HinterWelt Fora

So, I have been giving some thought to a Version 2 of the Iridium System. You can download a free version at http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=6092& RPGNow or at the http://www.hinterwelt.com/ISCR-Ref.html HinterWelt site.

Summary of IS

• Ten hit locations dividing up body and armor. This includes varied fortitude to reflect head and chest wounds are more greivous that extremities.
• Weapons recieve multiple attacks that you take on your initiative. All your attacks happen on your initiative giving the advantage to those who win initiative.
• Skills are influenced by statistics. Skills are percentile based with a curved progression (40, 60, 70, 75, 80, 82, 84).
• There are three types of magic, Spell lists, Free Form and Chi. Spell lists use spell points and may be used repeatedly (no fire and forget). Spell lists have spell heirchies. Free Form is stat driven and failure can mean physical or spiritual damage. The player picks an area of expertise and may make up their own spells from that area (specialty area: Fire, may attempt to cast a stream of fire). Chi magic is a limited set of abilities that are powered by chi points.
• IS uses classes as starting packages and rewards taking skills related to your class but does not restrict taking those outside of your class. For instance, a theif may be the best swordsmen in the group or a fighter the best spell caster. Classes are mostly about initial skill packages but do include some special abilities (Psi casting Psi abilities, Clerics casting clerical spells).
• There are 11 Stats. Strength, Constitution, Agility, Dexterity, Wisdom, Intelligence, Piety, Luck, Will, Appearance, Charisma. The normal human range is between 1 and 20. Stats are normally generated by rolling three d20 and taking the highest. They are used to generate spell points and skill purchase points during character generation.

Some suggestions made by play testers and fans:

• Convert to a single mechanic. Skill checks are roll under % checks, combat is a roll over d20 check. Pick one and go with it.
• Standardize on a range. Make the stats percentile or the skills 1-20.
• Standardize the stat modifiers. Currently there are tables referenced in character generation. These are different depending on the stat. Some modify more than others. They would want all stats to mod the same. For instance, +1 for every point over 14;i.e. 18 INT would be a +4 to intellectual skills.

So, any takers? I am up for discussion. I am a strong believer that no system is perfect and you can always improve.

Bill

_________________
HinterWelt Enterprises
Bill Corrie
815-557-7365

Oofffda. Quite a package to tackle. I like the idea of standardization. As skills are normally viewed lesser to greater (percentages that is), I'd say I wouldn't want to have skills be less than current skill %. You'd have to reverse the skill set, and it just doesn't seem natural to think in reverse with percentages. 100% would always be better than 10% to me. So I'd suggest modifying the combat to be lower than, not greater than.

If you truly want to standardize a range, I can't see any other method than stats as percentile. If you change skills to 1-20, you look the unique part of Iridium that has a very visual logical progression in character improvement.

As far as the consistant stat modifiers, all I can remember is how we wanted str to modify exponentially as someone with higher strength would be significantly stronger. Maybe you make all the stats exponential rather than some simple +1 progression? I don't know though. Someone with a 16 charisma really wouldn't be exponentially less than someone with a 20 charisma. I think some skills would have different exponential progressions. If the system theory is still realistic but simplistic, I'm not sure there's a good answer there.

_________________
Go Microsoft! (Hi, Bill!)

I think that the system needs to be standardized in order to appeal to more gamers. My method of choice would be percentile and have the system 100% unified. Attack,Skill, and damage rolls all %.

I would consider streamlining the hit location system some (though i personally like it as it is). My thought on doing this is do it indirectly by changing how the targeting skill works. Since everything would be %, including defense stat, I would be inclined to say that if your targeting skill is higher than the targets defense stat you automatically target the attack. If it is lower than the targets defense they must roll as normal. It cut out some rolls.

Story time.

Back in the day, I played (I was even with Linda at the time) Nebuleon with percentiles. I had no problem but, by the gods, people would complain about adding and subtracting, especially in combat.

