Homebrew

fnar777

Grunt
Shattered Core Backer
#1
I can't wait to see what you guys come up with. As for me, I have two rules I made.

1: Exploding Dice (a.k.a. Beginners Luck)

The current dice system offers no incentive to roll if there is zero chance of victory. I rehashed exploding dice rules for Shattered to counteract that. Basically if a player rolls max on the dice they have they gain a D4 bonus, which, if maxed, grants yet another, and so on. This system keeps players from feeling totally hopeless, and offers a greater chance of luck to novice characters (A 25% chance at rank 1) that fades as they level up and rely more on skill (Rank 2 = 16.6%, Rank 3 = 12.5%, Rank 4 = 10%, etc).

2: Stunts/Description Bonus

I dislike characters just saying "I hit him :l" dryly with each attack. With this rule, borrowed from Exalted 2e, I offer bonuses to rolls described well by the players. Attacks described well gain +1 to the roll, attacks described well, and using scenery or otherwise more impressively described gain a +2, while great description, such as using the environment to play to a weakness, or something very impressive (basically if there's any doubt it's one of these, it's not) gains a +3. Most of my players use these sparingly, and I find they can make most fights more unique and memorable.
 

bear

Grunt
Shattered Core Backer
#2
I agree that a lack of exploding dice seems odd and doesn't feel good within the system as it stands. In almost every game I have played, there has been an epic story surrounding someone getting a really great die roll in an otherwise impossible situation and making something happen worth of telling others about.

Stories like this really sell a game and a setting, so having the Exploding Dice or something similar would be useful and epic in my eyes.
 

Tex

Lore Master
Staff member
INDE Staff
#3
We're looking into exploding dice (or something similar) and we'll let you know when we decide something.

а

As for Stunt bonuses, I do like the idea; however, I would caution using too many static bonuses. Pul can give you the reasoning behind that, it's something to do with statistics. And statistics make my brain hurt.
 

Pul

Administrator
Staff member
INDE Staff
#4
Tex said
As for Stunt bonuses, I do like the idea; however, I would caution using too many static bonuses. Pul can give you the reasoning behind that, it's something to do with statistics. And statistics make my brain hurt.
I have been summoned!
Note all replies are purely my opinion / thoughts. This isn't a coordinated response from the team. Wanted to toss a disclaimer as it's a wall hehe.

fnar777 saidа

2: Stunts/Description Bonus

I dislike characters just saying "I hit him :l" dryly with each attack. With this rule, borrowed from Exalted 2e, I offer bonuses to rolls described well by the players. Attacks described well gain +1 to the roll, attacks described well, and using scenery or otherwise more impressively described gain a +2, while great description, such as using the environment to play to a weakness, or something very impressive (basically if there's any doubt it's one of these, it's not) gains a +3. Most of my players use these sparingly, and I find they can make most fights more unique and memorable.
Alright, I'm going to tackle the stunt/description bonus.
Be warned, the mathing has been invoked, once I get it here if y'all need better explanation just ask hehe.

So the concept is cool, and one I've seen implemented well in some systems. However considering the MDS as it stands, it isn't particularly favorable as it's scale is inversely proportional to skill, which means that at the start of the campaign, player's will be enticed to woo the GM with descriptive actions (Which I think is always fun) however as it progresses there's no real bonus aside from the fun story-telling aspect.
If the players aren't telling the story in fun-action tense scenes on their own without the bonus for flair, then once that bonus becomes more of a moot point, it'll return to the dry status.

Or, the scale can be done in such a way as to maintain (with some fluctuation for sure) it's potency, one way I could see this done would be as follows:

For each die you would roll, a decent description is +1 per die, a good one is +2 per die, and a great one is +3 per die. The issue now though is the varying power involved, combined with the system at hand, would result in rather lop-sided rolling.
At start, it'd probably work fine, but at 3 dice I'd suspect it gets wonky. Since it's a +3/6/9, and given at 2d10+1d4, your average is a 14, a +9 is effectively a 99% success rate against a foe rolling an un-altered 2d10+1d4. Even the +3, results in around a 25% increased chance of success.
Combine that now with the fact it's entirely subjective, monster difficulty is directly dependent on the player's ability to impress the GM.

While the first option is clearly more favorable towards maintaining balance in the mid to late game, at the start (against comparable rolls) its outrageously powerful. Not to mention that it starts to add more bonuses that need to be considered when attempting to maintain a balance, between the players themselves so as nobody outshines the other, and between the players and monsters, such that neither side is annihilated without qualm (unless thats supposed to happen. Those are fun fights too, smashing through hordes hehe)

At the end of it all the problem is more that the player is not contributing as much as desired. Now don't run off yelling "Dev says it's the player's fault!" because I'm one of those players. I don't have much "flair" so to speak. In fact, the most I really got into a style of combat was with the Dev game Bear ran. Which was numerous in concept, I really wasn't describing much at all. Only thing I changed was from hit to bite hehe, but that's kind of the most descriptive I got for a rolled attack in, a long time.

