When it comes to TNP, there are two (at least) fairly distinct subsystems at play in the mechanics. The 'attributes' in the game are expressly only used for skill math; if you compare this with basically any version of D&D, the ability scores (and/or derived modifiers) are used for both skills and for combat applications. TNP combat mechanics are their own separate thing, although dice mechanics (such as mastery and advantage/disadvantage) are shared with the skill mechanics.
In a recent discussion, I had suggested that the TNP skill system could be taken out and wholesale bolted onto pre-existing combat systems (assuming that those lack an 'attribute' system of their own, otherwise it might get slightly clunky.) Sure, you'd need an understanding of how the aforementioned dice mechanics work (as well as skill rank mechanics) but there's nothing about the TNP combat system tying itself back into the skill mechanics.
What this reminded me of was 13th Age; some of the criticisms/observations about the system were how it built onto the standard "d20 system"-type of chassis, in sort of a "plug & play" manner. (I'll be explaining the mechanics from memory of what I read years ago, so please forgive me if I get any details wrong.) The background system was meant to replace much of the skills system, whereby you could have something like a +8 to split among two backgrounds; if you could reason that your background would apply to a skill check, you would add that background's bonus. I remember most people went with the +5/+3 split, and the assumption was that this would be added to an applicable ability score modifier. That's when people sort of realized, "we can just unbolt this mechanic from 13th Age, and bolt it onto any system we like [particularly if it had the same standard 6 ability scores.]"
Likewise, your "one unique thing" was meant to be mechanically agnostic -- so, take that idea and add it onto your cyberpunk dystopian RPG if that suits your tastes. Even the icon relationship system (albeit the icons were specific to the setting) was a mechanic that had its own resource pool (such as it was) and had no real connection into any other numbers on your character sheet. You could (and people did) homebrew their own icons, so bolting this mechanic onto pre-existing pantheons was the next logical conclusion that people came to. By contrast, I've seen examples, such as in Blades in the Dark, where party members' mechanics are meant to have small tie-ins to "crew" mechanics or "home-turf" mechanics -- all of which seem designed to tighten the seams, and make the whole system one unit.
To bring the conversation back around, it ultimately points to the question of whether unified mechanics or purpose-built mechanics are the best fit, for any given system. As is often said on Forgotten Weapons, the answer to "what kind of gun should I get?" tends to be "it depends what you want to use it for."
If you look at a system like 5th Edition D&D, the mechanics always fall back onto ability scores, by and large; roll a d20, determine whether none/half/all/double your proficiency bonus applies, prescribe one of the 6 ability modifiers... That's basically every action in the game, in or out of combat. Likewise, Apocalypse World (or any derivative thereof) basically runs off the engine of 2d6+stat. Oddly enough, I'd say D&D is a good system for combat but bad for non-combat, just as much as I would say that Apoc World is a good system outside of combat but bad when it's used in combat. In either case, the selling point is the universality of the mechanic -- regardless of whether the mechanic is really suited to the task.
When we look at "d20" TNP, there's a very clear divide between the (d20-based) combat system and the (d10-based) skill system. Although they share certain things in common mechanically, there's nothing connecting them together. Indeed, early on in the design process, I made the decision to exclude "class dice" mechanics from anything having to do with skills, in order to keep the math more simple. By contrast, the entirety of the combat system is purposefully built around all of the mechanics being derived from class dice. If you can bolt the TNP skills "grid" onto another game (or create a grid of your own) there's nothing stopping you from using this mechanic, without the TNP combat system. Likewise, I think you could also take a combat system (at least with a comparable variety of monster types) and use it with TNP's card mechanic for random campaign generation. How the monsters actually function has no relation to which cards you deal out. This is also why it might be possible to bolt this system wholesale onto the "d6 TNP sequel."
That is kind of the point of the sequel mechanics (among a handful of other things I could point to.) The general idea of "ability scores, done right" as a guiding principle of the designs was to integrate the math into both combat and non-combat applications, and have it all make sense. If executed properly, this has the potential to more successfully fuse those two halves of the game engine together; part of the motivation is to make it so that the system can't be broken down and stripped for parts -- as in the examples with 13th Age. The other reason is the goal of creating an elegant system, that executes on the simplicity implied in the 5e or Apoc World mechanics -- but which hopefully works well for both combat and non-combat. Ultimately, that should always be the goal when building a system off of the "unified mechanic" paradigm.
This sort of highlights the conundrum of 13th Age; if the TNP skill system and combat system don't really interact with each other, what's stopping anyone from taking either of those halves and bolting it onto a system they already use/are familiar with/enjoy? As a designer, the challenge when not making a unified mechanical system is to design things in such a way that "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts." Essentially, having a purpose-built combat system and a purpose-built non-combat system should synergize in a way that makes the overall experience better -- but it does make it difficult to argue that "this thing can only exist with this other thing," if/when there's nothing substantive tying them together.
...
Nearing the end of blogging season! Apologies for the delay in getting this 2nd post out.
I'll look to get one more post out to wrap up the year, either on November 29th or 30th.
No comments:
Post a Comment