That said, I agree. 1-20 range just does not afford enough room for skills. It can be done but I think it would be a less dynamic system. Roll under combat will be nigh impossible though or at least beyond me. We would need to drop combat in its current incarnation.

So, roll under combat. Well, lets start with things I think are neat about combat in IS now.

Defense - I really like that the difficulty of hitting a target is based on their stats.

Hit Locations - I like hit locations. Determining which gets hit can be changed but I woul dlike to keep this aspect.

I do not think we should monkey too much with the rythym; i.e. he who wins init is in good shape. So, all attacks on your initiative seems the simplist solution.

So, we could try and make it a skill check...minus a defense stat...So, a 60% in Rifle Use minus the average of STR, AGL and CON say, 80% would give you a -20% chance to hit. However, skills improve and if you are a fighter, you would be 7th level befor eyou could hit with a 1% chance.

O.k. I need to to rethink defense in this scenario.

Bill

_________________
HinterWelt Enterprises
Bill Corrie
815-557-7365

What if you rolled a % to hit with a weapon against the opponent's defense % including your TH bonuses per weapon, and the skill % as a bonus? I.E. - I roll 63% on the dice, I have a +10% with the weapon I'm using for 73%. I also have 60% skill level with the weapon for a total of 133%. The opponent may have 88% average, but I would still hit. Defensive spells could offer % bonuses, as could magical items, etc. If I use an unskilled weapon, it would have an automatic X% penalty (high to limit the ability to simply pick something up and use it).

Just a thought...

_________________
Go Microsoft! (Hi, Bill!)

And not a bad one but I would fear it would swing too far to the other direction.

The way we used to do combat with Nebuleon was essentially the same as we do it now but with %. You have a Defense equal to you STR+CON+AGL/3. Since Stats are % this means Defense is %. You roll % to hit, bonuses from DEX/items/situations. Roll higher than the target's Defense and you hit. Roll less, you miss.

The problem with the above is that it is still a roll over. For skills, we have a roll under. A unified mechanic means all combat, skills, stat checks are resolved in one way. I am beginning to think this is not feasible with Iridium. The history of the system would make a new version of this radically different from the old version. I do not want to alienate any of our current customers.

So, what do you guys think of keeping the Roll Under skills and roll over combat? Alternatively, we could make it a roll over skill check. We could make skills d20 based. Have a difficulty chart and skills would progress 4,6,7,8,9,10 added to a d20 roll. Standard difficulty would be something like 18, moderate 22, and diffiuclt 28.

Again, just kicking around some ideas.

Bill

_________________
HinterWelt Enterprises
Bill Corrie
815-557-7365

How about a all roll under % system?

Defense could be hald the average of str,agl, and con. scores 65,80,70 = average of 72 the defense is 36%. 36% is added to the attackers roll.

or

half of the highest of the three scores of 65, 80, 70 defense would be 40%, again added to attackers roll

or

half of the lowest of the three. scores of 65,80,70 defense (rounding up) 33%.

I prefer the first one as it seems to be the closer interpretation of the original system but to a roll under system.

However, do you think it would be too much math? We already get flack on that point for averaging three numbers.

I like it though. I will start working on a v2 of the ISCR.

Next question, do you think Weapons to Armor are in balance? Meaning, do weapons cut through armor too easily or not easily enough?

In general, should we break up the attacks on weapons? Meaning, if you had three attacks, one at the beginning, middle and end of the round?

Thanks,
Bill

_________________
HinterWelt Enterprises
Bill Corrie
815-557-7365

well, I kept the averaging of the three because it sounded like you wanted to stay a little closer to Iridium V1.

IMO, taking the high or low is better. First, it is lest math. Second, not having to put all your high stat rolls into these three stats in order to get a good defense is a plus.

picking high or low just depends on how lethal you want it to be. In the end all three would work well, IMO.


