so far in my draft

Aspects​

An aspect is a word or phrase that describes something particular about the background of a character. Up to five aspects can be taken. Any background element can be used for an aspect.

Aspects are a mix of benefits and complications. If a character chooses to be wealthy as an aspect, the referee needs to go on to define how the character is wealthy as this will define the complications that will ensue during the course of the campaign.

The same with aspects that are mostly complications. For example, a player decides he wants to play a character who was a sailor but left because he suffered a permanent injury. The most serious of this is a pegleg that hampers his movement.

Rather than represent the pegleg with a specific mechanic the player would buy down his initiative and reflex. Use the extra points to buy more skills or raise his other attributes up.

The following is a loose framework to help you think up your character’s aspects.

Concept​

What is your character profession or purpose in life? The Majestic Wilderlands RPG provides several packaged concepts to use to quickly generate a character. They are inspired by the original 1974 roleplaying game.

Complication​

Pick an aspect that represents a source of complications for your characters. It could be dependent on members of your character’s family. Some physical aliment or mental attribute that defines your character.

Background​

The remaining three aspects can define your character’s past. Aspects can relate to the character’s childhood, initial training, the first days on the job, or how the character met up with the rest of the party.

Prerequisite
Some sets of skills can only be earned by taking a specific attribute. Typically this is done for Mages and Priests.

The canonical example I gave was a priest of Delaquain, the goddess of Justice and Honor. If a player incorporates this aspect as part of their background then they gain two gifts (advantages)

• The ability to Turn Undead
• The ability to cast divine spells
• The Shield of Faith. Which will protect the priest from arcane and divine spells that are resisted with willpower.

The complications are that the character is now part of the hierarchy of the Church of Delaquain and expected to follow and teach the Five-Fold Path which is the central creed of the church.

Points are not charged or tallied for any of these abilities although what they do are defined in the mechanics.

This will mean that there could be unbalanced parties in terms of mechanics. However, in terms of setting logic will make sense. Even when we are talking about a broad genre. In addition, some gifts like spellcasting require more points to be spent in order to take advantage of them. So a priest won't have as many points to spend on combat skills.

The point of doing things like this is to recognize that a tabletop roleplaying campaign is not a competition. There are a lot of interesting situations to be had with a party of mixed capabilities. And that allowing this also doesn't preclude the group from playing a campaign where everybody has different but roughly equal capabilities.

 

[robertsconley]

okay mechanical objects
Rated values like characteristics and skills on the 3 -18 scale are used to determine success, set skill rating defaults, and relate to real world values. Strength relates to the mass that can be moved, lifted and carried. A Speed attribute might relate

I think Fate, Fudge, and AGE have the right approach. That they use 3D6 high. Attributes are basically expressed as a bonus numbers that are further modified by skill.

Instead of

Strength: 10
Dexterity: 12
Intelligence: 8

You would have something like

Strength: +0
Dexterity: +1
Intelligence: -1

Then your skills
Are

Broadsword (DEX) +1
Athletics (STR) +2
Investigation (INT) +1

When I roll for Broadsword I would roll 3d6 +1 for dex, and +1 for skill.
For Investigation I would roll 3d6 -1 for Int and +1 for skill.

However, this scheme weighs attributes and skills the same. What you can do instead to be more GURPS-like and have attributes dominate is start your attributes not at +0 but rather +5.

Modifiers applied to rated values like characteristics and skills to reflect circumstances like equipment quality. Range would be an example of a modifier that relates directly to a real world value: distance.

Don't see a problem with this provided it kept within reason.

Damage is rated in dice and relates to Strength and momentum. Damage points are a rated value on a uniform scale relating to mass.

Folks are used to hit points, armor values, and comparing damage totals to a max HP total. Fudge/Fate damage track is meh. However, there is what Harnmaster does which works very well. But the problem is that it would feel strange to average hobbyists. With Harnmaster you roll impact, subtract armor, and then compare to the hit location to see what happens. Two things happen as a result. You suffer an injury which modifies your future rolls, and you have to make one or more saving throws, such as shock (unconscious), fumble, stumble, maimed or just outright killed. Your injury also modifies these save making them harder to make for future hits.

Emotional damage and stress modelling would probably fall into this category.

I can't begin to express my distaste with mechanics that focus on this. Folks are capable of deciding how to roleplay their characters accordingly. However I do see the need for something when dealing with the fantastic like Cthulu style insanity or the Shadow in Middle Earth.

Actions in combat are quantifiable. I lean towards having aiming represented by not moving and having movement as a free action. Again, optional rules might quantify more complex relations. There may be a relationship between multiple actions per round and the amount of work that can be done. A super speedster might be able to get twice as much done in a day. On the other hand, long action time might be a thing that has to be bought separately. I think fatigue should apply per action. I could see it scaling. But being able to rest twice as fast is certainly an advantage. Ideally you should be able to play out interesting chases.

