This entry is part 3 in the series The Sixes System

Image by Noupload from Pixabay, background, shadows, sparkles, and crop by Mike

0. Fundamentals (repeated for all posts:)

— The Sixes System has been used in my Dr Who campaign since September 2014, and has just come to a successful conclusion.

— Characters are constructed using a point-buy methodology with NPCs generatable using die rolls for speed.

— Success or Failure on tasks is determined by adding dice to a pool based on ability and circumstances which are then rolled against a target number determined by the GM.


Clarification
Some feedback I got from the previous part of the series said “some interesting ideas, like the Nimbleness/Intelligence thing. But it also leaves me wondering how you can have an Int-based character without an Int score.”

My reply: If you need to and can’t find a better general term, you could use “Intelligence” for the sixth stat. But there will usually be a better choice: Engineer, Detective, Problem-Solver, Archaeologist, Jet-jockey, Inventor, Science, or even Time Lord. And any of them will tell you more about the character than “Intelligence” does.

3. Skills

Skills define a character’s expertise and abilities. The breadth of what that encompasses means that there are a lot of rules relating to Skills.
 

  1. Characters may spend as many Character Construction Points on skills as they have unspent.
  2. Stats cost 2 Construction Points to buy to rank 1 and the one point to raise by 1 thereafter.
  3. Characters may buy skills as hobbies (rank 0) for 1 point. It only costs 1 construction point to elevate a hobby to a full skill.
  4. Players define their own character’s skills.
  5. Skills include spells, super-powers, mutant abilities, etc, as appropriate. Where necessary, the effect should be described in both in-game and game-mechanical terms. Such descriptions should occupy no more than 1 line each. See sections also 13 and 19, and section 3.1 below, for guidelines.
  6. When acting, Characters may divert “skill ranks” from a spell or power (reducing the ability to target/use a spell correctly) into greater levels of effect. Each capability of this type will have an irreducible base level of effect that must be approved by the GM. Capabilities with a better base level of effectiveness may incur additional character construction costs to (1) purchase and (2) improve. See section 3.1 in the discussion below for guidelines.
  7. The GM must approve a character’s skills, and is free to require greater precision if that seems appropriate, or to reject a choice as being too narrow. These decisions must be justifiable in terms of the campaign genre.
  8. Skills may be as broadly-defined as a player wishes provided that they do not encompass an entire profession, or as specific. Cultural and Social context thus defines the expected norm. Since the GM provides this cultural and social context through his campaign background, and furthermore interprets genre through that background, these should be considerations in determining whether a skills is too narrowly-drawn or too broad.
  9. Skills are defined by their name. Skill names may be interpreted in any one of three different ways: (1) as a profession, encompassing everything that the practice of that profession uniquely demands; (2) as an action, in which case the name must be, or must contain, a verb; or (3) as a field of expertise, i.e. knowledge, which incorporates practical knowledge at one rank lower unless a character also has the appropriate practical skill.
  10. As a rule of thumb, no one skill should encompass everything that the character does with the user-defined stat.
  11. A character attempting a task for which they have no skill subtracts two dice from their pool.
  12. A character with only a hobby only subtracts 1 dice.
  13. A character with an appropriate skill adds 1 dice per rank in the skill.
  14. Where a character has no specific skill that exactly describes (in general terms) what the character is attempting to do or know, but which comes close, the GM may designate the skill as “tangential” to the attempt. This adds no additional dice to the die pool, but avoids the subtractions described earlier.
  15. Where a character has two or more skills that could apply to a situation, the character may add 1 temporary skill rank for each such skill. The GM is entitled to restrict this as he sees fit. That may include excluding certain skills, requiring those skills to have a minimum number of ranks, or any other restriction. He should be consistent in his approach, though exceptional circumstances may lead to exceptional rulings.
  16. One skill that should be highlighted is the character’s primary attack skill, if any. Unlike most skills, compound terms may be entirely acceptable. For example, “Broadsword with medium shield” is a perfectly-reasonable skill.
  17. Any other combat skills must have fewer ranks than the primary attack skill. A combat skill is defined as a skill that can be used to inflict damage on an enemy. Note that “damage” may have a broad interpretation, it is not necessarily restricted to physical harm.
  18. Normal characters skills are capped at 4. Exceptional characters are capped at 6. Explicit GM permission and written justification, which must be approved by the GM, is required to exceed these caps.
  19. Characters may take Handicaps to increase their Character Construction Points. A Handicap is a Skill that is reduced to negative ranks, i.e. below zero. Such handicaps are worth as many skill points as the negative ranks. Handicaps can only be reduced with GM permission; they are considered part of the character’s definition.
  20. In play, a character may only improve a skill by one rank at a time without GM authorization. Essentially, the player will have to justify the change in terms of the concept that he sold to the GM in the first place. The GM may mandate a disadvantage or other penalty to compensate.

Designer’s Notes & Discussions: Skills

    The Innovations

    I hesitate to describe “choose your own skill definition” as am innovation since I used this as a feature of the Zener Gate system. However, this dispenses with the classification into broad, narrow, or specific and treats all skills as the same. I also want to note that skills should be interpreted as Holistic (see Precision vs Holistic Skill Interpretation).

    Greater novelty is shown in the idea of including everything from spells to paranormal abilities into the skills structure. While this notion derived from the notion that all such abilities have an incorporated skill that defines how good the character is at using that ability and how successfully they can go beyond the normal restrictions that they or the rules have defined for that ability, it is important to note that in this game system, these have no other existence. A skill is an ability to do something that has been refined and improved through education, training, and practical experience – and that includes all those extraordinary abilities. Beyond that, it all comes down to genre limits and character concept.

