Your Favorite Modern Mechanics

[Desertpuma]

I agree with most of what Sletchman and some others have said about the Gear selection process. The idea of bundles plus budget and gadget points was always a solid one.

Action Dice is just too loaded in win.

Something out of the game Top Secret was their Companion book which briefly discussed repercussions, revenge, and the enemy coming after agents who had attacked them ... like Blofeld going after Bond at the end of On Her Majesty's Secret Service or Jeremy Irons character in Die Hard III. Sometimes missions have consequences beyond the mission. I always valued that highly.

Mechanic wise, the Storyteller system from White Wolf was the first and others have copies it but Merits/Advantages and Flaws/Complications/Disadvantages. Additionally, in the original Marvel SAGA system (the one with the cards), everyone had a Calling, a reason why they were a hero, and Mathey's idea of Drives for characters is an outstanding one that needs to be continued.

I'll come up with more later on...

[MugMug]

Again, we're not looking for things you dislike or things you want to see in this thread. This is strictly for stuff you dig and why. Nothing more, nothing less. Thanks!

But what if we dug something, and want to dig it even more in a new and improved version?

Loved the minion / henchman / mastermind classification in Spycraft 2.0. It was brilliant, inspired, and a bunch of other superlatives… and cinematic in concept.

However, I don't think you took minions far enough. These are 'easy kill mooks and other supporting characters' (Spycraft 2.0, pg 331). I want to know as little about them as possible, and track nothing except how many are still standing.

Know Little
I was going to say minions had too many stats, but on a closer look there isn't much I'd cut. Any simplicity gains from cutting would be more than offset by too much deviation from other NPCs. Mostly what I was remembering as a problem was poor GC discipline in NPC creation (including myself). This can be partially alleviated by a better discussion in the rules as to what it means to be a minion, as the next paragraph suggests.

I like the Type and Mobility sections of the Fantasycraft NPC rules, and would use them here. Type would be minion, henchman, mastermind, or foil (did I forget any?). Type is also where you would indicate specific rules common to the type (e.g., damage saves for minions), and provide guidance for creation (e.g., minions typically have a weapon, armor, and 0-3 qualities) . Mobility would address movement type and speed; mechanism (e.g., jetpack, magic) is just flavor [example: Walk, 30ft; Fly, 60ft (jetpack)].

Track Nothing
The damage save idea had potential, but was too cumbersome. I liked the little bit of suspense resulting from being uncertain about a save result. I hated tracking cumulative damage for increasing save DCs, recalculating those DCs with each additional hit, and having this entire process be conditional (on a successful save) and conditionally repeated (with the toughness quality). I would, quite frankly, rather track hit points than that mess.

Let's keep the damage save for its suspense-inducing bit, and use it to actually reduce tracking requirements.
     * Scale the save DC in some simple manner to damage; simple scaling reduces calculations. Combat specialists *should* mow through mooks faster than non-combat specialists, contraindicating flat DCs.
          - For damage values in Spycraft 2 I'd consider DC = damage. Average damage values of 6.5 for pistol ammunition give failure (i.e., death) rates of 30%, which works nicely with your 'three-shot men' idea. This ignores armor, but it also ignores assault weapons.
     * Keep damage saves independent of past success. A successful save means they're still standing; the fact they've soaked up a bullet is immaterial.
     * Failure = death (or unconsciousness, whatever is situationally appropriate). Tougher opponents should have a higher save bonus, or get an immediate free attack when they fail their save (ooh, I like that), or whatever--but not make me track how many saves they've failed.

Other Stuff
While I'm beating this drum, it would have been great if NPC qualities were organized into some sort of categories for easier application.

Walter


[Edited to correct author's markup failure. ]

[Goodlun]

• Spycraft 2.0's grappling feats: FC's Wrestling chain pisses me off.  The 2 tricks are just "pro wrestling" instead of actual wrestling.  Spycraft did it right - Submission chain, Brawling chain, and Wrestling chain.  You can make a wrestler rather then someone who piledrives people (which is almost impossible without them cooperating in setting up the move).