If you want to throw superpower into the mix. Then I think the way to do is to ditch rounds and assign every action a time cost. Hackmaster and Aces & Eights do this. You roll initiative that indicates where you start in seconds. Then the referee counts up each second and the players keeping track of when they can do something next. Very easy to understand and would easily accommodate speedsters better than hero system segment, impulse chart, round system. And will be more elegant than just giving speedsters more actions per round.

Movement and distance are real world values that relate to game values.

OK within reason.

Duration and available time are also things that should be model. Fatigue kind of falls into that category. I'm not a huge fan of fatigue and encumbrance tracking but there should be reasonable limits that are structured enough to force resting and exhaustion.

D&D 5e exhaustion levels I think is about as detailed as something like this needs to be. In a nutshell you have a half dozen levels. Or you could do what Harnmaster does and make Injury and Fatigue equivalent with the same impact on skills, and injury saving throws. That also worked out well.

Quantity Ratings
Quantities are often expressed as a number of dice, possibly modified by a characteristic. For example, Muscle powered weapon damage is based on Physique + Strength - 3 +1d6. So 2d6 + 4 for a 10 Strength. Whereas Hit Points are based on Physique + Endurance.

Qualifications
There are many benefits that are tied to specific skills and abilities. A skilled fighter pilot who is an active member of the air force is more likely to have access to a state of the art fighter plane than a multi-billionaire. A number of skills which are of little use in combat are considered “wealth generating skills” meaning their rating directly increases the character’s wealth.

See my comments on aspects. In addition, Skills should map to what the character can specifically do and be limited to just that.

Relationships
Family relationships are basically automatic. Social associates are gained through volunteer work, attending church, and hobbies. Professional associates gained on the job. A character qualifies for connections much like equipment. Having an appropriate skill indicates a number of connections in the field equal to the number of points spent on that skill. That is to say that if you want your character to know a priest they should put a point into religion.

See what I said about aspects. But leave mechanics out of it. If a character wants to know a priest and it makes sense for the circumstances of how the campaign starts out then they should be able to know a priest. Their knowledge of religions has zilch to do with it.

Status and Careers
Position in society is generally earned. A military officer must meet qualifications to obtain that position just as a physician must get a degree to work in that field. Careers are a list of qualifications and equipment that can be accessed from work.

So how I planned to handle this with Aspects that if a player wanted to be a Military Officer and get all the benefits, gifts, and complications. Then they would be required to build their character a certain way. For the priest of Delaquain example I used earlier I would note that as a result of being a priest they have to put X points into Theology.

Wealth
A character’s wealth level is generated by totaling the points spent on wealth generating skills. Wealth is a qualification for access to expensive equipment and services. Since counting pennies is out of fashion in roleplaying games these days a character has a “petty cash” level where they can simply ignore the cost of a purchase without tracking it, though they cannot simply purchase the item an unlimited number of times without impact.

Again this is a thing, where I think setting logic should reign. However, wealth is defined and works in the setting if the players want to play a wealthy character and it fits with the initial circumstances that the group and the referee want to start out with then they should just be wealthy. It may be that they wind up being the Bruce Wayne of the group funding the Justice League or it could they are the Oliver Queen and lose everything at some point but still have their skills and attributes and other gifts.

It might be good to have some kind of narrative currency. I'm not a huge fan but they are popular.

Fuck metagaming.

 

[David Johansen]

That's a lot...on stats, combat, damage, and so forth, I want something broadly universal. I'm not quite how stripped to the bone it should be. The more basic, standard, and universal it is, the better it will do because more people will want to use it.

Metagaming is popular and some people like it so I think it should be supported on some level as an option. Whether that's automatic successes for giving the GM a hand job or what, I don't know. I did like the "yum yums" in QUAGS but I'm diabetic these days so having players feed me candies as bribes is right out.

A points system is literally a way of quantifying things. If the only thing that matters is combat then combat related abilities should be the only things you pay points for. World class cellist? Totally free. President of the United States, totally free, it might explain that Harrison Ford movie.

My point about social effects and mind control is simply that they should affect player characters if they can get points for ditching social abilities and mental defenses. It's a bit like my policy when running GURPS that putting something on your character sheet means you want to face it. Take TL10 in a TL 3 fantasy world, expect to face TL 10 foes, it's really the only way I can justify the low points cost for tech levels there anyhow.. I'm also not a fan of asymetrical effects. If PCs can influence NPCs then NPCs can influence PCs. How to integrate these ideas into the costing structure is something I'm not sure of.

One way I've thought about doing it is considering character creation a zero sum game. Characters are built on zero points and everything is purchased with some trade off or another. This would help in allowing things like a pure combat game where the only thing you pay for is combat while also allowing for more balanced or even agnostic approaches. You can literally leave out anything that's irrelevant. If you look at my own game designs, they tend strongly to agnostic points costing. Often to the point where a point buys a point of anything.