    Incorporation of “Handicaps” as negative skills is both a new concept and something that has antecedents ranging all the way back to the original Hero System, if not further. The concept that they are treated as “locked skills” is the new thought in this aspect of the game system. A number of similar treatments are contained in the game mechanics used for my superhero campaign, and have been since the 1990s.

    Finally, the presence of a “define your own skills” mechanic in a game with at least one self-described stat choice makes this game system more responsive to character concept than just about anything else I’ve seen. That also skirts close to being an innovation – close enough to warrant mentioning, anyway.

    Self-Defined Skill Choices

    I want to quote a couple of the rules above as the starting point of this subsection:

    Skills are defined by their name. Skill names may be interpreted in any one of three different ways: (1) as a profession, encompassing everything that the practice of that profession uniquely demands; (2) as an action, in which case the name must be, or must contain, a verb; or (3) as a field of expertise, i.e. knowledge, which incorporates practical knowledge at one rank lower unless a character also has the appropriate practical skill.

    As a rule of thumb, no one skill should encompass everything that the character does with the user-defined stat.

    I thought it might be helpful to discuss example skills that reflect each of these rules.

    “Blacksmith” or “Blacksmithing” is clearly a profession, and is a perfectly satisfactory skill for anyone but a Blacksmith. If the character has listed “Blacksmith” as his sixth stat, he can’t have a skill of the same name – and no single skill is precise enough to distinguish his capabilities within his field. The best approach is to list all the sub-skills that a blacksmith might have – “Blacksmith: Design”, “Blacksmith: Metal Purification”, “Blacksmith: Metal Casting”, “Blacksmith: Metal Fabrication”, “Blacksmith: Horseshoeing”. “Blacksmith: Repair Metal Object”, “Blacksmith: Accountancy”, and so on. Then delete the word “Blacksmith”, if necessary, rearranging the sequence of words to make more sense; thus, this list becomes “Design, Metal Purification, Casting (Metal), Fabricate (Metal), Horseshoeing, Repair Metal Object, Accountancy,” etc. This breaks the profession down into its essential skills list, things that the character should reasonably expect to have at least one rank in. Another valid choice would be “Blacksmithing: History” which would become two skills, “History (Blacksmithing Tools & Techniques)” and “History (Blacksmithing Styles)” – though I would personally recommend to the player that “Metalwork Styles” might be a better definition, simply because it becomes clearer what the skill encompasses.

    The above paragraph also contains examples of all three skill-name interpretations:

    – “Accountancy” (or perhaps “Bookkeeping”) is a profession.
    – Casting (Metal), Fabricate (Metal), and Repair Metal Object are clearly examples of actions, each containing a verb – casting, fabricate, and repair, respectively.
    – The two history skills are clearly defined as Knowledge skills.

    It’s generally fairly straightforward. But there can be traps for the unwary – and I’ve just demonstrated one of them without most people even noticing.

    “Accountancy” can also be considered an area of Knowledge, with both a theoretical branch and a practical branch. Simply taking “Accountancy” means that the character has studied the theory and law of accountancy, which implies the practical skill of “Applied Accountancy” at a rank one lower – unless the character buys it explicitly.

    What the character really wanted was that practical skill – perhaps better described as Bookkeeping. All of the above still applies, but this time, the theory of bookkeeping – why it works – is inherently relevant; you can’t perform it by rote without slowly absorbing and understanding the principles behind it, at least in its basic and most common forms.

    This shows both the subtleties and complexities with which the GM must grapple, but it only has to happen once, during character generation. The speed in play, responsiveness, and flexibility of the game system makes it a price worth paying.

    Spells, Powers, and Abilities

    Line of thought #1:

    When you attack with a weapon, there’s a skill roll to see if you connect and a game mechanic for determining the damage that you do. The critical requirement is the use of a piece of equipment, to wit, a weapon.

    When you attack with your bare hands, there’s a skill roll to see if you connect and a game mechanic for determining the damage that you do. If you do not have an appropriate combat skill, everything remains the same, but you lose some dice from the die pool.

    When you attack with a spell or an ability, it works exactly the same way. So why not list spells and abilities as skills, the same as either a bare-hands or weapon usage skill?

    Line of thought #2:

    When you attempt to force open a door (for example), you make a roll with a die pool in an attempt to reach a target number that has been set by the GM. The number of dice in that pool derive from the Stat (probably STR, possibly the self-defined stat) that you are using and the Purpose with which you are using it (probably Attack). The size of that die pool is modified by any relevant skill you might have (or the absence thereof). You may also get some additional dice in the pool from a crowbar or other tool (see equipment, below).

    When you attempt to force open a door using Telekinesis, you make a roll with a die pool in an attempt to reach the target number that has been set by the GM. The number of dice in that pool derive from the Stat (probably “Psionic” in the 6th slot) and the Purpose with which you are using it (probably Attack). Instead of additional dice from equipment, you get additional dice from having a genuine skill called Telekinesis. Sound familiar?

    When you attempt the same trick using a Telekinesis spell, the only real difference is that your stat is probably “Spellcasting” or “Magic” or some-such, still in the sixth user-defined slot. That’s the only difference.

    Those lines of thought explain how powers and abilities of all types are implemented within the game system. If the game mechanisms are the same, why should such abilities be handled any differently by the system?

    Similarities and Differences between Spells, Powers, and Abilities

    Is a Beam Of Light, defined as a “Blinding light so bright that it can cause unconsciousness” the same thing as a Stun Ray, defined as an “Energy beam that causes unconsciousness”?

