Prepare for a blast of posts in the near future, many of them shorter analyses of systems or problems. In this case, I was weighing the merits of Mileage XP (not milestone, literally XP per mile traveled) inspired by Xenophon on the Discord, when I made an unguarded comment about using it for a Fallout-based GLOG game.
Gabriel Hole-Jones (SherlockHole on Discord, of the Mimic's Nest blog) immediately took me to task on how such a game might work. Instead of tweaking some GLOG classes to fit Fallout archetypes, such as melee barbarians, demolitions experts and infiltrators, he proposed instead using a Fallout 4-style tree; each SPECIAL attribute contains 4 templates, like a GLOG class; instead of fitting into archetypes, players are free to make their own by mixing and matching in accordance with the limits set by their attributes.
Now, some problems and their possible solutions.
FO4 relies on a 10-point scale, with a perk for each point. Not suitable for our purposes. I want to keep that 4-template tradition. Now, I'm attracted to switching from 3d6 to 4d4, however, 3d6 also has its charms.
4d4 gives us 13-point spread, so we can be asymmetrical. The first template is available with a 4-7 score. The second with 8-11. The third with 12-15, and the fourth, the pinnacle, with only 16, requiring either an extremely lucky role, mutations, serious drugs, genetic experimentation, etc.
Meanwhile, 3d6 actually gives us a symmetrical 16 point spread. You can give each template on a 3-6, 7-10, 11-14, 15-18 cumulatively. 4d4 leads to slightly lower-powered characters, more average scores, and means that the 4th template would remain legendary. 3d6 allows for more extrema, biased towards higher scores, and characters have a substantial chance (slightly below 70% each, if my math is right) of being capable of taking a D template.
 |
| Old friend, we meet again |
In both cases, the first template of any score is open to all characters, even those with a minimal score. I'm not sure how much I like that. By taking a template, a character with a 3 or 4 Charisma can take a perk to improve prices, or pacify creatures. But they wouldn't be able to progress beyond that. It's an interesting progression system to be sure, and as much as I wasn't a fan of FO4, the low-granularity and elegance of the idea appeals to me.
I've not made a decision between either form of stat generation yet. Both can work, and anyone using this ruleset would modify that choice to taste. Now to figure out exactly what perks one might place in each template. I cleave to the GLOG maxim that a level 1 character is mostly as useful as a level 4 character. The ability to carry out almost any should not be exclusive to certain perks; rather, they should enhance and offer new options in specific circumstances. This is the design principle I keep to going forward.
Why base this on GLOG, a system with relatively static ability scores, and not something like Knave, where it's assumed that your scores will improve over time just like FO4?
ReplyDeleteI'd like to say I have a good reason, but in reality it's because I have no familiarity with Knave or other ItO-based games (assuming Knave is even based on ItO) and also whenever I want to do something new, my immediate reaction is, 'make a GLOGhack.' I should probably widen my horizons.
Delete