On attrributes there is an advantage to doing stats as a quantity and a modifier like D&D does. D&D generally doesn't take advantage of it. You can use the 3 - 18 number as a target number for incoming resisted abilities. So, say you have a 13 and your opponent has a 19, you get a +3 but have to beat their 19. The problem here is that it works poorly with a bell curve unless you have costs per level increase, which as I've mentioned makes a mess out of templates and packages as you always have to recalculate the cost when you apply them. Another issue with roll over is that it means adding dice to actions makes them easier, not harder. I'll admit after T4 and T5 I'm a bit disillusioned with dice as difficulty levels but inverting it could be done with a 5d = Easy, 4d = Average, 3d = Challenging, 2d = Hard, 1d = Crazy.

Quite frankly I like percentile mechanics better myself. But I see a need and somehow just recently moved passed my desire to help SJG or promote GURPS and I like to write game rules for some dumb reason, so there you go.

 

[Urdlen's best boy]

So far I'm seeing a lot of views, a few likes, and no comments. No idea how to read that. Is a view without a like a "don't like" I never can tell

I don't know how views are registered, so it could just be that you're on the first page. Either way, I wouldn't bother trying to decipher wordless non-statements

I've been putting likes because I approve of creation, but not commenting because I am not sure of your meaning.

I'll try to be useful but please forgive if I misunderstand :

The range is 3 - 18 with 10 being average of course. It's really tempting to have the cost double every point but it would make templates harder to apply. I think, instead, resisitance should be at 1/2 the attribute. So a 10 would give a -5 resistance modifier. Posibly 1/4 stat or (stat -10 )/2 but I'm not fond of negative modifiers for low stats.

Skills should default to 1/2 attribute with broad skills costing 4 points per +1 and Narrow skills costing 2. The reason for this is that an odd attribute value could still provide 1 point towards a skill, thus getting rid of the break points issue. Working from that attributes probably cost 8 points per level.

Muscle based weapon damage is probably Strength / 5 dice + Strength - 4 * n dice Thus a 5 strength would be 1d + 1 and a 10 strength would be 2d + 2 and 15 Strength would be 3d + 3. A chart would exist but I think consistancy across the range would be good. Ideally that would help with damage scaling issues.

The direct relationship of real world stats should be exponential. x2 per point is too high and x2 per 5 points is too HERO. The core real world measures would be distances in meters, mass in kilograms, weight in newtons, distance in meters, time in seconds, velocity in meters per second.

If I understand, you are undecided about attribute scaling, yes? Essentially how to make each point count without having too much of a steep powercreep while also still being able to represent notable differences. Yes?

One way to deal with that might be to have non-linear attribute tables, w/ a relatively linear modifier scaling in mid range and steeper impact on getting in the higher numbers. It means having to look up or memorize the table, but if you have a bunch of differently calculated systems branching on attributes anyway, then that's a moot point.

Relationships
Family relationships are basically automatic. Social associates are gained through volunteer work, attending church, and hobbies. Professional associates gained on the job. A character qualifies for connections much like equipment. Having an appropriate skill indicates a number of connections in the field equal to the number of points spent on that skill. That is to say that if you want your character to know a priest they should put a point into religion.

I see an issue with statifying this in such a manner, in that it seems like something which will conflict with in game development : if I make a connection through roleplay, do I gain a point? Can the system survive a string of encounters - say, char is looking for an answer about some theological question and tries to meet a number of sages for answers.

I would propose folding the "contacts" part into profession (eg. a trader would know others in the profession, maybe be part of a guild..etc) and using this relationship stat as "good reputation, investment in a milieu" and thus a sort of "reaction roll". That is, raising the probabilities to convince someone to go out of their way to help or overlook some issue.

Here I go again. I want to talk about the whys before rewriting a variation on the same damn system I keep ending up writing.

Objectives

Compatibility is a key issue. People need to be able to move stuff rom any source into their own games. As such universality is key.

It might be good to have some kind of narrative currency. I'm not a huge fan but they are popular.

That's a lot...on stats, combat, damage, and so forth, I want something broadly universal. I'm not quite how stripped to the bone it should be. The more basic, standard, and universal it is, the better it will do because more people will want to use it.

If I had one question (that is also an advice) : what is the purpose of the game; and of you writing the game?

Then I would question the wisdom of placing compatibility and popularity as key concerns, unless you are trying to make money out of it. All dice games are compatible provided one knows basic statistics. It doesn't seem like you are aiming for compatibility with a perticular system. Likewise : unless you are good at marketting and have resources to sustain campaigns of it, I would say that passion should be your guidance. People buy (edit: or read or use) new rpg products because they are seen, or because they are compatible with a system they play in particular, or because they like the vision behind it (and they'll find a way to port it if they want). "All purpose" could be a vision, but then it still needs your passion, so I would strongly advise against putting any mechanic unless you are a fan.

Note : I am not saying it needs to be highly conceptual, rather : what are your strengths, what makes you passionate about your project that make you write it again and again?

