Discussing a game mechanic

[Gabriele]

HI,
 I'm currently writing (trying to) a miniature game. It revolves around a couple of (I think) original ideas, that in my mind are quite clever but that could actually be rubbish. I tried to look for playtesters with no success. Would this forum section appropriate to discuss game mechanics?

[Westfalia Chris]

Well, unless it is intrinsically linked to one of our period boards, then I guess the General Discussion board would be the best place for this kind of thread.

Workbench is primarily about modelling,  painting and related topics.

[Dan55]

It looks like this might be the place.  What was the idea you wanted to discuss?

[Gabriele]

The main mechanic I'd like to discuss is revolving around the idea of a "stance", that can be more aggressive or defensive and it is represented by a number.

Then you sum attacker and defender stances to get the target number to be beaten (or rolled under, it's irrelevant) by a die roll.

The idea is that an aggressive stance will increase the chances to hit your opponent, but being a reckless attitude will make you too easier to hit.
On the opposite, a more defensive stance will make you harder to hit, but also a conservative attitude will reduce your chances to hit your opponent.

In my hopes, this should increase tactics needed in the game, and lead to some meaningful decision.

As for now, this is briefly how I have implemented it:

Stance
This is one of the most important and unique concepts in the game. Every model always needs to have a stance assigned. Stance is represented by a number ranging from 1 to 6 and is represented by a D6 placed next to the model. The number shown on the top face is the current stance.
Values of 1-2 represent a defensive stance, values 3-4 represent a neutral stance, values of 5-6 represent an aggressive stance.
At the start of the game roll a number of dice equal to the number of your models, then assign each die (without changing the result) to one of your models.
(to be considered: avoid the roll and let the players freely choose the stance of each model at the beginning of the game).
A model can change stance only at the beginning of its activation.

How stance works?
The most common action in which stance comes into play is combat: To attack an opponent simply add together the stances of the two models involved (add any eventual modifier) then roll a D10. If the roll is lower than the sum of stances the attack is a success and causes damage equal to the difference between the sum of stances and the die roll.
(to do: find a name for “the sum of stances”. Something like “combat number”, “challenge difficulty”, ecc)

Of course, combat target number wouldn't be just the sum of the stances, attack and defence stats will exists and these will add or subtracts their value accordingly during combat (i.e. a model with Attack 2 will add 2 to the TN when attacking, while a model with Defence 1 will subtract 1 from the opponent's TN when attacked).

So, this is an example of some decision to be taken: It's my turn to activate a model. I want to attack an opponent model too close to my objective, and I have model A in the right position to do so. BUT I also have model B that previous turn activated last, so I did go for an all-out- attack giving him stance 6. Now he's close to the enemy an I want to lower his stance, to avoid  him taking too much damage. So I have to choose what model activate between two thing I need to do as soon as I can.

I have just started playtesting a very simple ruleset based on this concept. Would love to hear others considerations, especially if coming from people with some experience in diverse gaming systems.

[fred]

I do like the idea of this.

Rolling at the start of the game seems fine, as you can assign dice to figures.

Is this used for shooting too?

[Gabriele]

Thanks!

Is this used for shooting too?

Yes, with a different stat for shooting.
Kinda of melee attack and ranged attack

I'm finalizing an early draft of the ruleset, if you're willing to give it a try (or even just read it and post your thoughts) I can send a copy to you once done.
..or I'll just post it here, as for now the idea is to make the game available for free, so...

[fred]

Yes, drop me a PM when you have a draft, always happy to have a read

[AKULA]

The Stance mechanism sounds vaguely familiar...maybe from a set of gladiator rules I played about 30 years ago 

When writing a set of rules, I normally start by defining what I want the game to feel like for the players....should it be pacey...even chaotic, or give them time to be more thoughtful. What should the table look like - big or small, crowded or sparse in terms of figures and terrain?

As long as the rules mechanisms support the idea of how you want the game to play or feel, then it’s a win....if the mechanism doesn’t support that, then ditch it.

 

[Elbows]

Definitely not super unique, but...admittedly almost nothing is - and that shouldn't stop you for an instant!  I think the way you handle it is nice and simple, though I'd consider flipping the numbers (if I understand your system correctly).

You could make the basic stance the starting target number on a D10, making a defensive stance the 5-6 (giving you a natural defensive number - increased by armour/shields/cover, etc.).  This would flow a bit easier in my mind, with 1-2 being reckless (to the point of auto-hitting if you're naked with a '1' as your stance).

You could tie in conditions to adjust this number further, perhaps involving movement (moving further drops your stance by one or two, etc.).

Move your normal move value: gain +1 to your stance as you advance safely, guarded...
Move double your normal move value: your stance remains the same...
Move triple your move value: your suffer -1 to your stance as you're moving too fast to pay attention, etc. etc. etc.

I've no idea how the rest of your game works, but the basic mechanical idea is sound.  It's present (not in the dice rolled variation) in a number of games, namely gladiatorial/fighting games, etc.).  That's no crime, and the combination of this mechanic with other ideas will create the unique vision of your game.

[Gabriele]

Thanks everyone for comments and feedback!

The Stance mechanism sounds vaguely familiar...maybe from a set of gladiator rules I played about 30 years ago 

Definitely not super unique, but...admittedly almost nothing is - and that shouldn't stop you for an instant!  I think the way you handle it is nice and simple, though I'd consider flipping the numbers (if I understand your system correctly).

Really? I thought I had come with some original mechanic... ^^;

As long as the rules mechanisms support the idea of how you want the game to play or feel, then it’s a win....if the mechanism doesn’t support that, then ditch it.

Agree. In fact this ruleset was initially aimed to recreate certain setting, but this rule wasn't fitting very well. So I'm thinking to strip almost everything, write down a very simple game around this mechanic to get is "out of the way" (and out of my mind) then proceed with the "main project".

@Elbows: there are indeed other modifiers coming into play.
I'll try to have something playable as soon as possible.

Thanks once more for the feedback. It is greatly appreciated, quite difficult to be objectively critical with my own creation

[jon_1066]

One aspect I am not keen on is that in a one on one both sides have the same chance of causing the same amount of damage.  Perhaps only allow a model to make an attack if stance is 3 or more.  You could incorporate charging as only allowing it if stance is 5 or more.

One thought I had was if you make the damage equal to the dice roll if it is less than the combined stances.  Simple and less maths.  You can then easily incorporate armour as a basic value deducted from the damage.

Better defenders could have a stance counts as one less when attacked.  Better attackers stance counts as one more when attacking.