Cinco: Growing Burdens

-

I suggested shifting goalposts more in favor of players, and a second idea: removing hearts altogether in favor of burdens, fictional effects which disadvantage the character by subtracting their value from rolls. Did that work out?

Nope.

Simulations

Let's assume the original scale and its melee effects for a second:

  • 20+: Triumph
  • 11–19: Compromise
  • 1–9: Failure
  • 0-: Catastrophe

For a sequence of attempted melee results, the outcomes for different aspect bonuses are as follows: 

Aspect Bonus Total Turns Hits Dealt Burdens
+0 6.4 2.6 5.4
+1 7.6 3.2 6.3
+2 8.7 3.9 7.2
+3 9.9 4.7 8.2
+4 11.3 5.9 9.2
+5 12.7 6.9 10.2

This means that a character can take from 5 to 10 "hits" (in the form of burden) while dealing on average 2 hits plus their aspect bonus. Their aspect bonus soaks up the effect of the burden accumulated until it exceeds the bonus, at which point it will basically always take 5 burdens to down the character. This all assumes that the character continues to aggressively melee rather than defend themselves, neither taking nor dealing damage.

What I kind of don't like is that as your burdens increase, so does your likelihood of success decrease. It makes you more likely to accumulate burdens, which follows, but it also results in so many failures and compromises one after the other... Does that sound fun? Certainly doesn't sound heroic!

If we use the scale from last time (compromises become successes, failures become compromises), the patterns change:

Aspect Bonus Total Turns Hits Dealt Burdens
+0 9.1 8.1 4.2
+1 11.6 10.6 5.1
+2 14.7 13.7 6.2
+3 17.5 16.5 7.2
+4 21.6 20.5 8.2
+5 27.0 26.0 9.2

Each character can last at least 9 turns, dealing a hit most of the time, while their aspect bonus soaks the brunt of impact. Since each burden is the result of a compromise, we can also tell what percent of hits come with a burden: 52% with an aspect of +0, and 35% with an aspect of +5. That's neat, but Christ Almighty look how many turns there are. From 9 to 27! The stakes don't exactly feel high. There's little to no friction. What if burdens were d6, and hits too just for fun?

Aspect Bonus Total Turns Hits Dealt Burdens
+0 5.5 16.6 8.5
+1 6.5 20.5 9.5
+2 7.4 25.5 10.1
+3 8.7 31.7 11.4
+4 10.0 39.4 12.2
+5 11.8 49.1 13.2

That looks a lot more sustainable. If you change incoming damage to d12, the player-character's longevity is not majorly affected; +0 lasts 4.6 turns and +5 lasts 9.0 turns. But this is getting out of hand, isn't it? It's starting to become a situation where you're constantly thinking about the rules for their mechanical oversight, instead of just doing things.

Where Do We Go From Here?

Here's what I learned:

  • It's too punishing for (what's effectively) your health bar to negatively impact your rolls.
  • "Compromise" being the most common result produces interesting decision-making.
  • Starting bonuses should be high enough to feel significant.
  • Spending inspiration for rerolls is really powerful, and a necessary part of the flow.

New assumptions. The original scale is fine (0/10/20). Characters should usually have 3 hearts each. They should usually take damage in 1-heart increments except when they should know better. Their average starting bonus will be +3 and increase by +1 per level, up to +7. Below is a simulated combat against an 8-heart encounter, which is a deadly one for level-1 characters. Pretend that it's against a handful of porcs, a mass of hoblins, or a dragon.

Round 1: Monster strength 8 of 8.
    Alice lands a hit but takes one in turn (15+3=18).
    Bob dodges an incoming blow (15+3=18).
    Claire dodges an incoming blow (14+2=16).
    David dodges an incoming blow (10+4=14).
Round 2: Monster strength 7 of 8.
    Alice lands a hit but takes one in turn (9+3=12).
    Bob is hit (5+3=8).
    Claire dodges an incoming blow (17+2=19).
    David defends themself and lands a hit (17+4=21).
Round 3: Monster strength 5 of 8.
    Alice lands a hit but takes one in turn (11+3=14).
    Alice is down.
    Bob lands a hit but takes one in turn (11+3=14).
    Claire defends themself and lands a hit (18+2=20).
    David defends themself and lands a hit (19+4=23).
Round 4: Monster strength 1 of 8.
    Bob lands a hit but takes one in turn (16+3=19).
    Bob is down.
    The monster is defeated!

I thought I corrected my code, but the characters keep killing themselves to land hits. They probably feel badass!

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Plagiarism in Unconquered (2022)

-
Image
Ultimately [UVG2E], like UVG1E, are books [sic] that long to be cut to pieces, chopped & screwed and re-arranged and re-organized and repurposed into the collected loose-leaf notes of a GM binder, to be pulled out and smoothly interjected into a Something Else. Noora Rose, “ UVG, UVG2E, and Me ” (2023-06-30) I was originally going to put this post (at least, the commentary parts) through an AI Gary Gygax translator and publish it on a friend's burner blog. However, this is too serious to be treated like a joke, so here it is instead. Staking my name on it, lol. A Something Else Unconquered (2022) is an OSR-style science-fantasy adventure game and setting by Noora Rose of Monkey's Paw Games. Originally intended to have been based on Knave , according to the 2020 Kickstarter campaign , Rose refactored it to be based on Into the Odd instead—although with significant influence from Jared Sinclair's The Vanilla Game . I previously threw Unconquered into my big OSR
Read more

OSR Rules Families

-
Image
So, here’s the thing: originally I wrote this like a fucking research article with a hypothesis, a methodology, and all that stuff. I’m not even a scientific research person. That’s my partner’s job. Not mine. So, instead of walking you through every single step I took, I’m going to take the journalistic approach and start with the big picture before I zoom into it and tell you about the little details. I read, reviewed, and statistically organized 38 different rulebooks considered to be OSR or OSR-adjacent. These include four rulebooks from TSR-era Dungeons & Dragons , as well as ten rulebooks from the 2000s and 2010s. The remaining 24 rulebooks postdate the closure of G+ in early 2019. Please refer to the bibliography at the bottom of this post for more information. After having collected and organized a dataset with ~90 variables, I found the statistical similarity between each pair of rulebooks based on that data. Finally, I ran an algorithm to determine clusters of these bo
Read more

D&D Fifth Edition: Death & Rebirth

-
Image
Hashtag OSRisOverParty, Hashtag RIPBozo, etc etc. The initial… “edition” of Dungeons & Dragons, Fifth Edition tried to present itself as a reactionary return to some ideal past paradigm of D&D —be it Third Edition to win back territory lost prior to Paizo’s Pathfinder , or an even older Gygaxian edition to get in the pants of the sort-of nascent OSR. Practically, this resulted in a final product that was like a simple Third Edition with dogwhistle-like nods to OSR conventions (since the play-style’s influence in the end was tenuous at best and mostly abandoned after the public test phase). It’s maybe more succinctly described as a people-pleasing game, with the caveat that people-pleasers don’t please anyone. So, how did it become popular? And how does the new 2024 not-edition reflect major differences between then and now, in terms of how D&D is perceived and played? This is my ramble. Sent from iPhone. Fifth Edition: Born in 2014 Of course, nobody plays D&D as
Read more