I can see from the pdfs on your site that you love skills and having a lot of professions and random tables to generate multidimensional chars, which also implies complex societies with structures and so on the you often describe humorously ("embezzeling (accountant)" made me smile), so from the outside it seems those are your strengths. Galaxies in Shadows starts with pages upon pages of social and skill minutia, and seems geared to rather down-to-earth char concepts. In comparison it doesn't have as detailed alien species and ecosystems, or technology. Am I correct to assume that is the stuff that makes you passionate?

If yes, then consider going all in on that!

 

[David Johansen]

With Galaxies In Shadow part of the goal was to focus on the characters. It's a roleplaying game the other stuff is peripheral to that. In many ways it's a response to GURPS Space and Vehicles making those things too detailed. I don't know, there's a lot on technology and technical topics but it's fairly generic because it's not setting specific.

With open 3d6 is to create a utility that it useful to people who like games like GURPS and HERO but are tired of being tied to the companies involved and their decisions. The point is to create something useful that people want to use that creates a standard. I think the goal might be to help other people help each other make money.

 

[robertsconley]

That's a lot...on stats, combat, damage, and so forth, I want something broadly universal. I'm not quite how stripped to the bone it should be. The more basic, standard, and universal it is, the better it will do because more people will want to use it.

Metagaming is popular and some people like it so I think it should be supported on some level as an option. Whether that's automatic successes for giving the GM a hand job or what, I don't know. I did like the "yum yums" in QUAGS but I'm diabetic these days so having players feed me candies as bribes is right out.

A points system is literally a way of quantifying things. If the only thing that matters is combat then combat related abilities should be the only things you pay points for. World class cellist? Totally free. President of the United States, totally free, it might explain that Harrison Ford movie.

President of the United States is a social circumstance. A world class cellist is a skilled individual whose skill has to be paid for in points. However, given the context of your reply, I concur that it could be also be a social circumstance in that they had to opportunity to demonstrate that skill. Which by my logic would be free.

Again why free? Why bother not accounting for it as a point cost? Again I point to Transhuman Space where even Sean Punch had to bow to the logic of the setting and approve this. Even then it wasn't embraced totally.



At the end of the day what do you gain by charging points for a character's social circumstance? Their personality? It doesn't aid in balancing combat. The only time traditional advantages/disadvantages matter for point total is if they impact what the character can specifically do. Missing limbs, mental traits that confer skill bonuses, and so on.

Mind you I have run two campaigns with my Fudge based version made with this philosophy and it worked just fine. This is not some bullshit theorycrafting on my part. And I use this philosophy all the time with my D&D based Majestic Fantasy RPG.

The key is to make the complications clear and actually include them in the campaign. What happens players avoid what would be high point advantage like Wealthy because they don't want to deal with the complications. If a character starts out as wealthy or as President of the United States it doesn't exist in a vacuum. Nor does an individual's idea always mesh with the rest of the group. I make it clear that it is the group's responsibility to make characters that would adventure together.

GURP's problem is that you can pay for advantages like wealth without the attendant complications. In contrast with aspects, there are always complications. Complications that make sense given the setting or genre.

Finally, it is not like you don't have a couple of paragraphs amounting to "Just make some shit up." No, you come up with a list of aspects like Wealthy with a terse but complete discussion of what the options are, the advantages, and the complications. Along with any gift or flaws that have mechanical consequences.

If the only thing that matters is combat then combat related abilities should be the only things you pay points for.

What you pay for is the character can do specifically. For example, Turn Undead wouldn't be a one-and-done gift. I would tie to a skill that would have to be paid for and improved. The same with Shield of Faith. I don't have a specific example to show because after the second campaign, it was obvious that advancement was fucked given the bell curve of 4dF. And I didn't have a good fix for it.

My point about social effects and mind control is simply (snip) How to integrate these ideas into the costing structure is something I'm not sure of.

My focus is on the player roleplaying first and rolling second. The skill roll is there to measure the impact of what the player said beyond their ability to act. However over the years, I have found a handful of specific social actions that I was comfortable with adding to the system. But overall social situations are too nuanced to boil down to a generalized social conflict system.

One way I've thought about doing it is considering character creation a zero sum game. Characters are built on zero points and everything is purchased with some trade off or another. This would help in allowing things like a pure combat game where the only thing you pay for is combat while also allowing for more balanced or even agnostic approaches. You can literally leave out anything that's irrelevant. If you look at my own game designs, they tend strongly to agnostic points costing. Often to the point where a point buys a point of anything.

Why? That thinking of what we do as a game. What we do is run roleplaying campaigns that can start out in a variety of circumstances. One way a GURPS or Savage Worlds competitor can be distinct is be more expansive. Ditch the notion that anything has to be balanced to an arbitrary standard. In my views, points are a marker of experience. If a Olympic/Nobel class individual is considered 300 points. Then a 300 point monster, entity, or element is something that will give an Olympic/Nobel individual an equal challenge.

