I went missing

February was my last post. What have I been doing all that time? Finishing 4e? Nah, I wrote a non-fiction book and did a lot of remodeling to an old house we moved into. I didn’t completely blow off 4e, there has been some progress.

So where are we?

There’s an introduction that captures some new ideas for how to focus the game into doing what it does well.

Character creation is structurally very similar to 3e except the numbers are smaller so that’s done.

The rules are done, the “Tools” (rules you sometimes use) are mostly done but they need some more attention to clean them up.

Vehicles and infantry rules are converted over, both are very much improved from 3e.

The Facilitator’s Guide is a hot mess of ideas. It needs work. Right now I’m working on guidance for game creation, the ideas are good but they need to be clear and simple.

I’ve converted a lot of equipment stats, I doubt I’ll substantially change the text in that section.

I really don’t think I’m going to change Maps. Maybe I’ll put more written description in them.

I haven’t touched skills yet.

What do I want for 4e? What would be great is if I could figure out how to cut down on the “this is your stuff write it all down” part of character creation. I want the Facilitator’s guide to give some really strong guidance for starting GMs. I’d like to renew/replace art. We’ll see how it goes.

What’s interesting is, this book might end up half the size of 3e without losing anything. I’m not sure yet but everything written so far is “only” 85 pages. It might be possible to finish the book in 150.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Experimental Mechanics, News

An Alternate Resolution Tool

While I’ve been (slowly) working on 4th edition, I’ve been questioning if there was another way to handle rolling for attributes. Potential players are often frightened off by the attribute table, even though I’ve never had a player struggle with it once in play. So I’ve wondered if there was a way to make it less intimidating.

I think I figured out a way to reduce intimidation and keep a lot of the resolution flavor. I may put this in an “Alternate” tool heading in the book. It seems rather obvious after figuring it out. The problem is that it turns everything into a dice pool which some players really don’t like.

As things are now in 4e, you roll against your attribute with a d20 and then you add a few d10s in for your skills and whatever situational modifiers you might have. These are called Boosts. In this alternate, everything is a Boost.

Using a table you reference your attribute number and it gives you a series of boosts to emulate the curve of successes you get in the current system. It would look something like this. . .

Attribute
10
21
310
4100
520
6200
7210
82100
92200
103200
113210
124210
134310
145310
156310
166311
176321
186421
196422
207422

This would be a pain to expand into attributes over 20 though. I did this chart by roughly entering probabilities into a spreadsheet and saying “close enough”. Things like E-Suit strengths would make this really hard to have a complete list of the attribute levels.

These probabilities are overpowered because with Boosts, you can assign your dice to the Boosts you want. I’ve been trying to figure out the math of that manually but haven’t been able to. I might have to write a little program to handle that and figure out what the actual chances are for boosts. In any event, I don’t think I can increment the Boost increases any less. The values might have to stay the same for some attribute values which would be a bit of a bummer. Why increase an attribute from 2 to 3 if it gives you no real advantage.

The other problem with this is that Boosts aren’t supposed to have a zero value. They’re supposed to be 1-9 but this ignores that to get the probabilities closer.

At best this is a rough approximation but it’s an interesting concept.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Experimental Mechanics

Encumbrance

So far, The Artifact has relied on the weight of equipment and common sense to handle encumbrance. Despite being concrete, it makes handling what a character can carry a lot of work.

In play, I rarely checked a character’s encumbrance unless they were clearly carrying way too much. I usually would let things go unless there was a overt level of overpacking going on. “How are you carrying your motorcycle in your backpack?”

Another popular way of handling what a character can carry, is to have “item slots” that allow the character to load a number of “items”. The issue with that system is that not all items are the same size. A handgun is not the same as a thud stick (or a motorcycle). You could assume some averaging going on but players will hack that and load up with the largest “items” they can and be clearly overloaded.

At times I’ve thought about having a packing skill, that allowed the character to stuff as much in their pack as they had the skill for. That could work, except it could leave the character with only a few items or if they loaded up on the skill, an absurd level of items. What you’d need is a way to gauge the size of an item and the size of all the other items they’re carrying. Which puts us right back where we were in the first place, needing a system to handle the size of “items”.

Generally what’s needed are simple rules for how to access an item’s size. In theory I could assign a size value to everything in the game and call it a day but that’s a lot of work and I doubt I’d be able to do that consistently or accurately. Weight is often used as a proxy for size but as you know, it doesn’t always follow that a light item is a small or easy to carry item.

What we need is a “good enough” system. One where the math is simple and the character’s ability is recognized. What’s our goal? I usually look at a typical soldier on a 21st century battlefield that carries 45 Kg of gear.