    The game mechanics are exactly the same, but that doesn’t make the two abilities the same. Your target might have a force field that prevents stunning attacks and other physical harm. That would stop the Stun Ray but not the Blinding Light. At the same time, the target might have a smoke grenade (or equivalent), which would interfere with the Blinding Light – but have no discernible effect on a Stun Ray.

    Image by Stefan Keller from Pixabay

    When it comes to the use of powers, spells, and special abilities, the GM has to determine what happens, guided by – in sequence – the name and narrative description; the game mechanics description; and the basic game mechanics.

    That gives an extraordinary capacity for uniqueness to the system. I expect players to initially simply copy the vernacular and descriptions from some other game system with which they are familiar, but that won’t last.

    The Effect of Spell Diversity

    It may be pointing out the obvious, but there is a reasonable correlation between “skill” in a spell and it’s effectiveness. Having more ranks means that more difficult tasks or targeting can be undertaken, and also means that more ranks can be diverted to enhanced levels of effect without compromising the ability to use the spell.

    The typical D&D Mage gains access to an average of 39 spells every 2 levels – call it 20 spells a level – and that’s not counting the 19 cantrips (3.x). It’s rare for a mage to actually acquire anywhere near that many – my experience suggests that at high levels, a mage might know up to 75% of the available spells, at mid-level, that’s more like 50% (and there are fewer spell levels to which the mage has access), and at lower levels, 30% is doing well, and 25% is more common.

    Let’s divide the spells, including the cantrips into three groups: 0th to 3rd level, 4th to 6th level, and 7th to 9th level. That gives us 150, 127, and 94, respectively, in terms of availability. Applying the percentage estimates gives:

    Low Level: 25% of 150 = 38
    Mid Level: 50% of 150 = 75; 25% of 127 = 32; total 107, increase from low-level of 107-38=69.
    High Level: 75% of 150 = 113; 50% of 127 = 64; 25% of 94 = 24; total 201, increase from mid-level of 94.

    Let’s further assume that half these spells are just improved versions of spells the character already has access to, conflating these similar spells. That gives 19, 53, and 101 spells, respectively.

    At one rank in each, under the sixes game system, that’s 19 skill points, 53 skill points, and 101 skill points. Typically a beginning character, even an exceptional one, will have about 30-50 character construction points to spend on skills and equipment; 19 chews up a considerable number of those. By mid-level, you might have a dozen adventures under your belt, earning an average of perhaps 7 construction points each – that’s 84 in total, under estimates that are fairly generous. From that 84, some will have been spent improving stats, some will definitely have been spent improving non-spell skills, and some will have been invested in improved skill in the spells the character already knows. That doesn’t leave a lot – perhaps 20 – to cover the 69 needed for additional spells. The gap only gets bigger with high-level characters.

    And that’s only pushing the existing spells by a couple of ranks, nowhere near the six maximum permitted by the rules.

    Too few points, too many things to spend them on – that’s a recipe for individuality.

    There’s a feedback loop: things that the character finds useful, he will sink points into. The more points that have been invested in something, the more flexible and useful it becomes. The more flexible and powerful an ability is, the more it will be a first resort – in other words, the more the character will find that ability to be useful. You can start with 10 identical characters and each will find his own M.O. and improve different things by different degrees. Some may diversify, becoming a jack-of-many-trades; others will narrow their focus and become experts in a narrower field. This is especially true if they are adventuring together, because the next character over already has the specialist skills needed to handle certain problems; this character will automatically get “more bang for his buck” by focusing his efforts elsewhere.

    None of this is accidental.

3.1 Effectiveness Levels

As a rule of thumb, each spell or ability rank will translate into a d6 of effectiveness or less. So a knife or a sword will cost 1 point, a great-sword having 2 dice of effect will cost 2 points, a large-caliber pistol having 3 dice of effect will cost 3 points, a large-caliber rifle will have 4 dice of effect and cost 4 points, 5 points gets you a grenade, and 6 gets you a ww2 mortar shell, several sticks of dynamite, etc. 7 would be a world-war-two bomb with several hundred pounds of high explosive, 8 would be a small a-bomb, 9 gets you a thermonuke, and 10 would be a doomsday weapon. That’s all on the personal scale, the effect on the individual; vehicles handle things differently, and so do starships. Of course, since 1 rank costs 1 point once the initial purchase to 0 ranks has been made, these translate directly into ranks in a skill. The biggest thing that’s man-portable here is the mortar, and that’s only because we’ve developed shoulder-mounted missiles that do equivalent damage.

Any of the above can kill you, but the odds go up rapidly with increasing ranks of effect. Still, most things are survivable (under the right conditions) until you get to the 6-ranks level – then, the only survival option is to be elsewhere or prevent it going off somehow.

This same scale is intended to apply to everything (again, talking at a character level). If you’re using TK, then 1 rank gets you “enough TK to have 1 dice of effect under normal conditions and circumstances”, two ranks gets you 2 dice of effect, and so on.

Range is another factor. 1 rank is close-quarters, 2 ranks is arm’s reach, 3 ranks is maybe 100 meters (use feet if you’re more familiar with them even though 100 feet is nothing like 100 meters), 4 ranks is perhaps 1500m (or feet), 5 ranks and you’re measuring in kilometers or miles, and on up from there.

Except that increasing the range for the base level of a power, or increasing the ranks of effect for that matter, sucks ranks out of the skill base. A base level with 2 dice of effect and 3 ranks of range – a sniper rifle, say, without enhanced sights – extracts an additional 1 rank and 2 ranks, respectively, for a total of 3. This “penalty” is added to the cost of rank 0 in the ability – so rank 0 now costs 3 skill points, rank 1 costs 1 more skill point, and so on.

If and when advancement means that the six-rank limit is violated, this cost is also added to the price of each additional rank, and it may be necessary (it usually will be) to get GM approval.