• Varied attack types:  Spycraft 2.0 had the "kick" attack, complete with it's feat chain support (Like).  FC has a Kick chain, but only NPCs can gain Natural Attack: Kick (Do not like).  It's not a problem so much as it is a logical disconnect (and I've actually had GMs not let me use the Kick chain because I didn't possess Natural Attack: Kick - because the RAW didn't support it).  Other systems also have actions in place for things like Pistol Whip and Buttstroke, which I really like (and I can't count the number of times running SC2.0 that I've had someone ask what the rules for pistol whip/buttstroke are).

• Location Injury: The Table of Ouch is a damn good start (though I don't like that your more likely to hit a key location because you do more damage).  What I really like is systems where getting shot in the leg is different (not necessarily better/worse - different) then being shot in the arm.  GURPS has a good one, but it can get to be a little bit "too much" since you have to roll on it for every attack (and subsystems like armour are based on you doing so).  I recognise that this isn't a wishlist thread, but what would move this concept from "merely like" to "love" is if a happy middle ground between the two could be struck.  Something like change the Table of Ouch to a table that determines location you hit and then produces critical injuries from there (in fact that's probably easy enough that I'm going to draft out a houserule like that today).

100% agree about these 3

[Sletchman]

Another one I thought of while eating breakfast:

• Fantasy Craft's Skill List:  I know that Pat said modern games, not fantasy ones, but I think this still applies.  I've run Spycraft a lot - and pretty much every game, especially with new people (or people playing archtypes they haven't before), you'd have a degree of confusion over skills: When do you use Science (Engineering) vs Mechanics/Electronics?  When do you use Manipulation vs Bluff?  Why can't I use Electronics on this device (instead of Security)?  What does Manipulation even do?  In Fantasy Craft the only one that has ever come up is: When is it Blend or Sneak?

I love FCs base skill list, and think it works perfectly for modern games with just the addition of Computers and Analysis (or perhaps Forensics).  Compared to most other modern games that I've run (GURPS, new and old WoD, SC2, Shadowrun, and Dark Heresy come to mind) the skill list is simple, elegant, evocative and easy to use.  I even ran a GURPS game that restricted the skills one can take to the FC list + Computer + Forensics because the FC list is just that good.

Those playing at home may notice that I have previously lobbied (somewhat loudly...) against adding skills to the FC list because it's that damn good.  I now believe that I was mistaken in that opinion, and that 2 additional skills makes the list perfect (and also maintains balance in the Skill feats) for modern gaming.

[Goodlun]

The more I think about it I really love GURPS use of skills for combat instead of  a BaB
I

[mathey]

Mutants and Masterminds 3rd Edition

It removes confusion by unifying all mechanics under 1d20+X vs. DC and makes it work. It removes damage rolls and replaces them with resistance rolls, and that also works. Players need only learn to know which bonus to add to a d20 roll and which (if any) effect is involved.

Also; one use of its Hero Points are like Possibilities were used in Torg; you can use them for a reroll, but its never wasted on a lousy second roll - you get a Minimum result of 11-20 on the second roll.

And the Extra Effort rules do a nice job of letting people stretch their character's abilities at any time, at a cost (Hero Point or getting fatigued). You can juice up a stat by 1, but you can also create an Alternate Effect (have your Laser Blast turn into a blinding Dazzle, for example) or gain a temporary Advantage (the equivalent of Feats, which offer a bunch of tactical options or resources).

Very little waste, little confusion; you only have to track what is useful. Crunchy AND fast (had one player convinced I ran the rules lite version when I was using the full rules).

Millenium's End

I really liked the Silhouette based hit location rules in this; you laid a transparency with a bullseye with a range of numbers on top of one of several silhouettes modeling a variety of typical combat postures. Depending on close you got to your "to hit" die roll, the closer you got to the body part you were targeting. You could also quickly determine if you hit cover instead. Fast, good way to handle ranged combat, and probably the only thing I genuinely loved in this system.

Torg/Masterbook

Don't know if this counts as Modern, but the Drama Deck was awesome.

It handled initiative.
It gave bonus cards to your hand for trying different tactics, including social skills, in a fight.
It modeled the ups and downs and unpredictability of adventure story conflicts.
It offered ways to track and spend a variety of resources gained through the session, including Subplots.

Its a shame too many people were (and are?) turned off by the idea of having cards anywhere near their dice.