As far as armor goes: I think one of the biggest factors is actually targeting. Armor itself works fine as is, but unless you pump your targeting up , hits get sprayed around. I think that this could be helped out by saying that a natural roll of 10% or less for a to hit roll auto targets the attack, if it hits.

seperating out attacks would be more realistic , but will complicate the combat rules a bit. Where do spells fall in combat order? I personally like the idea, but it would make it a little more complicated.

I don't know. Doesn't the half of the highest or lowest seem forced to you. Yeah, it works but it makes two of the three much less important. I guess damage would still mod attack damage, AGL would help movement skills and unarmed combat, and Con would still help fortitude. Still, it just seems like we were stuck for a solution and grabbed for anything. Or is it just me?

Separating the attacks is an old complaint from back in the day. Still, it comes down to how complex do we want to make it. I could be as simple as he with the highest init goes first, gets on combat action, then proceeds down the init chain to the last. The question would be, Does the GM roll for each foe separtately? Ick, that would be a pain. I think sticking with a "All foes go on this init but only get one action per" is the way to go. I am still not convinced breaking up the damage is the best way to go though. I will think on it.

Spells would go on init. It would fold into the full round. The down side would be weapons would get multiple hits to your one action. It works that way now but it is more of an advantage if you beat init on the sword wielder.

Hrm.

Bill

_________________
HinterWelt Enterprises
Bill Corrie
815-557-7365

To be honest, if it were up to me I would say that defense is equal to half your AGL. IMO, Con and STR don't seem to make sense on whether you can dodge or otherwise get out of the path of blow. I don't think this makes STR & CON less important, since they already affect many other important things. The biggest draw back, to a single stat determining defense will be that I think the average characters defense will be higher than the it was in v1.

If attacks would be split, I would defintely leave the monsters going all in one shot.

Just had an idea. Roll over Skills.

1 rank - 60%
2 ranks - 40%
3 ranks - 30%
4 ranks - 25%
5 ranks - 20%
6 ranks - 18%

And so on. You would need to roll over the target number. Stats would mod down, GMs would stat up for difficulty and sit mods.

I think this could work. In this way, higher is better. You are applying your skill towards the difficulty of the feat attempting to be performed.

Thoughts?

Bill

_________________
HinterWelt Enterprises
Bill Corrie
815-557-7365

See, I have heard the AGL argument before. To me, CON and STR make a lot of sense as far as your ability to get out of the way. STR is the power to move your body and gear. CON is the wind to keep it up.

That said, just from a system POV, making it linked to one stat is going to screw things up. Everyone will have 100 in AGL. The other stats will be important but not nearly as much as AGL. I really like the three stats. I would entertain other stats. I have heard good arguments for INT or WIS and even one for APP. I also think that we need to consider what players will think. I think they would be able to grok the physical stats but have a rough time if we replaced CON with WIS.

Single stat Defense just strikes me as unbalanced. Feel free to convince me otherwise.

Bill

_________________
HinterWelt Enterprises
Bill Corrie
815-557-7365

yeah, thats what I said.

roll over look good, but how would you do damage then?

Option 1: The component nature of Iridium makes it easy to just use the old damage system. So, we would have multiple attacks, dice and the like.

Fortitude would need some wanking around. Most likely, we could divide by 5 to get the old range of base fortitude. It is how we handled in Neb. So, calculate the normal base fortitude and it would give you an outrageous number like 150 or so. Divide by 5 and get 30. Apply to all areas as it is done now.

Option 2: We up the damage, armor factors and work off some pretty large numbers. I tried this a few times and people really did not like it. Too large.

Option 3: Keep damage the same but base Fortitude off one stat. Say, CON, which could potentially give you fortitudes in the 100's. This would mean you could take the brunt of a 2-hander to the chest (sayyou had a 90 CON which would give you 45 in the chest) and live.

With % stats we king of have to take some sort of divisor to make it work. I favor Option 1 but am way open to new ideas.

Bill

_________________
HinterWelt Enterprises
Bill Corrie
815-557-7365