So let’s define an “item” size. We could say that an item is 5 Kg and that anything less than 1 Kg is essentially a free carry. Yes, the free carry could easily be abused but we can figure that out later. That would put our average soldier being able to carry 9 “items”.

As a baseline, let’s say that a character can carry as many items as their Strength attribute. The average character can then carry 6 items, with a foot soldier being able to carry 7 because of their attribute bonus. (These are 4e numbers.) Then we’ll add in the character’s skill, let’s say that a character can pack their items and get a little more out of their carrying capacity by efficient use of space. That sounds like an Intuition roll to me. So a character can roll intuition and add a number of items equal to their successes.

Given enough time, you can assume a character could eventually get a roll that would maximize their packing ability. So unless they have a 1 for Int, they would be able to get to at least 9 items and possibly 10.

So far that seems to work but I’m not sure it really reduces the mental burden of encumbrance. It more or less just explains the old system with smaller numbers. I’ll have to ponder if that’s valuable or not.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Experimental Mechanics

Tools

I’ve been waiting on moving into a new house and I’ve been away from the internet. In the meantime I’ve been thinking about 4e. The problem I’m running into with the writing is while everything is intended to be modular, everything is so integrated that it’s hard to explain one concept without having to explain all the rules for five other concepts just for it to make some sense.

I realized that the central metaphor for how to explain the game is broken. Often the mechanics of a game are called an engine and that’s what was tripping me up.

An engine has a reoccurring cycle and that makes sense up to a point. In general, play occurs in a cycle of turns, with players carrying out their own cyclic input.

Except not everything is cyclic. Not everything is used on every turn. There are plenty of optional rules that can be employed. So there’s an engine, but a lot of the rules aren’t always needed. The better metaphor for these are tools. You have to know why you might need a tool and where it works or doesn’t.

I used to call that an optional rule but that implies that you could ignore it without impacting the game. It’s intuitive that a tool has a specific effect.

The surprising part is that nearly everything that I started out being part of the game “engine” really turns out to be a tool, useful only in certain situations. Even something normally considered a “core part” of an engine like initiative is really only a tool, useful in specific situations. Even something as basic as an attribute is a tool. They’re a very useful tool but there are plenty of times they aren’t needed.

So now I’m going to have to re-write the rules section and create a new chapter in the book… Tools.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Experimental Mechanics

In Progress

What am I working on right now? Well…

How tunnels look in 4e

So what is this? These are the tunnels in the floor of a hex. There are three layers. The top is blue, the middle is grey and the bottom is red. What each layer does in each hex is different. There are tunnels in the ceilings of a hex also and they would be this but in reverse order. The red layer is the main transport distribution of the hex. This is where the anti-grav trains run and in the center is where the hex mainframe sits.

Just figuring this out has been a lot of fun. The big trick is if the whole thing is comprehensible or not. There were rather boring tunnels in earlier editions of the game but player tended to be unimpressed with my attempt at functionality and simplicity.

I started to think that maybe the planet’s designers wouldn’t be limited to “simplicity” and might think of the mechanical needs of the hexes much differently than I would. It’s also possible that the design could be influenced by earlier designs that followed different requirements.

This zigzag configuration adds a lot of possible hide and seek options for characters. I wonder if anyone could make heads of tails of what’s going on here or if that matters. A facilitator could just consider the tunnel arrangement “random” and narrate that way if they didn’t want to study the tunnels given here in microscopic detail. The scales are still enormous in between the twists and turns, I haven’t figured out the math yet but each “node” might be 300+ meters from the next.

I’ve also started on the general maps and figured out some details that I hope to work into the maps.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Experimental Mechanics

Slowly Making Progress

Sometimes I feel like fourth edition is never going to happen. Is it taking it’s sweet old time? Yes. Is progress being made? Surprisingly also yes.

The guts of 4e is there. A lot of the bulk text and stat blocks are also there. We can actually play 4e with me running it. It’s just getting it to a state where other people can run it. So what still needs to happen?

Maps

This is something I didn’t think I’d be redoing. I’ve been looking for a program that could actually draw the maps. The old program I used will no longer run on any computers I have. I’ve tried, really. I was certain I’d need a vector graphics program. At one point I tried looking into CAD but that was either too expensive or didn’t offer the control I needed.

I finally tried Affinity Designer and I think we have a winner. It’s not quite as accurate as I’d prefer, but with the current maps in 3e a lot of the detail didn’t show up on the printed page anyway. What Affinity Designer can do more of is adding color, something that was limited in the last program I used. I don’t know if it’s surprising or just a testament to the quality of Affinity’s software but it’s also the company that makes the page layout software I’m using.