Now, while I understand it's a house - rule, which I completely am for, and feel should be implemented as desired, attempting to write a core-rule that would entice descriptive rp, would (IMO) be far more restricting than a house-rule. How to incorporate all possible scenarios in which a good description would provide any bonus, would be clunky. You've got combat, ok +1 to hit, +1 to damage, but then you have non-combat, which would need it's own. Perhaps there's conditional bonuses such as standing up, which only applies to when prone. Or it's a blanket "If you're cool, +1 to whatever you're doing."

I've seen descriptive story bonuses implemented well in linear games, as house-rules and it worked. Nothing was crazy, but that's because on 1d20+x, adding 1 isn't that drastic. 1d20 vs 1d20+1, only a 5% boost to success, at all stages of play. Here its, 25% to start, 6% at end. (If you're in the middle of the curves, that 6% is further reduced the more to one extreme you are)

Ok, reverse answering! (Truth be told I wasn't going to address the exploding dice but I got an idea.)

fnar777 said
I can't wait to see what you guys come up with. As for me, I have two rules I made.

1: Exploding Dice (a.k.a. Beginners Luck)

The current dice system offers no incentive to roll if there is zero chance of victory. I rehashed exploding dice rules for Shattered to counteract that. Basically if a player rolls max on the dice they have they gain a D4 bonus, which, if maxed, grants yet another, and so on. This system keeps players from feeling totally hopeless, and offers a greater chance of luck to novice characters (A 25% chance at rank 1) that fades as they level up and rely more on skill (Rank 2 = 16.6%, Rank 3 = 12.5%, Rank 4 = 10%, etc).
The issue at hand is crits.
The birth of the MDS really has its roots in my loathing of crits. In fact I can recall the argument I made for the MDS.
A master swordsmen (Lv 20 fighter if you will) is attacked by a gang of peasants. Fighter has dueled dragons, annihilated armies.
Peasants just want the shiny boots to fund their consumption of mead.а

Surprise!
Peasants Grapple and crit. Auto-success.а
Peasant B grapples to tie up, crits, auto success.
C performs a coup-de-grace.

Or something very similar to those lines, yes it's a 1/400 chance for double nat 20's but I've encountered too many double nat 1's to not argue against crits. These were Nat 1's that as per RAW killed characters. Even though I actually needed a 1, it's auto-fail. As such, I disliked being auto-hit. Lost a character against a Nat 20. Luckly I personally enjoy building characters, but it always hurt, a lot, to lose a character I put a lot of time into the build, to be Nat-dead.а

As for the chances of it, a perfect crit at start of game, (1d4) is 25%, opposed to the 1 in 100,000 at 5d10. That's, a crazy exponential function to say the least.
You say there's no incentive to roll if your roll is below the minimum to hit. IE, don't roll if you're rolling a 1d4 vs a 6.

However it made me curious as to a few things. I arrived at this thought which led to me responding to this.
Now it only applies for attacks and combat but I'd be curious your inputs about it.

Allow players to sacrifice damage dice, to bonus on to-hit. The bonus would be 1d4, or 1d6 (I'm leaning 1d4 but play around if you like) to hit, for every 1d6 of damage reduced.
Now, I know as it stands, this is useless, now you hit but won't pen armor. But theres been some discussion and after review of many of yourselves stating that the low damage players feel useless in combat, we're working on a way to ensure that everyаhit matters. Now this concept is still under review but it's gotten some good steam and ideally tomorrow night we'll have a working version for you-all.

I am going to bring up the idea of combining the new combat mechanics with the sacrificing of D6 to boost to-hit rolls, to ensure that everyone that's on the same page XP wise can contribute to combat directly if they so chose.а

Have faith, your voices are being heard and we've been tossing ideas around. Normally we wouldn't mention it but I feel comfortable since it's gotten a considerable amount of traction within the Dev's. We've just got to get it hammered and then ideally, nobody will feel left out of combat


I've gotta jet, classes and all, but thanks for the input, and in the end, helping me toss around ideas to better the game.
 

fnar777

Grunt
Shattered Core Backer
#5
I'm surprised I got such a heavy response to this O.O

These were just spur of the moment ideas I had, I hardly thought them out that far. I'm glad I gave you an idea though :3
 

Pul

Administrator
Staff member
INDE Staff
#6
fnar777 said
I'm surprised I got such a heavy response to this O.O

These were just spur of the moment ideas I had, I hardly thought them out that far. I'm glad I gave you an idea though :3
You can blame Tex

He invoked my name for maths, I enjoy number crunching. I have the stat-breakdown for every die roll from rating 1-20, combined with the %chance of any possible number being rolled in the given.
I did all that math one night because I was bored XD

Just want to leave ya with the note, by no means is this me saying "stop making homebrew!" More explaining why we didn't go with crits / descriptive bonuses via numerical breakdowns.

Please continue making home-rules, as they may be used (Like mentioned above :D) to help better the game.
Also, if you want clarity please feel free to ask, it is a lot... hehe
 
Top Bottom