To continue the sniper rifle-equivalent example, once the character has purchased 3 ranks in the “skill”, he is theoretically at the 6-rank limit. However, he still does not have 6 ranks in the “skill” itself, which is the hard limit – so he can continue to improve it. Each increase in rank will now cost +3 points, however – so rank 4 costs 4 points, and so will ranks 5 and 6.

Instead of 7 points to reach rank 6, this ability would cost 16 points – more than double.

I tried putting this in game mechanics with the rest of the skills rules; it was just confusing. So I decided to violate my own post architecture and put the commentary/explanation first, foregoing the rule. In the standalone rules compilation, the above will be translated into game rules.

4. Equipment

The possession of any skill implies access to the normal equipment required. That means that very few rules are required to handle equipment.
 

  1. Most equipment simple adds or subtracts ranks from a skill that uses the equipment.
    • Superior equipment/tools add +2 to +4 ranks. NB: +3 and +4 are only available through “extra-normal” means).
    • Good equipment/tools add +1 rank.
    • Standard equipment adds 0 ranks and is presumed to have been acquired in the course of gaining the skill that uses it. This presumption means that it doesn’t have to be listed – but there are exceptions discussed in 4.1 through 4.7, below.
    • Poor equipment/tools costs -1 rank.
    • Substandard equipment costs -2 ranks.
    • Inferior or Improvised Equipment costs -3 ranks.
    • Cursed Equipment costs -4 ranks and is only available through “extra-normal” means.
  2. Poor equipment cannot reduce skill ranks below 1 if the character has 1 or more ranks in the skill.
  3. Good equipment cannot increase skill ranks higher than 6 except through GM permission and exceptional circumstances. However, unused ranks can be taken into account by the GM in setting target numbers or to otherwise offset penalties that might apply; this is a circumstantial factor for the GM to take into account.
  4. Good equipment cannot compensate for a handicap to anything better than a hobbyist standard of ability (0 ranks). Unused equipment ranks cannot be used to offset penalties elsewhere. Having better equipment than skill and training warrant is useful up to a point, but after a while it becomes sheer affectation.
  5. “Extra-normal” equipment may violate the above restrictions at the GM’s discretion. Such equipment should always be central to the immediate plot.
  6. If the character doesn’t have the equipment that is normally assumed to come with a skill, in addition to any other penalties accruing through the rules, the GM can reduce the primary die pool of the character by 2 for any rule requiring that equipment.
  7. Some equipment is “demanding” in that it can only be used at less than its potential if you do not meet the required skill minimum. An unskilled driver can essentially learn to drive a formula-1 car at a fraction of its capabilities (it may take them a dozen attempts to actually get it moving without stalling, however). Only if you have the minimum skill level that the vehicle requires can you even get close to it’s limits. Similarly, certain weapons are “demanding”, sacrificing accuracy for power – until you become sufficiently skilled in their use. Each rank in skill required equals one rank of “demanding”.
  8. “Demanding” equipment may also require a specific Stat to have a value greater than 10 for the effective use of the equipment. Each +1 to the Stat minimum over 10 is one rank of “demanding”.
  9. “Demanding” equipment may also require the character to have a skill in using this specific piece of equipment rather than a more general skill. This is worth a single point in “demanding”.
  10. “Demanding” ranks can be used to offset additional base effect limits. This increases the rank at which the increase in cost takes effect, but does NOT alter the amount of the increase. See 3.1 above.
  11. The cost of equipment equals the number of ranks of benefit that it provides, plus any extra ranks required to meet the base description (refer 3.1) in either range or level of effect, less any unused ranks in “demanding”.
4.1 Magical Gear

Any equipment or tools can be designated “magical”, explicitly “stating” how the benefit is achieved, and that wards and protections against magic are effective against this particular equipment. Magical equipment may bypass some ‘mundane’ protections or reduce their effectiveness.

Magical equipment can contain one or more spells. The maximum rank in beneficial or nominally advantageous spells that can be contained is equal to the ranks that the equipment confers. The base cost of a spell is the number of ranks in the spell, plus one.

  1. If the spell is self-recharging, +1 point.
  2. If the spell can be replaced with a different spell by the user (Variable spell), +1 point.
  3. If the character is required to know the spell, -1 point.
  4. If the spell is triggered automatically or at will, +2 points. If it requires a spoken command word or a gesture, +1 point. If it has a more complex activation procedure that will take a character’s full turn, +0 points.
  5. If the item already has a spell incorporated that is not to be replaced by this spell: +1 per additional spell.
  6. If the spell can be used an unlimited number of times per day, +3 points. If it is restricted to the number of ranks conferred by the equipment per day, +2 points. If it can be cast only once per day, +1 point. If it can only be used once in a longer period or once only, and is not self-recharging, -1. Anything else: +0.

For example, as explained in 3.1 above, a standard broadsword costs 0 points but would only have 1 rank of effect. To fully meet the description of the item, it must have an additional rank in range (to arm’s length) and an additional level of effect, a total of two ranks of improvement. Thus, the cost of a non-magical broadsword is Quality+2 points.

It’s not reasonable to impose a STR minimum or DEX minimum in excess of 10, and the character might not have DEX anyway – this is a common weapon in its era and genre. So there can be no reasonable “difficult” modifier for stats.

This ubiquitousness also restricts the other major form of “demanding” on offer – a skill minimum – as the GM makes clear that he won’t accept a rank requirement of more than 1 to use the weapon. That’s “Demanding -1”, though, which is better than nothing, and reduces the cost to Quality+1 point.

The third avenue of “demanding” would mandate a named piece of equipment and a specific skill in using this equipment rather than the general “broadsword” or even more general “melee combat”.