Which brings us to…

Layout

I despaired for a while at the challenge of rebuilding the tables in 3e for 4e. The table creation tools on Affinity Publisher are not the greatest. Then they introduced the ability to import tables from Apple’s suite of office apps. The tables will need to be tweaked but they can mostly be imported now.

That’s the brute work of figuring out layout though. I have some issues that are a little higher on the scale of page layout. Ones that I don’t really have any answers to.

What fonts should I use? I’ve traditionally stuck with Georgia for The Artifact. Should I change it? I’m not sure. I think a change in the heading font could help with the other problem I have with layout. That being…

The Artifact has been called a “text wall” and I can’t disagree. I would like to fix that problem but I get weirded out with too much white space on the page. I’ve seen layouts that use whitespace well but I’m never satisfied with my attempts at it. I have a weird quirk that I feel like the more text on the page the more “value” the page has. It’s wrong, I know, it’s just hard to get past it.

In general, I have no idea what I want to do with layout.

Actually writing too

So what I have written is a lot of fragmented sections. Although the main ideas are there, I’ll probably write it all over again. I’m having a crisis of confidence that I can express the game well. I think I’m doing better than I ever have, only it’s in ways I’ve never tried before, so none of it is tested.

There are a lot of new rules that are much different than what came before. Actually that’s the problem. They’re mostly a jump from the old rules, doubling down and amplifying the things I really liked in 3e. But they’re different enough that it would look alien to most people that have played 3e. It would be bad writing to explain how you played 3e and then describe why the system of 4e is an extension of those ideas. New players don’t care and I doubt it would really help experienced players.

I also have a lot of writing to do for the GM’s section. One of the big changes is going from GM to Facilitator but that’s just a change in the vocabulary. The real work is that I want to better describe how to run a good game on The Artifact.

I’ve found out that there are specific themes that work, pacing that builds on those themes and a mindset that goes with them. Straying from that formula doesn’t seem to work well. Describing the formula is a new trick that I’ve taken a few stabs at.

Art

I don’t have an idea of what I’d like to do with art. I could draw some more pictures but I’m not sure I’m up for a whole art re-work like I did for 3e unless I come into an unexpected inheritance and can afford to pay people.

So, that’s basically it. A bunch of things that are huge and need resolving. Once figured out a lot of these might become obvious. Until then, I’m muddling along, hoping for an epiphany or two.

Leave a Comment

Filed under News

Ideas For Bursts and Collapsing Several Rules Into One

Two separate ideas here. First, a problem that I’ve been trying to crack since first edition. Burst weapons, high fire rate weapons like some plasma and projectile weapons ought to convey some improved chance of hitting since they’re in theory filling a volume of space with their fire. I haven’t found a mechanism to model that properly maybe up until now. There was always an exception that made any simple solutions not work.

Thanks to my son for offering a suggestion that I just simplified, The idea is as follows. The player chooses a number of shots that will be used to hone in on a target. This part is a little artificial for my liking. Someone that’s aiming a weapon doesn’t consciously do that but in a way they do by how willing they are to fire and then track their rounds until they hit the target.

Because of that these sacrificed shots are “Tracking Shots.” Each shot sacrificed increases a Boost by one up until 9. So if the character uses one tracking shot, they get a Boost 1. If they use five tracking shots they get a Boost 5. They can’t go over 9 however. I feel like the utility of using tracking shots shouldn’t be infinite, so it’s capped at one Boost.

The variability of such a Boost seems a little unprecedented so far so I’m sure it will cause some confusion. As with everything, playtesting is needed.

Collapse

Next is an idea that may or may not work. It may require a lot of changes to existing damage stats so we’ll see.

Right now there are rules for avoiding hitting shields and avoiding hitting hard points in armor. There are also individual rules that can double the damage done like getting a head shot and vehicles have critical hits that can disable a vehicle completely. These offer dramatic and descriptive elements to the game. They allow a weaker weapon to overcome powerful defenses by being used skillfully.

They also cause a lot of confusion and complexity.

What if we re-used a single tool to get the same results? Sounds like a win, right? Well, mostly.

In 4e I decided to move away from range brackets. What resulted to keep some of the same flavor of action is that weapons have a stated range but you can add to that range by spending a success. However the other half of that is that the damage of a weapon dropped as it hit further out. For that, I introduced “Damage Drop” to the stats. Each time the range of a weapon is extended, the Damage Drop was subtracted from the weapon damage.

Back to the problem at hand, what if we renamed Damage Drop and made it multipurpose? What if it was called Damage Shift and it was still subtracted when range was extended but instead of avoiding shields, armor and special condition damage doubling, the damage shift could be added with a success?

This has some issues, the effect is significantly weaker than the effects that predate it in most instances. With simplicity comes a loss of surprising results. It also does not inherently explain why damage is being increased. With each use, the player doesn’t inherently know why the damage just went up. Narratively I could justify it, but theres no scaffold there to guide the players.