Feng Shui

I think it was the first game to introduce the idea of Minions/Mooks? Or at least the first I encountered in the form we now recognize in many games. Instead of claiming to be simulating something real, it owns its artificiality proudly on its sleeve and backs it up with a system that lets you do Chow Yun Fat or Jet Li stuff.

Gumshoe

Investigative Abilities in Gumshoe are not resolved with dice. They just work. Always. Laws' argument is that in too many rpgs, the ability to get a story critical clue is left up to chance (die rolls). You roll bad, your PCs miss the evidence, the forward momentum simply stops or is delayed until the dice gods and GM smile on you again. I personally have always hated that "hunt and peck" style of investigation gameplay in RPGs, and I think Laws has a point that in the fiction investigative games are modeled on, getting the clue is never the problem; its dealing with obstacles leading to the resolution of the mystery.

In Gumshoe, one or more of the PCs will ALWAYS get the important clue in a scene, and possibly a bit more actionable info if they spend points from a pool ("benefits").

Die rolls are spared for things (using what are called General Abilities) which can be left in doubt; chases, combat, hiding, etc.

Marvel Heroic Roleplaying

I love three things in this game: Distinctions, Stress, and Milestones.

Distinctions are simply phrases or words that describe some aspect of a character or place or thing. If that characteristic plays into the action you're taking, you get a die to add to your pool. Its a simple way to include flavorful stuff without having to construct an all-inclusive list of special talents/abilities - and its just fun to have something like "Clobberin' Time" on The Thing's datafile.

Stress in MHR is basically damage, but it comes in three flavors: physical, emotional, mental. You can inflict or take levels of each, and topping off the track in any one removes you or your foe from the conflict while you recover from wounds, get over your hissy fit, or sort out your confusion, etc. In other words, you may never be able to punch Juggernaut into submission, but you can sure trick/manipulate him into defeat.

Milestones are miniature subplots with a general descriptor and three steps along a track. The first step is some narrative situation that can come up often in every scene, the second one can come up once every scene, and the last one can only happen at some major juncture/decision point. Each gives you XP, and you can pick two of them in a given Event (story arc) from Event-specific Milestones or two that you have on your character datafile. They get pretty specific for each character or scenario, but they easily give players (and GMs) guides for portraying a hero or a theme.

Spycraft/Fantasycraft

Origins are the bee's knees. I like being able to say that my Soldier is a Cunning Man-At-Arms and have it MEAN something. It also leverages a lot of customization options, which has always been Crafty's main strength.

Action Dice are the bee's elbows. I think the facts that they are actual dice, can come and go quickly, and have a lot of ways to help control the game are great.

Campaign Qualities are the bee's - knuckles? Anyways, I also really love them, since they give a quick/flavorful way to custom craft the feel of your own game or a given session. Far better than just a boring list of optional house rules, compact enough to summarize, simple to slot in and out - love 'em and I want more.

[hmjesus]

A few of my favourite mechanics actually come from you guys (Crafty that is, not the forum - though the forum has produced some pretty amazing stuff).
In no particular order (beyond "as they come to mind"):

• Action Dice: I port them to every other system I run now if they don't include them at default.  SC was my first system with them and it was like magic.  Awesome work guys, truly.

Also a huge fan of action dice.  Too many times in other systems have I had a crucial roll go pearshaped by 1 or 2, Action Dice (before you get into the ability based stuff that is) being able to give you a chance of a further nudge make a massive difference between "Well, that sucked" and "That was awesome!"/"HOLY CRAP WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE" (In the event of Sletch burning action dice to activate all of my errors even remotely related to something exploding.)

• Narrative Control: Heaps of systems do it different, and do it well.  FC has some good Narrative Control options and I'd like to see them expanded upon more in future.  Dresden Files RPG (which I've started reading because a HMJesus is gonna run a game) has some utterly brilliant stuff for this.

This would largely be the reason why I'm looking to run DFRPG, I like the idea that the players aid in specifying aspects of the campaign, can assign and tag aspects on the storyline, including adding aspects to the villains.  I think one of the examples they gave was you could assign the main bad guy an aspect like "Gimpy Leg" before you've even found out who he is, provided you could justify how your character would know this, making him easier to pick out of a line up if he's surrounded by minions preventing you from mowing down someone you need to torture for information.