Since the character intends this to be a magical weapon, this is tempting, but it would also restrict his options if this weapon was unavailable for some reason. The situation is closely-enough balanced that some players would choose the additional rank of “demanding” and the lower cost, while others would not.

For the sake of the example, we will say no, and keep the price to Quality+1. Next, the character chooses the quality of item; since this is not D&D, in which magical swords are next to unbreakable, the character decides to limit his risk and go for quality +2 ranks, a total cost of 3.

This brings the total ranks of the sword to 3 – the base 1 and the +2. So the sword, being Magical, can contain spells totaling three ranks. The character decides to choose one rank 2 ability and one rank 1. For the rank 2 ability, he chooses “Heal, command word, self-recharging, 3 times per day, self only.” For the rank 1 ability, he chooses “Mend, automatically activated, self-recharging, 3 times per day, self (magical broadsword) only.”

Heal: Rank 2=2+1=3 points; command word=+1; self-recharging=+1; 3 times per day=+2; total cost = 7.

Mend: Rank 1=1+1=2 points; automatic activation (damage to weapon (self))=+2; self-recharging=+1; 3 times per day=+2; one spell already in the item=+1; total cost = 8.

This leaves only the “self only” restriction, which is not listed above on the standard list of price modifiers. The player tries to convince the GM that it’s worth a -2, but the GM stands firm and lists it as a -1 cost modifier. However, he offers the player a deal: if the one set of activations covers both spells, he’ll consider that worth another -1 each. This would mean that the sword can heal itself or its wielder, once per day, and – given the activation methods, the sword will take care of itself first and it’s wielder as an afterthought. While the player dislikes the restriction from a purely tactical perspective, he likes the amount of character it gives the weapon. So he accepts the devil’s bargain offered by the GM, but tries to argue that this restriction should be worth -2 points instead of -1. The GM listens, then again offers a compromise bargain: -2 to the Heal spell, because it might not be available at all if the weapon is badly damaged. Expecting the GM to again stand firm, the player accepts the offer. That gives him a 3-point reduction in the cost of the Heal spell, and a 2-point reduction in the cost of the Mend spell, for 4 and 6 points, respectively.

The final description of the sword now reads:

3 Broadsword, magical +2 skill, 2 effect, range: arms reach, difficult: 1 rank rqd.
    4 Heal, 2 ranks, command word, self-recharging, 3 times per day*, wielder only.
    6 Mend, 1 rank, automatic, self-recharging, 3 times per day*, self only.
        * activation limit covers both spells

    ‘Molthar’ is a typical broadsword with red-leather handle and round guard. If it is damaged, the pieces will fly back together and the sword reform. It can also be ordered to heal it’s wielder. ‘Molthar’ looks after itself first and its’ wielder second, and has the personality of a crotchety old man, reluctant to get up in the mornings, needing to take naps regularly, and bone lazy the rest of the time. [Character name] needs to talk to it for at least a round before it is willing to ‘get with the program’ at such times. He also imagines that ‘Molthar’ talks back to him in his head if he speaks aloud, maintaining a running commentary on his owner’s faults, the current situation, and his opinions in general, and won’t listen to anyone who tells him otherwise.

The GM chides the player on being overly fulsome in his narrative description – easily twice the three hand-written lines allowed – but approves the weapon for use.

4.2 Hi-tech & Sci-Fi Stuff

In terms of game mechanics, this works exactly the same as Magical Gear. What it can do is sometimes a little more nebulous; the GM should continually revise his estimates of what a “Gadget” can do based on the needs of the plot, the player’s ingenuity in using what he’s got, and the cost paid. Many things will function “at the speed of plot” and in accordance with the “rule of cool” – within reasonable limits.

Image by Iván Támáís from Pixabay, crop by Mike

4.3 Vehicles

Dice of effect in vehicles can be used in five ways (not all simultaneously, thank goodness!); Speed, Acceleration (to top speed), Handling, Load, and Stopping. Each of these has 1 base rank at no cost. Specifications can impose modifiers to these actions; increasing one costs 1 point, decreasing one costs -1 point. In addition, each vehicle has “controllable effect” which is purchased like any other ranks of effect in other gadgets; this can be applied to any ONE of these four criteria at any one time. The rest are maintained at the base levels. “Load” represents the vehicle’s ability to carry a load.

Weapons and Armor are “extras”, that is, they start at 0, but they are common add-ons. In addition, the vehicle designer must spend points according to the top speed of the vehicle.

When operating a vehicle, in most cases, the GM will focus on navigation, or the environment through which travel is taking place, or simply hand-wave the entire journey. Most vehicles will operate at the speed of plot, within reason. But there may be times when more substantial determinations are required.

If the character decides to act principally on the current Speed of the vehicle that means that his priority is maintaining the current speed and operating the vehicle in a safe manner. The “controllable effect” ranks are applied as extra dice to the relevant driving skill, as is the modified base ranking in the four ‘stats’. The GM sets a target as usual (still to be covered) and if the character beats it, he can increase or decrease the speed as he sees fit; the GM interprets the results to decide how much or how little the speed changes. He then compares the Base Speed given above with the other functions and if they are going to be needed in the ensuing Round. If they are, he notes the difference in base levels and recalculates the success without the difference in the best and worst die results, in that order, against the same target.

I appreciate that’s not terribly clear, so let me clarify with a theoretical example or two.

Let’s say that a vehicle has speed 2, acceleration 1, stopping -1, handling -1, and load 2. It has three ‘controllable effect’ dice as well. From the Stat and Purpose, the character gets 8 dice, and from his ‘driving’ skill, 2 more.

