Ore and the Layer system - The demise of layers?
The next system that I set out to analyse was the ORE-system. It's a system first introduced (from what I know) in the game Godlike, and from there it have evolved to Wild Talents, Reign, Nemesis and a number of smaller games like Star ORE.
It is a pool-based system, where the core idea is to roll a number of D10's and look for pairs or sets of the same number. The reading uses both the number of dice with the same number (the width) and the number rolled (height).
An attribute or a pool has three types of dice. First there is a normal die, which is rolled as usual. Then there is the hard die, which is always considered a 10. Finally there is the wiggle die, which you can place on any number you want after you have rolled the normal dice.
Example of a simple combat round: Sir Runalot and sir Prise is in a combat. Runalot has an attack pool of 4d+1hd (due to his magical sword). Sir Prise, being a lesser skilled fighter, but blessed by the gods, has an attack Pool of 3d+1wd.
Runalot has a higher Sense than Prise, therefore Prise declares his attack first. He wants to bash Runalot with his sword. Runalot, not being a particulary imaginative fella, does the same, and hopes that he hits Prise first.
They both roll their die-pools. Runalot rolls 4,5,2 and 1. With his hard die added, the reulst is still just 4,5,2,1 and 10. No sets there. Prise, on the other hand, rolls 3,2 and 6. He then sets his wiggle die to 6, giving a final result of 3,2,6 and 6. This is a set of two sixes (width: 2, Height 6).
This means that Prise initiative is 2, he hits at hit location 6 (The right arm) and deals damage of 4 (the width + the weapons damage modifier of 2).
And so, combat continues.
I won't go into all the details of the system (there are a number of them) or all the interesting side effects (among other thins, the system generates an interesting bell curve that can be used by smart fighters to change the odds).
However, this system is very hard to divide into the layer model. The flow of the modell goes from behaviour to implementation of behaviour to presentation/interface, which I'll write as behaviour -> implementation -> presentation/interface
With ORE, I'd say that the flow is behaviour <- implementation -> presentation/ interface.
If I compare with the D20-system, I can describe the general behaviour, and then make that happen with a number of systems. With the ORE-system, however, I'd have a very hard time to come up with a system that has the same effects.
One example: In the D20-system, the type of die doesn't change gameplay much apart from having to add bigger or smaller numbers and, to some extent, the usage of critical hits. In the ORE-system, the die-type has an impact on how the bell-curve looks. Or to put it in another way: If you change the D20 to a D100 or a D10 in the D20-system, you can do a straight multiply by 5 or division by 2 on all numbers and you can go on playing with no change at all. However, if you go from D10's to D20's in the ORE-system, you can't make a straight conversion without changing the odds and the behaviour of the game
significantly. As can be seen by the pictures a die pool of 5 d10's has a 70% chance of getting a match, while a set of 10 D20's has more than 90% chance of getting a set.
What does all this result in? It seems like the first model isn't generic enough to encompass all systems in an elegant way. The different effect of the type of dice, for instance imply that in some systems, the type of dice is merely an interface-aspect, and in some it's an integral part of how the game behaves.
The way I want to deal with this is to make the model more generic without making it to abstract or complex. Instead if trying to find one solution at the moment, I'll form a number different models that are related to this first one, but takes it in different directions. My starting points will be:
• Adding Arrows of Influence. Assuming that all the "layers" can influence each other, I'll not place them in a linear progression but rather in a triangle with arrows pointing to and from all the corners. A certain aspect of the game can belong to either of the three corners, but is influenced by or influences aspects in the other two to a smaller or bigger degree
• Using the three layers as dimensions or attributes. For instance, the D20 in the D20-system is heavy on interface/presentation, but low on implementation and behaviour (since it can easily be exchanged). Saying that it's a linear system is heavy on behaviour but medium on implementation and low on interface/ presentation. Going from a D20 to 3D6, for instance, changes the behaviour of the system quite a lot, the implementation doesn't change that much and to most people rolling a D20 or 3D6 is roughly the same.
More will be added further along the way.
These different methods will be developed and looked at in detail in later posts.