I like the simplicity. I don’t like the simplicity. I’ve been debating a starter set of rules and an advanced set. Maybe this is a good candidate for a split?

Leave a Comment

Filed under Experimental Mechanics

Mini

The Artifact RPG is big. It’s really really big. That scares a lot of people that might like the setting or the theme. In the old days, a lot of games had a basic version of the game to get players started. It might be useful to use that strategy to help players get on board with The Artifact.

That’s why I’m putting out this draft Mini version of The Artifact. It’s not finished by any stretch of the imagination. It’ll definitely need more tuning. It does most of what you can do in the 4th edition rules that are being worked on with a lot of the details chopped out. It all fits on 7 pages including a character sheet.

I think that in the end, the basic game will include more standard equipment and character occupations but this is a decent conceptual start.

The one thing this doesn’t do is explain the setting very much. If a GM wanted to use the maps in the main book or any of the other setting elements, they shouldn’t run into much trouble.

Here’s the rough draft.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Experimental Mechanics, News

Take Ten

If you’re a player familiar to the D20 system, you probably know about a (as far as I’ve heard) rule that allows you to skip a roll and take a 10 for a skill check or attack roll. I’m only just realizing that the same thing could work for 4e. You could do the same thing in 3e by taking a 50.

The effect is a little different because The Artifact has a roll under system. The target numbers never change. That means that a player that takes a 10 will get consistent results every time… mostly.

The reason why I’m comfortable with this idea is most attributes that you’d roll against are under 10. If you have an attribute over 10, you can consistently get a single success on that attribute but you’re never going to get more successes until you get to an attribute of 20. If you have an attribute that high, you can’t easily fail anyway. In all respects you’re essentially taking a mediocre result.

I do want to take the concept further though. You can take a 10 and then take stress to reduce the roll. So if this was an important roll and you had an attribute of 8, you could take 10 and two stress to guarantee the roll. You’re still taking a consequence and that seems fine to me.

Let’s keep pushing though. 4e is all about economies and one of the biggest economies I’ve been messing with is the action economy. I think it wouldn’t break much if 4e let you spend two actions (total) and take a 5. You could also take stress with that to bring the value down further.

But

Boosts and Drains still apply. A Drain could eliminate a success you got from taking a ten and a Boost can still help.

Taking a 10 or a 5 when you have Boosts and Drains means you’d just skip the d20 and roll your d10s.

I’m curious how often this option would be used. I think it’s going to be welcome to some players that constantly roll poorly but even then it would have limited utility. In high attribute characters it would become routine to take a 10 when a task has minor requirements to complete. That’s okay though.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Experimental Mechanics

Focus Rounds

This is one of those rules that is going to get shuffled into the “advanced” rule pile. It adds an interesting option for certain situations and characters but could be ignored most of the time.

Right now the Reflex attribute is vitally important for a lot of conflict because it not only ranks you in who goes first in the initiative order, but also determines how much you can accomplish in a round.

However sometimes you only want to accomplish one vital thing in a round. Working on generating Boosts by spending actions is cool but it might not be the only way to do things. Yes I want the players to be able to spend an action to generate boosts that the group can share and that will be the default but from the beginning I was thinking of generating larger Boosts just for your character.

How currently I think that should work is to opt out of the regular Reflex initiative and take a Focus Round. What that would mean is rolling against Psyche instead and taking one powerful action that turn. Instead of getting a number of actions in that turn, the character would get one action but with a Boost of 3 per success. If the Psyche roll yielded four successes the character would get a Boost of 9 (an automatic success if there are no Drains) and a Boost of 3 to the action roll. These Boosts only last for that turn but could be very powerful.

To see why that’s significant, let’s talk about generating Boosts in a normal Reflex round.

Generating a Boost by spending an action is a weaker effect but potentially longer lasting. If you spend an action you’d get a Boost of 1 to start but by default it only lasts a turn. If you succeed in your roll, you can spend successes on several things. Spending a success can make the Boost 1 higher. Spending a success can make the boost persistent (until removed or it expires). Spending a success can also be used to share the boost with another character.

That’s a lot of effects. I think in playtests, it will result in a lot of persistent Boost 1s which might need some kind of management, we’ll have to test.

The best part is these effects can be use together without issue. Another character could create a low level boost for your character to use and then you could enter a focus round.

So when would a character taking a focus round fall in the initiative order? Simply put, they will place according to their successes just like they had rolled for Reflex. The justification for this is their extreme focus helps them to act quickly as they notice an opportunity.

As if The Artifact needed more options… but there you are. One more option for your character’s in 4th Edition.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Experimental Mechanics