The vehicle is proceeding at high speed, weaving in and out of traffic. The Character has to make a driving roll not to get cut off and be forced to slow down, so his focus is on speed. That adds 2 more base dice and three controllable effect dice, for a total of 15.

The car is big and doesn’t handle very well, and the conditions are clear; the GM sets a target of 39 and because of the heavy traffic, requires 3 sixes. The character rolls 6, 6, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, a total of 44. What’s more (despite appearances), the character has achieved his target number of sixes – two of them directly, and the third by compounding the three fives and both fours. So he has succeeded in keeping his speed up.

However, he’s weaving in and out of traffic, which the GM feels will require a handling check. Disregarding the three effect dice and 2 speed dice gives 5 dice off. The -1 to handling removes a sixth. Alternating between the high and low ends, starting with the high, the dice previously rolled are excluded – that’s the 6, a 1, the second six, the second 1, a five, and a third one, and leaves 5, 5, 4, 4, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, for a total of 29. Fortunately, the number of sixes requirement doesn’t stand, but the character is 10 points short of the target, so he has hit something in the course of his maneuvering. Since this hasn’t cost speed, it’s not a stationary object; it’s most likely that cars have been hit and possibly spun around.

The GM decides that two cars and another object have been struck in one major collision and two smaller ones, doing (respectively) 6, 3, and 1 dice of effect to the PC’s car. Using random rolls without a table and proceeding by instinct, he announces that one car has been spun around, damaging the handling of the car still further, a second hit has taken off the bumper and forced another car to brake suddenly to avoid hitting it, causing a possible pile-up; and the minor collision is rear-ending a police car, damaging the radiator and possibly the engine.

Having split up the dice of effect, the GM rolls for each of the impacts and determines the damage done to the vehicle being pushed way beyond its safe limits, given the conditions.. He’s clearly thinking Smokey And The Bandit or the car chase scene from The Blues Brothers. But going any further is beyond the scope of this example.

Compare that with the outcome with the same rolls but in a sports car:

The vehicle has speed 3, acceleration 2, stopping 1, handling 2, and load -3. It has three ‘controllable effect’ dice as well. From the Stat and Purpose, the character gets 8 dice, and from his ‘driving’ skill, 2 more.

The driver makes Speed the focus of his action, as before. That adds 3 more base dice and three controllable effect dice, for a total of 16 (one more).

The car is small and nimble and conditions are good; the GM sets a target of 39 and because of the heavy traffic, requires 3 sixes. The character rolls 6, 6, 6, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, a total of 50 – and three sixes outright. So he has succeeded in keeping his speed up.

To the handling check: Disregarding the three effect dice and 3 speed dice gives 6 dice off. Handling 2 puts two of them back, a net loss of 4 dice. Alternating between the high and low ends, starting with the high, the dice previously rolled are excluded – that’s the 6, a 1, the second six, and the second 1, leaving 6, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, for a total of 41, two better than the target.

This is what this type of car is built for! It dodges in and out of tiny little holes in the traffic like they were custom-fitted.

Environment
The GM may add additional costs to reflect unusual operating environments.
Surface only = 0 points; submersible or in the air = 1 point, submarines and extreme altitude aircraft (above 35000 feet/ 6.6 miles / 10.7 km high i.e. above the cruising altitude of a 747) = 2 points, near-earth = 3 points, permanently submerged = 3 points, local planets = 4 points, and so on.

The presumption is that these are traversible in a “reasonable” time-frame, but “reasonable” is in inverted commas for a reason. A “reasonable” trip to the outer planets takes years. If the vehicle can go faster than that, the GM should increase the cost. Each additional point should increase the speed at least 5-fold (except the first, which is only 3-fold), so we’re talking about a significant increase in pace.

Automobiles
Example: Ordinary Cars in the 50s typically maxed out somewhere in the vicinity of 100mph (161 km/h). If that’s our baseline, then +1 points would get a car that operated at between 100mph and 300mph (formula one cars and elite racing motorbikes). +2 points gets us into the territory world land speed record attempts (1500mph – almost Mach 2). +3 points takes us way beyond the known limits of mechanical systems (4500mph, Mach 9.855), +4 points takes us beyond even that. The current world land speed record is 763.035 mph, to put these speeds into context.

But in the 2020s, you can get ‘production’ sports cars that rival formula one cars, and a standard production car costing around $20,000 US new will get closer to 160mph (about 260km/h) at top speed. Reflecting the limits of mechanical systems and the efforts of rule-makers to contain burgeoning speeds (and safety risks), formula 1 cars aren’t going much faster in a straight line, but go around corners enormously faster than they could in the 50s. The net effect, according to one set of calculations, is that the 1955 cars were only 10% as fast as the 2017 cars, and they have only gotten faster since. Part of that increase is the result of building down to the race limits – f1 cars at one point were designed to last for two hours or 300 km, whichever came first! – and then had to be completely rebuilt. Recent changes to the rules have forced many key components to last for multiple races and qualifying and practice sessions, by limiting the number of units that can be used in the course of a season, so this is only partially true these days.

Aircraft
These speeds are also not that far out of the ballpark for propeller-driven aircraft, which have a maximum service ceiling somewhere in the vicinity of 60,000 feet. In 1912, the 100mph limit was broken for the first time; in 1918, the record was raised to 163 mph, and a year later, to 191.1. Neither of those last two records are officially recognized though; so for that we have to wait until 1920, when the record officially goes up to 191.9. The 200mph mark is broken in 1921, the 300mph mark in 1928, and the 400mph mark in 1931. The record for a propeller driven aircraft was raised a number of times through the years that followed until a new mark was set in 1939 of 469.220mph – and then the jets took over. It would not be until 1960, more than 20 years later, that this achievement would be bettered in a propeller-driven aircraft – 541.45 mph in level, controlled flight.