Until then, happy gaming!
The next system that I set out to analyse was the ORE-system. It's a system first introduced (from what I know) in the game Godlike, and from there it have evolved to Wild Talents, Reign, Nemesis and a number of smaller games like Star ORE.
It is a pool-based system, where the core idea is to roll a number of D10's and look for pairs or sets of the same number. The reading uses both the number of dice with the same number (the width) and the number rolled (height).
An attribute or a pool has three types of dice. First there is a normal die, which is rolled as usual. Then there is the hard die, which is always considered a 10. Finally there is the wiggle die, which you can place on any number you want after you have rolled the normal dice.
Example of a simple combat round: Sir Runalot and sir Prise is in a combat. Runalot has an attack pool of 4d+1hd (due to his magical sword). Sir Prise, being a lesser skilled fighter, but blessed by the gods, has an attack Pool of 3d+1wd.
Runalot has a higher Sense than Prise, therefore Prise declares his attack first. He wants to bash Runalot with his sword. Runalot, not being a particulary imaginative fella, does the same, and hopes that he hits Prise first.
They both roll their die-pools. Runalot rolls 4,5,2 and 1. With his hard die added, the reulst is still just 4,5,2,1 and 10. No sets there. Prise, on the other hand, rolls 3,2 and 6. He then sets his wiggle die to 6, giving a final result of 3,2,6 and 6. This is a set of two sixes (width: 2, Height 6).
This means that Prise initiative is 2, he hits at hit location 6 (The right arm) and deals damage of 4 (the width + the weapons damage modifier of 2).
And so, combat continues.
I won't go into all the details of the system (there are a number of them) or all the interesting side effects (among other thins, the system generates an interesting bell curve that can be used by smart fighters to change the odds).
However, this system is very hard to divide into the layer model. The flow of the modell goes from behaviour to implementation of behaviour to presentation/interface, which I'll write as behaviour -> implementation -> presentation/interface
With ORE, I'd say that the flow is behaviour <- implementation -> presentation/ interface.
If I compare with the D20-system, I can describe the general behaviour, and then make that happen with a number of systems. With the ORE-system, however, I'd have a very hard time to come up with a system that has the same effects.
One example: In the D20-system, the type of die doesn't change gameplay much apart from having to add bigger or smaller numbers and, to some extent, the usage of critical hits. In the ORE-system, the die-type has an impact on how the bell-curve looks. Or to put it in another way: If you change the D20 to a D100 or a D10 in the D20-system, you can do a straight multiply by 5 or division by 2 on all numbers and you can go on playing with no change at all. However, if you go from D10's to D20's in the ORE-system, you can't make a straight conversion without changing the odds and the behaviour of the game
significantly. As can be seen by the pictures a die pool of 5 d10's has a 70% chance of getting a match, while a set of 10 D20's has more than 90% chance of getting a set.What does all this result in? It seems like the first model isn't generic enough to encompass all systems in an elegant way. The different effect of the type of dice, for instance imply that in some systems, the type of dice is merely an interface-aspect, and in some it's an integral part of how the game behaves.
The way I want to deal with this is to make the model more generic without making it to abstract or complex. Instead if trying to find one solution at the moment, I'll form a number different models that are related to this first one, but takes it in different directions. My starting points will be:
• Adding Arrows of Influence. Assuming that all the "layers" can influence each other, I'll not place them in a linear progression but rather in a triangle with arrows pointing to and from all the corners. A certain aspect of the game can belong to either of the three corners, but is influenced by or influences aspects in the other two to a smaller or bigger degree
• Using the three layers as dimensions or attributes. For instance, the D20 in the D20-system is heavy on interface/presentation, but low on implementation and behaviour (since it can easily be exchanged). Saying that it's a linear system is heavy on behaviour but medium on implementation and low on interface/ presentation. Going from a D20 to 3D6, for instance, changes the behaviour of the system quite a lot, the implementation doesn't change that much and to most people rolling a D20 or 3D6 is roughly the same.
More will be added further along the way.
These different methods will be developed and looked at in detail in later posts.
Until then, happy gaming!