On attrributes there is an advantage to doing stats as a quantity and a modifier like D&D does. D&D generally doesn't take advantage of it. You can use the 3 - 18 number as a target number for incoming resisted abilities. So, say you have a 13 and your opponent has a 19, you get a +3 but have to beat their 19. The problem here is that it works poorly with a bell curve unless you have costs per level increase, which as I've mentioned makes a mess out of templates and packages as you always have to recalculate the cost when you apply them. Another issue with roll over is that it means adding dice to actions makes them easier, not harder. I'll admit after T4 and T5 I'm a bit disillusioned with dice as difficulty levels but inverting it could be done with a 5d = Easy, 4d = Average, 3d = Challenging, 2d = Hard, 1d = Crazy.

AGE did this right.
Some target numbers.




It was not complicated and worked well in the campaigns I ran and the other campaign I played in.

Quite frankly I like percentile mechanics better myself. But I see a need and somehow just recently moved passed my desire to help SJG or promote GURPS and I like to write game rules for some dumb reason, so there you go.

GURPS and TFT are built from a set of simple mechanics as embodied in Melee and Man to Man. The same for AGE. The complexity is from expanding the lists. Skills, advantages, disadvantages, perks, techniques and so on. So for a competitor to stand out it has to have a equally simple base.

My recommendation is 3d6 roll high with modifiers from attributes and skills. If a pair is rolled the off dice is read for the magnitude of the critical results. Criticals will be frequent but the GURPS style criticals will only occur when the off dice is high (5 or 6) for a crit success, or low (1 or 2) for a critical miss.

The odds are similar and the implementation is way more straightforward than GURPS. The only complication is explaining the crit results for different skills and actions. We could mitigate by ignoring any off-dice roll of 1 to 4 for crit success or 3 to 6 for crit failure. And it is different enough from how AGE does things.

 

[David Johansen]

Ideally, the criticals will be more interesting than the ones in GURPS.

The president and cellist are free in a game where only combat matters. By giving them a cost you imply other things do matter.

A game could easily be written to accomodate roll over and roll under, FUZION even did 1d10 roll over and 3d6 roll under though I'm not sure I veiw it as a successful game design.

One reason I've abandoned this project so many times in the past is that everyone wants something different. If a game becomes too broadly optional it really does cease to be a game and is in danger of not even being a tool kit.

 

[David Johansen]

Here's a side line game that might illustrate where I'm coming from

Fighters Fight the Roleplaying Game Second Edition Revised

In this game you play a mighty warrior in a fantasy world. The Fight Master tells you who your are fighting, where you are fighting, and why you are fighting them, then you fight. Because your fighter is an awesome fighter they have awesome weapons and cool armour that shows off their mighty muscles. The details don't matter because your fighter is the best. You can describe or draw them however you want as long as they are tall and muscular and have big fancy weapons and tight little pieces of armour. Everyone else's fighter is the best too. They've picked the best weapons for their skills and build and style. Their great skill with armour ensures that it will always protect them even when the armour is, shall we say, minimal to allow for greater freedom of movement and viewing pleasure. You can name your fighter but must have some cool weapon or fighting name like Zarduk the Slayer or James the Wolflord. Characters with silly weakling names are treated like non-fighters. Why are you even playing this game?

When two fighters fight each player rolls a die and the player with the lower roll takes a wound. There are many more non-fighters in the world, but no more than six of them will ever attack a fighter at the same time because there's no room for them. When fighters fight non-fighters, roll a die and subtract six, then add the number of foes. If the total is higher than the fighter's roll the fighter takes a wound. If it is lower, a number of non-fighters equal to the difference between the two rolls are killed. If the rolls in any fight are tied, a stalemate is reached and the combatants must decide if they want to keep fighting. Non-fighters can flee or surrender but fighters fight and cannot, though they can decide whether to pursue or not. If they pursue, one more non-fighter dies but the rest get away. A stalemate between two fighters gives them a moment to talk, stating why or where they are fighting they both recover one wound and then go on fighting. If a fighter takes six wounds they are defeated and either knocked unconscious and taken prisoner or fall off a cliff into a body of water and are thought dead but wash up on the shore fully healed in the next scene. When all the foes are dead, the fighter gets more experienced and powerful gaining a +1 to their fighting rolls but they must face greater challenges now so any fighter they face will also get +1 to their fighting rolls and groups of non-fighters can contain one more weak minded fool.

Anything else a fighter might need to do is just there to explain why they are fighting or who they are fighting or where they are fighting so such, dull and boring activities are automatically successful and immediately lead into the next fight scene. At no point should choices or actions described by the players influence the outcome of the game in any way.

 

[Urdlen's best boy]

With open 3d6 is to create a utility that it useful to people who like games like GURPS and HERO but are tired of being tied to the companies involved and their decisions. The point is to create something useful that people want to use that creates a standard. I think the goal might be to help other people help each other make money.

So going all in on the open license spirit?

I see where you're coming from, I think. Have you considered opening a google doc or wiki and inviting people to come offer system modules from the inception?