Let’s put those numbers in perspective: cruising speed for a modern aircraft is likely to be around the 250-300mph mark. +1 points covers all propeller-driven aircraft. It also covers all 747s and similar aircraft. To go supersonic is +2 points, and covers all aircraft up to about Mach 5. Faster than this are Hypersonic aircraft, like the Lockheed X-17. All told, and not counting Spaceplanes, there are 8 hypersonic aircraft models, and 19 more in development. These cost 3 points. Four points would cover everything from Mach 25 to Mach 125 – speeds at which Mach numbers are actually irrelevant. That’s fairly close to the highest speed ever achieved by a manned earth vehicle – Apollo 10 when it orbited the moon.

Spacecraft
But you wouldn’t use those speeds for space vehicles. The baseline here is probably the Atlas rockets used by project Gemini – 6,700 mph – though it’s more normal to use speeds per second and kilometers which gives a nice, neat 3. +1 points gets you triple that, or about 9 kps, or 20,000mph. +2 points is 45 kps, or 100,000 mph. +3 points is 225 kps or 500,000 mph – or 0.075% of the speed of light.

Starships
Starships and other interstellar craft therefore require a new scale: let’s pick 1C for the baseline. 1 point gets us 3C; 2 points gets us 15C; 3 points is 75C; 4 points is 375C; and 5 points is 1875C.

Again, we need to put those numbers into perspective. Alpha Centauri is 4.1 light years away. To get there, and ignoring the need to accelerate and decelerate, 3C is almost exactly 500 days. 15C is therefore 100 days; 75C is 20 days; and 375C is 4 days. 1875C is a little over 19 hours. 36 days is how long it took Christopher Columbus to reach the Bahamas in 1492. That time-span comfortably in the 3-point range.

Sailing Ships
For sailing ships, it’s probably more reasonable to pick a top speed and work backwards. We aren’t talking about modern liners or warships here; these are olde-time vessels of canvas and wood and the occasional nail. Let’s say that the fastest modern racing yacht is a 5-point affair and see where it gets us, working backwards.

According to Google, In November 2012, the Vestas Sailrocket 2 was clocked at an astonishing 59.23 knots (68.1mph), smashing the previous Speed Sailing record by 4.1mph. Six days later, and it broke the record again, clocking 65.45 knots. Let’s assume that this is not the absolute limit, but it’s getting close to it, and set an absolute limit of 75 knots. One glance at the opening paragraph of the Starships section tells the story: Like most of the other land vehicles, we have a 3-point scale, and 3 points gets you speeds up to 75 knots. 2 points therefore gets you speeds of from 3 to 15 knots. This comfortably encompasses 17th century sailing ships (4-6 knots) all the way through to modern container ships (12 knots). It’s quite possibly too broad a scale – but the difference (a point or two) isn’t worth fussing about.

Military Warships
Introducing military vessels complicates matters because they vary in size and weight so much. It’s hard to pick a baseline, and one or two points is almost certain to cover everything there is. It’s probably more important to scale their displacement tonnage and assume that the speed costs are all 1 or maybe 2.

But that brings me to weapons.

4.4 Melee Weapons (M)

Melee weapons generally do 1-4 dice of effect. They can have ranges of 1-3 points, as described earlier (see 3.1 and the example earlier). A critical hit in combat will multiply the dice of effect.

4.5 Ranged Weapons (R)

Excluding firearms, you’re looking at 1 dice of effect for everything that’s not a siege engine. Those are up around the 4-5 dice of effect. Maybe even 6 for a really big one.

Accuracy is far more important with ranged weapons; it can be almost impossible to hit the broad side of a barn – if that barn is far enough away, of course!

0-50m = no loss
51-150m = 1 additional six required
151-750m = 2 additional sixes required
750+ m = 3 additional sixes required

(this may not mean much until we get to the combat section, but the “fundamentals” at the top of the post should give you a clue).

4.6 Firearms (F)

Firearms don’t rely on muscle power to launch a projectile; they use a chemical reaction. That gives the relatively low-mass bullet a relatively enormous velocity, at least when it leaves the muzzle; at a range of 500m (assuming your weapon can shoot that far), it will have lost roughly 1/2 it’s velocity, and will be down to 1/4 of it’s kinetic energy. That’s 1/4 of the damage potential. If you fire straight up, you’ll lose energy faster due to the force of gravity – but not a lot faster.

In it’s own way, the rough equality is a godsend, because it means that you can more or less aim for where you want to hit; if there was a significant difference, due to atmospheric density or a different gravity field, the accuracy would vary with the angle of elevation of the weapon, and you would need to make a significantly different correction for targets that were higher than ones that were lower.

The system makes the assumption that all firearms are optimized around a particular maximum range dictated by the ammunition, and that within that range there’s no range effect to worry about. Outside that range, you’ll lose a dice of effect against targets of triple the range of effect; beyond that, you’ll lose two dice of effect, but by this point, accuracy is by far your bigger concern.

0-100m = no loss
101-300m = 1 additional six required
301-1000m = 2 additional sixes required
1001+m = 3 additional sixes required

(Same comments as at the end of the section on ranged weapons).

4.7 Bigger (Heavy) Weapons (H)

The simplest way to construct vehicles in a game system is to construct them as characters and then vary the scales. Instead of referring to how much a character can carry, the STR value now relates to the amount that a vehicle can carry in it’s holds (or in the boot or back tray or whatever’s appropriate).

This system doesn’t go quite that far, but it does state explicitly that different vehicle types have different scales of movement. But that, in turn, implies that there are different scales of weapon – the bottom end of the next scale up being more effective at killing or damaging a target than what’s normal in the previous one, even if that means that you have to cap the previous scale, or have them overlap.