Just going to echo people's sentiments on my love for the Gear Kits (or core gear).  Being able to just go "I am x, I need kit y" and then using your gear picks to add anything else you need was fantastic.  That being said, I also like the common items system in SC2.0, namely reserve common items.  It's good to have that chance to just whip out a doohickey if you happen to have left it off your gear selection.

[ahzad]

Gumshoe

Investigative Abilities in Gumshoe are not resolved with dice. They just work. Always. Laws' argument is that in too many rpgs, the ability to get a story critical clue is left up to chance (die rolls). You roll bad, your PCs miss the evidence, the forward momentum simply stops or is delayed until the dice gods and GM smile on you again. I personally have always hated that "hunt and peck" style of investigation gameplay in RPGs, and I think Laws has a point that in the fiction investigative games are modeled on, getting the clue is never the problem; its dealing with obstacles leading to the resolution of the mystery.

In Gumshoe, one or more of the PCs will ALWAYS get the important clue in a scene, and possibly a bit more actionable info if they spend points from a pool ("benefits").

Die rolls are spared for things (using what are called General Abilities) which can be left in doubt; chases, combat, hiding, etc.


Spycraft/Fantasycraft

Origins are the bee's knees. I like being able to say that my Soldier is a Cunning Man-At-Arms and have it MEAN something. It also leverages a lot of customization options, which has always been Crafty's main strength.

Action Dice are the bee's elbows. I think the facts that they are actual dice, can come and go quickly, and have a lot of ways to help control the game are great.

Campaign Qualities are the bee's - knuckles? Anyways, I also really love them, since they give a quick/flavorful way to custom craft the feel of your own game or a given session. Far better than just a boring list of optional house rules, compact enough to summarize, simple to slot in and out - love 'em and I want more.

I was about to mention Gumshoe's investigative rules, I love these as well, and I would have to agree with all the Spycraft rules as well.
I would also mention the SG1 bundles earlier in the thread for the same reasons.
Fragile Minds is a huge favorite of mine, with stress inducing magic (usefully for Shadowrun games as well as others), and the Madness rules. All this is a great update for a more cinematic Cthulhu game.
While not strictly modern, the count up initiative from Kenzer's Hackmaster Basic and Aces & Eights is pretty darn innovative. It seems complicated but it actually goes pretty smoothly after a few goes at it, and that the shot clock from A&E is damn fun to use in shoot outs. 

[Desertpuma]

Mathey's mention of Millenium End's targeting brings back memories and they are all good. It is a dartboard scope breakdown. How much you fail/miss by is counted outwards from the center on rings and then a second D20 role determines on which part of the final ring you actually strike. You instantly know if you pegged cover, a hostage, or drilled the prone enemy in the ass. Each variation of a silhouette comes in a book and you overlay the targeting scope on it but you can place paper over certain parts of it to define cover so players can see what they are shooting at. It grants a real visible idea of the target and gives an interesting perspective idea.

Once again, the bulk of what Crafty does with Origins, Campaign Qualities, and Class Abilities that enable characters to improve on teamwork are just as solid as Action Dice.

[ahzad]

Mathey's mention of Millenium End's targeting brings back memories and they are all good. It is a dartboard scope breakdown. How much you fail/miss by is counted outwards from the center on rings and then a second D20 role determines on which part of the final ring you actually strike. You instantly know if you pegged cover, a hostage, or drilled the prone enemy in the ass. Each variation of a silhouette comes in a book and you overlay the targeting scope on it but you can place paper over certain parts of it to define cover so players can see what they are shooting at. It grants a real visible idea of the target and gives an interesting perspective ide.

Once again, the bulk of what Crafty does with Origins, Campaign Qualities, and Class Abilities that enable characters to improve on teamwork are just as solid as Action Dice.

That targeting system sounds an awfully lot like the shot clock system in aces & eights. I wonder if that's where Kenzer got that idea from?

[Desertpuma]

It would not surprise me. Millenium's End was out in the mid-90s as far as I know. Not sure about when Aces & Eights came out.

[Crafty_Pat]

• Narrative Control: Heaps of systems do it different, and do it well.  FC has some good Narrative Control options and I'd like to see them expanded upon more in future.  Dresden Files RPG (which I've started reading because a HMJesus is gonna run a game) has some utterly brilliant stuff for this.

Care to elaborate on your favorite narrative control options from Dresden?