 

[David Johansen]

A central hub, separate from my own Uncouth Savage Games would be good. But I'd also like to see it infest Drivethrurpg like a creeping, all devouring plague.

Because, like it or not, I guess my secret ambition is really proving that GURPS could and should have been number one.

 

[Urdlen's best boy]

A central hub, separate from my own Uncouth Savage Games would be good. But I'd also like to see it infest Drivethrurpg like a creeping, all devouring plague.

Because, like it or not, I guess my secret ambition is really proving that GURPS could and should have been number one.

Once you've got the wiki setup and going you could easily start churning out PDFs. "O3d6 basics" to start, anything from "O3d6 gazette" to "O3d6 Annual Compendium", "O3d6 [user X] edition", "O3d6 Combat compendium", "O3d6 modern", "O3d6 Sci-fi"... etc. Obviously, reprinting too much might end up wearing on customers, but some amount of reprint is fine.

I could see that working provided there is good communication and repartition vis à vis who sells what. Might be worth setting up some association so proceeds from the most collaborative works are mostly sold for the benefit of keeping it afloat, and maybe paying illustrators, editors or something, but letting people sell their own curated editions and rules compendium as they please. Something like that. It would require some thought, but I don't see why not.

 

[robertsconley]

A central hub, separate from my own Uncouth Savage Games would be good. But I'd also like to see it infest Drivethrurpg like a creeping, all devouring plague.

Because, like it or not, I guess my secret ambition is really proving that GURPS could and should have been number one.

Again if you want that to happen then you need a solid basic core of stats, some skills, coupled with a combat system. Just like Melee, and Man to Man.

GURPS secret sauce is not the dice games it plays but the fact that the basic outline of Man to Man can be indefinitely extended giving what we have with 4e today. This

is also important considering the biggest rivals for any would-be generic system are Savage Worlds and Fate. The biggest differential one can make to set an Open 3D6 system apart is the lack of dice games. What you can describe doing as your character can be translated into a specific roll or set of rolls. Savage World plays dice games like having dice for attributes. Fate leans heavily into narrative mechanics plus uses 4dF.

A couple of years back I would have pegged AGE as a possible candidate for this but Green Ronin is not inclined to let others play with their toys.

 

[David Johansen]

Here's something that should raise a few hackles. Bear in mind the vehicle design system can be used to build a modular system for those less friendly to geometry and physics.

Vehicle Design

Vehicles are designed using realistic if abstract methods. The square/cube law and power to mass ratios are in force though hypothetical technologies can get around these.

Units
Metric units are used, meters, kilometers per hour, meters per second, kilojoules, and so forth.

Hulls
The hull of the vehicle can be worked out geometrically. Usually, the designer starts with some parameters like how large it will be and how fast it will go.

Box
Surface Area = 2 x L x W x H
Volume = L x W x H

Sphere
Surface Area =
Volume =
Dome / 2
Cylinder
Surface Area = L x D x pi
Volume = pi R squared x L
Half Cylinder / 2

Structure = Volume x Acceleration / Surface Area

Armour Mass = Surface Area x Thickness x 8
Armour Volume = Surface Area x Thickness

Early Structure and Armour Mass x 2
Advanced Structure and Armour mass / 2

Use Moh’s scale to determine armour protection Actually Mohs is a 1 -10 scale and the Vickers scale might be more appropriate and usable.

Most vehicles are made of steel which has a density of roughly 8 tonnes / cubic meter.

Power Supplies

Chemical Output = mass x Tech Factor , Range x 1
Fission 1000 tonne minimum, Output x 10, Range x 10
Fusion 1000 tonne minimum, Output x 10, Range x100
Antimatter 1000 tonne minimum, Output x 100 Range x 100

Early Power Supplies
Minimum Mass x 2
Output / 2

Advanced Power Supplies
Minimum Mass / 2
Range x 2

Contact Suspensions
Legs Base Speed 30, Speed Factor 3
Tracks Base Speed 40, Speed Factor 4
Wheels Base Speed 50, Speed Factor 5

Air Frames
Rotary Base Speed 50, Speed Factor 5
Hover Base Speed 60, Speed Factor 6
Fixed Wing Base Speed 100, Speed Factor10

Motive Systems
Transmissions
Propellers
Rockets Output x 10, Range / 2
Jets Output x 10

Acceleration = Motive Power / Total Mass
Top Speed = Base Speed + Acceleration x Speed Factor

Note that at this point a lot of things are place holders. I want the vehicle system to be flexible enough to model things from reality and fiction while preventing the kind of abstract power creep that comes from design by fiat. I’m not sure people want to do the math for actual top speeds which is quite complex.


Modifiers and by extension Ratings scale with linear real world values at the cube of the modifier. Thus a +5 is 125 times a +1 and a +10 is 1000 times a plus one. The reason for this is that it makes cubic volume easy to calculate in relation to other points values. The range within this is interpolated between the perfect square values.