Tanks are great against other tanks and lightly-fortified installations. They aren’t much against heavily-armored warships – though they could probably make a mess of a cargo ship with repeated fire. Tanks will get unprotected people – defined as anyone not in armor or having protection of some sort – very dead very quickly. If we include all forms of artillery in this one scale, the baseline is the WW2 mortar – which has six dice of effect against unprotected humans, but probably won’t do much to a tank except possibly with a direct hit. So that’s what you get for one point. Two points gets into modern artillery, and modern tank weapons. These are designed to kill other tanks and lightly armored installations. I don’t know if they would be enough to take out a heavy bunker from the WW2 era, though. In this category we would also find shoulder-mounted missiles.

Next up, for three dice of effect, we’re into the naval guns on a modern battleship – twenty-inch stuff. A single ship might have three or more of these and be able to lob the shells over the horizon. Four dice is a big bomb, with several hundred pounds of high explosive. Five dice is an air raid of such bombs, up to and including the fire-storming of Dresden in WW2. This is also where the a-bomb can be found. Thermonukes are six dice of effect – from the hundreds of kilotons of explosive or low megatons, all the way through the range to the big ones.

But it’s worth noting that Nuclear weapons have been shrinking for many years. That’s because the value in terms of destruction doesn’t increase in proportion to the force of the explosion when you get to these scales. Not even close, though the actual drop-off is not a settled matter – I’ve seen everything from an inverse-fourth-power relationship to an inverse square-and-a-half relationship put forward. Anything more than about 20 Megatons is considered waste, spending most of the extra making sure that you’ve killed something that’s already dead. Instead, multiple warheads in a single missile is the more frequent design objective these days – break that 100 Megaton weapon up into 5 20-megaton devices and spread them around for five times the pain inflicted.

If spacecraft and satellites weren’t built to the flimsiest possible standard, a Nuke in space wouldn’t be much more than an inconvenience – unless you achieve a direct hit, or close to it. Of the 360×360 degree panorama, the target occupies a minuscule fraction of the sky and therefore receives a minuscule portion of the total harm doled out by the weapons. At least 95% of the fury is likely to just vanish – and that’s for a large and relatively close target. The farther away it is, the more infinitesimal that tiny fraction becomes.

No, effective space combat a-la Star Wars will require a whole new order of weapons, and a 20-megaton thermonuke is very much the bottom end. Plasma Torpedoes and Phaser Banks and what-have-you. And these vessels tend to have defenses to match. Against these weapons, bomb shelters and concrete bunkers will crumble and your best battleship steel is so much tinfoil.

Anything else / In general

Characters should pay what they want a vehicle or other piece of equipment to be worth to them. 1 point is enough to give a character an ability they didn’t have before, 2 points makes it better in one significant respect, 3 points begins to confer flexibility, and so on. If a player decides to spend 4 points on a superior handgun (and it’s genre-acceptable), the GM should determine the specifications of the weapon based on that price and what else the character would have been able to buy for the same points. It doesn’t matter if we’re talking about a hovercraft, or a crate of eels. You get what you pay for..

Designer’s Notes & Discussions: Equipment

    The Innovations

    Describing equipment in terms of the bonus or penalty they confer upon skills when used is nothing new. But the notion of equipment as ‘demanding’ in various ways (as opposed to merely being restricted in usage) is semi-new (directly inspired by the ‘limitations’ in the Hero Games system, and using that to create and express a personality is definitely newish. The multiple-scale approach to defining equipment is something that I haven’t seen before.

    Equipment Descriptions

    Descriptions should concentrate on putting everything that the game system “needs to know” on one line. Most equipment requires no further explanation than the name, possibly preceded by the quality – “Superior Lockpicks”, “Good Handcuffs”, “Magical Ring”, and so on. Narrative descriptions should focus on the effects (if any) but may note anything unusual about the item. Where possible, this should be placed on the same line.

        3 Superior Lockpicks +2 – smaller, lighter, and more easily hidden than usual

    is a perfectly satisfactory description.

    Note that the description does NOT restrict the bonus to lock-picking; while there may not be many skills with which a set of lockpicks can be used, there are other pieces of equipment that are more flexible.

    Vehicle Descriptions

    Vehicles often require more lines of description. One for the make, model, color, and interior color/decor, and any identifying number that is externally visible or can be interrogated; one spelling out the dice of effect and other mechanics details; one giving the vehicle a personality; and one reserved for recording any damage that needs repairing. Players will often add a fifth, providing additional description.

    Weapons Descriptions

    Weapons need one line of specifics (Maximum Range should be noted, ammunition (if any), clip size (if relevant), and so on.) and may have a second line of description. It is often useful to append the range modifiers relevant to the weapon. Additional line(s) may be required for any spells, extra abilities, and add-ons that have been incorporated. I gave an example of a Magic Broadsword earlier; other, non-magical add-ons can be incorporated the same way and within the same rules. For example, a +44 magnum may be bought with “Intimidation +1” as an add-on. One point that should have been made earlier is the weapons code – this was shown in sections 4.4-4.7 in brackets – M, R, F, H – which is a shorthand reminder to the GM of the applicable rules. It may also be necessary to state the scale of the weapon – so H-Artillery or H-warship or H-sailing ship or H-starship or whatever

    Not all weapons need a narrative description. But exceptional weapons and any that have been customized or modified from standard should have those alterations explicitly stated.

It may be observed that these rules still haven’t told you how all this is actually used in play, not completely, anyway. That’s the agenda for Part 3, “Doing Simple Things”.



Discover more from Campaign Mastery

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.