[Charlie_X]

The Origin system is fantastic for customising something as prescribed as classes.

I'm a little reticent about using Subsystem minigames these days, as it's all. Ore widgets, more groups of stats to use. If I have to, then I try to introduce one at a time to the group as they only hold so much logic, as do I in my old age.
If there's a good example of where widgets to a game can work, it's the New WoD, where the systems all revolve around successes and dots. The "currency" of the game is the same no matter what.
To this end, the use of "leads" in Spycraft dramatic conflicts was good, but the cards and the restrictions of those actions felt like they ultimately complicated things.

[Alphastream]

• Fantasy Craft's Skill List:  I know that Pat said modern games, not fantasy ones, but I think this still applies.  I've run Spycraft a lot - and pretty much every game, especially with new people (or people playing archtypes they haven't before), you'd have a degree of confusion over skills: When do you use Science (Engineering) vs Mechanics/Electronics?  When do you use Manipulation vs Bluff?  Why can't I use Electronics on this device (instead of Security)?  What does Manipulation even do?  In Fantasy Craft the only one that has ever come up is: When is it Blend or Sneak?

On the list of things I like from other games, I like how 4E implements a single Perception skill and then has take 10 as the Passive use of that skill. The reason I like this is that Spyrcaft always had two skills with ranks and slightly different/confusing uses. It led to situations where the guard will have trouble actively spotting a foe entering the perimeter, and should therefore play a game of cards so they have a better chance of seeing the foe.

Adding one more thing I like, now that I can mention 13th Age... from the playtest I liked how they handled damage for melee against mooks, which was that when fighting them you attacked a single one (and they have low hit points), but when you kill one all left-over damage is applied to the next and so on until you run out of either damage or mooks. That could also work with automatic weapons at range.

Also from 13th Age, I love the icons. Icons are these big entities (the Druid, the Crusader, the Archmage) that are powerful iconic people in the setting. You can have relationship points with them and their organizations, and it can be a cool part of play. In my playtest (which I can now talk about) I made an elf that had animosity with the Dwarven King and a conflicting (both positive and negative) relationship with the Elven Queen (because I was cast out from her lands). I could see it being an interesting approach to organizations in a game of international intrigue ("it all be fine unless MI6 decides to...") or intra-agency politics ("The CIA works with the FBI, except when..."). It would be fun to be a member of the CIA, but people in the FBI hate me. Or I'm an independent arms dealer with ties to the CIA, but wanted by INTERPOL.

[Alphastream]

• Narrative Control: Heaps of systems do it different, and do it well.  FC has some good Narrative Control options and I'd like to see them expanded upon more in future.  Dresden Files RPG (which I've started reading because a HMJesus is gonna run a game) has some utterly brilliant stuff for this.

Care to elaborate on your favorite narrative control options from Dresden?

I've only played Dresden a few times, but during the campaign creation the DM and players worked collaboratively to select the main NPCs, locations, and qualities for the setting.

About a week before Grimm (the TV show) came out we came up with a remarkably similar campaign. One of the early things we did was pick campaign aspects, which included "Fey are everywhere" (idea of Portland being disproportionately full of fey), "Labor is Hairy" (the docks and working class are all full of werewolves), and "City run by mages" (idea that the mage guild was taking over the city government. Locations and NPCs had aspects.

Then at the same time, each of our PCs has aspects. My werebull cop had "hard-nosed were-bull cop" as a high concept, with a trouble aspect of "I had no idea I was dating a vampire... again."

In play, these aspects can be activated by the DM. For example, you are in a cab, and the cab driver can be a werewolf. You run around the corner, and there is a fey from one of the factions. It gives the DM great narrative control to keep the campaign focused on the things everyone said they were interested in and to create an experience that is narrated on-the-fly but with a grounded feeling. This can extend to PCs. The DM can activate my hard-nosed aspect, forcing me to stay on task rather than switch to something else that is important. Players have a way to cancel aspects that are activated, using a precious commodity called Fate points.

Going back to Grimm, the show, we can see how there are real parallels. The main character deals with one threat, but his police chief is supernatural and activates periodically to influence the story. The main character's wife might be an aspect, introduced to throw a tough dilemma for the character periodically.

The system has some ups and downs, but the ups are well worth studying. I could arrange for a game for Alex if he was interested.