Powers have a base damage, range, armour and such based on real world weapons and armor that can reasonably carried. The cost of such powers is additive to these and can be scaled by removing that base and applying another.

The Direct Fire range of a firearm is based on its muzzle velocity and thus the distance it travels before gravity brings it down. The Indirect Fire range of a firearm is determined by

Firearm Damage is based on the force per square centimeter of the impact.

Energy Weapon Damage is determined by the energy per square centimeter and by extension spot size.

Energy Weapon Range is determined by diffusion and divergence and thus spot size. More lethal bandwidths are absorbed more quickly by atmosphere.

Armour Resistance is determined by the Moh Hardness Scale and the thickness of the armour.

Vehicle turn radius increment is based on length or wheel base.

Vehicle acceleration is based on power / mass

Vehicle top speed is determined by mode of travel.

All armour mass counts towards structural mass.

 

[ffilz]

Box surface area is 2 * (L * W + L * H + H * W)...
Sphere volume is 4/3 * pi * R^3
Sphere surface area is 4 * pi * R^2

 

[Urdlen's best boy]

Here's something that should raise a few hackles. Bear in mind the vehicle design system can be used to build a modular system for those less friendly to geometry and physics.

Vehicle Design

Vehicles are designed using realistic if abstract methods. The square/cube law and power to mass ratios are in force though hypothetical technologies can get around these.

Units
Metric units are used, meters, kilometers per hour, meters per second, kilojoules, and so forth.

Hulls
The hull of the vehicle can be worked out geometrically. Usually, the designer starts with some parameters like how large it will be and how fast it will go.

Box
Surface Area = 2 x L x W x H
Volume = L x W x H

Sphere
Surface Area =
Volume =
Dome / 2
Cylinder
Surface Area = L x D x pi
Volume = pi R squared x L
Half Cylinder / 2

Structure = Volume x Acceleration / Surface Area

Armour Mass = Surface Area x Thickness x 8
Armour Volume = Surface Area x Thickness

Early Structure and Armour Mass x 2
Advanced Structure and Armour mass / 2

Use Moh’s scale to determine armour protection Actually Mohs is a 1 -10 scale and the Vickers scale might be more appropriate and usable.

Most vehicles are made of steel which has a density of roughly 8 tonnes / cubic meter.

Power Supplies

Chemical Output = mass x Tech Factor , Range x 1
Fission 1000 tonne minimum, Output x 10, Range x 10
Fusion 1000 tonne minimum, Output x 10, Range x100
Antimatter 1000 tonne minimum, Output x 100 Range x 100

Early Power Supplies
Minimum Mass x 2
Output / 2

Advanced Power Supplies
Minimum Mass / 2
Range x 2

Contact Suspensions
Legs Base Speed 30, Speed Factor 3
Tracks Base Speed 40, Speed Factor 4
Wheels Base Speed 50, Speed Factor 5

Air Frames
Rotary Base Speed 50, Speed Factor 5
Hover Base Speed 60, Speed Factor 6
Fixed Wing Base Speed 100, Speed Factor10

Motive Systems
Transmissions
Propellers
Rockets Output x 10, Range / 2
Jets Output x 10

Acceleration = Motive Power / Total Mass
Top Speed = Base Speed + Acceleration x Speed Factor

Note that at this point a lot of things are place holders. I want the vehicle system to be flexible enough to model things from reality and fiction while preventing the kind of abstract power creep that comes from design by fiat. I’m not sure people want to do the math for actual top speeds which is quite complex.


Modifiers and by extension Ratings scale with linear real world values at the cube of the modifier. Thus a +5 is 125 times a +1 and a +10 is 1000 times a plus one. The reason for this is that it makes cubic volume easy to calculate in relation to other points values. The range within this is interpolated between the perfect square values.

Powers have a base damage, range, armour and such based on real world weapons and armor that can reasonably carried. The cost of such powers is additive to these and can be scaled by removing that base and applying another.

The Direct Fire range of a firearm is based on its muzzle velocity and thus the distance it travels before gravity brings it down. The Indirect Fire range of a firearm is determined by

Firearm Damage is based on the force per square centimeter of the impact.

Energy Weapon Damage is determined by the energy per square centimeter and by extension spot size.

Energy Weapon Range is determined by diffusion and divergence and thus spot size. More lethal bandwidths are absorbed more quickly by atmosphere.

Armour Resistance is determined by the Moh Hardness Scale and the thickness of the armour.

Vehicle turn radius increment is based on length or wheel base.

Vehicle acceleration is based on power / mass

Vehicle top speed is determined by mode of travel.

All armour mass counts towards structural mass.

I could see a system like that working, and then having people do declinations to get a range of diverse vehicles, although that is fairly complex.

I could also see a more attribute-based generation being simpler. Like characters had Int dex, con, etc, vehicles could have speed, armor, mass, armament, something like that, and have everything scale from 3-18.

 

[David Johansen]

Thanks Ffilz, I need to look 'em up.

As for the vehicles rules, I really want to attract the people who are wanting GURPS Vehicles fourth edition. Really, I'd say SJG's attitude on that is basically why I finally decided to get serious about this thing.

I've decided a few things:
-The core game will be as direct and minimalist as possible.

-The characteristic set will be a bit large at 7 - 9 stats Agility ( attacks and movement rate), Empath (or Charisma maybe), Endurance (hit points and metabolic resistance), Intelligence (technican and knowledge skills, deception resistance), Perception (spotting and stealth resistance), Reflexes (gunnery and piloting skills), Strength (damage and impact resistance), Social Class (maybe), Willpower (mental resistance) The reason is that I want the characteristic names to be as familiar and generic as possible.

Stats will be on the 3 - 18 scale with a 3d6 roll under mechanic but an option will be presented for rating - 10 + 3d6 The reason for this is that I want to uses skills directly for movement and hit points, social class for starting money, and so forth.

Skills will be on the bonus scale, starting at 0 for unskilled. That way it's easy to shift the stat for specific applications. Success penalties will reflect this as the total rating will be for normal, non-combat circumstances.

Skills will be available in broad and narrow variety with each skill also being able to have knowledge/lore, implementation, and technology sub-skills. That is to say that you can safely assume that your character's skill includes knowledge related to the skill, active application of the skill, and the technology used with the skill, but the knowledge would always use Intelligence, the implementation would vary by the nature of the skill.

I think I want to keep the points buy as direct and linear as possible with every point counting. So, let's say Attributes start at 10, and cost 4 points per point. Skills start at attribute and cost 2 points per point, and tight skills cost 1 point por point. So, what's to keep a character from just dropping 10 points into Knitted Swim Wear Knowledge and breaking the game? I think you'll need to have a characteristic to support the purchase. So you can only build up the skill if the main characteristics are greater than the skill level being bought.

 

[David Johansen]

Combat
Actions are resolved in order of Reflexes. A character can opt to wait but their position in the sequence is reduced to the level at which they acted until they spend a whole round waiting or stunned.

On their turn a character can move and take an action, attacking, waiting, defending, spotting, or hiding.

Base movement is 1 meter per point of initiative, generally taken all at once on the character’s turn can also be taken one initiative point at a time, especially when waiting. Vehicles move their full current velocity each initiative point. The driver or pilot must wait to turn as turning is an action.

Shooting missile weapons is penalized by the range to the target in meters divided by the weapon’s range rating. There is a -5 to hit if the shooter moves as that means they are not aiming. A character with a ranged weapon in each hand can make an extra attack with it.

Melee attacks to the front are resisted by the target’s skill with their own weapon -10. That is to say that a character with a skill of 14 imposes a -4 to hit on their attacker. This modifier can only be applied to one foe at a time unless the defender has a second weapon or a shield. A character with a melee weapon in each hand can make an extra attack or defense with it.

Defending
A combatant can attempt to ward off a hit by sacrificing their next action. If they took the defend action they need not do so. To defend they must make a successful skill roll for their weapon. On an exceptional success they may immediately make a riposte attack on their attacker. A character who has taken a defend action can actually defend against two attackers. A character with a weapon in each hand can make an additional defense action if they did not attack with it.

If an attack hits, the damage is applied to the target’s hit points. When these reach zero the target is incapacitated, knocked out, or too hurt to fight. When they have taken damage totaling their hit points they are dead.

Armour has a rating which is subtracted from damage inflicted by attacks. But is also reduced by a number of damage points. In essence a suit of armour has a number of hit points and loses a point of protection as it absorbs damage. For example a suit of armour with 4 points of protection and 12 damage points loses one point of protection for every three points of damage it loses. Some weapons are more effective against some armour. Attacks which “penetrate” armour reduce the armour by the protection amount and then pass through. Armour which “resists” an attack only take damage equal to their protection.


Hit Locations
Where a shot lands can be the difference between life and death. Hit locations are determined by rolling 1d6 on the following table. A secondary d6 can be used to determine a more precise location.

1 Right Leg( 1 Foot, 2 Ankle 3 Shin, 4 Calf, 5 Knee, 6 Thigh)
2 Left Leg (1 Foot, 2 Ankle, 3 Shin, 4 Calf, 5 Knee, 6 Thigh)
3Torso (1 Groin, 2 Abdomen, 3 Sternum, 4 Ribs, 5 Lungs, 6 Heart)
4 Right Arm (1 Hand, 2 Wrist, 3 Forearm, 4 Elbow, 5 Upper Arm, 6 Shoulder)
5 Left Arm (1 Hand, 2 Wrist, 3 Forearm, 4 Elbow, 5 Upper Arm, 6 Shoulder)
6 Head 1 Neck, 2 Jaw, 3 cheek, 4 nose, 5 forehead, 6 eye)

Yes, I want to be able to roll 1d6 per bullet to determine hitlocations.