New Mechanics

This is where we post new mechanics; mechanics differ drastically from abilities in two ways; they have the power to change the game a lot faster, and I tend to be a lot more critical of them. The system stands, and has stood, on its own for months and months of playtesting, and I'm cautious about adding new mechanics into the mix because each one has the potential to clutter up the game with unnecessary rules, slowing down gameplay and making the experience less fun for everyone.

Your best bet is to build on the foundations already in place or add something that neither takes away from or rewrites existing rules. Successful mechanics that have been added since the system's debut have included Ability Paths, which build on the already existing abilities in a new way, and Weaknesses, which are the polar opposite of abilities and compliment them by contrast.

Finally, I want all new mechanics to be presented so that we can clearly understand how the rules work, including examples of how they would work in an actual game. Other than that, the same rules as the New Abilities thread apply; we'll discuss it, approve it or not approve it, and add it if it's what we need.


Mechanics Up For Discussion
Tactical Movement


Mechanics Recently Added
Weakness Reform


~@~

In the process of generateing a character recently, an idea occurred to me about a way to reform the weakness system. As it stands, a character can have only three non-racial weaknesses, this lends to the tendancy of players choosing fewer higher grade weaknesses that may not be in line with the character's theme at that severity. To this end, I propose the following: rather than only being able to take three non-racial weaknesses a character may take up to 21 points worth of weaknesses. While yes, this gives players the ability to potentially take seven weaknesses at the minor grade, it also allows for players who take weaknesses more as character flavor than for the points more flexability in what weaknesses they pick up.

As always, I welcome constructive criticisim, and look forward to hearing your thoughts on this matter.

I actually like this idea. As always, there are going to be some issues we need to consider before making a permanent change to the system, so let's weigh the pros and the cons.

PROS
= Having it set to 21 points instead of three weaknesses basically accomplishes the same goal point-wise of keeping it under a set amount while still giving all players the chance to be on a level playing field.

= Because we're still looking at under the same point total, and because weaknesses are still optional, we don't have to go back and change any builds already existing, meaning that this rules change would already be backwards compatible with the system.

= The rules change will make Weaknesses more viable and so we'll see a lot more of them in the builds of some players.

CONS
= As is always the case with a game, you have your loophole chasers. This is probably the most loophole-free rules change I've seen for some time, but there is still a small chance for abuse if a player decides to nickel-and-dime their way up with multiple minor weaknesses they can easily compensate for. This loophole was the original reason for which the three-nonracial-only rule was set and removing that barrier will basically put a bit more work on gamemasters. That said, much of AVA's balance is in their hands to begin with.

= A lot of players are barely using their weakness points as is. While I feel that the addition of more diverse weaknesses will fix this problem a bit, until that point this rules change may serve to widen the gap between players who use their weakness points and players who do not.

I would be for this, being it would be able to give somewhat a diversification on some players weaknesses, being some of the players would take some minor weaknesses and some moderate ones to make their character play in some perspective on their character instead of having to make a choice of three severe weaknesses for their character to get the extra points.

The only thing i could see some potentially complications with this, is the effect that say someone wants to chose four moderate weaknesses, they would lose out on the chance of the last point.

Example 4 Mod = 20 points. So if we make it to the limit of 21 points, there is no way to gain the last point because the Minor is 3 points. So it would take up to 23 points, which is one thing that some people would be a little curious about.

But i would still agree that this is probably going to be one of the better updates for the system being it would allow for more of a style of customization of the characters in giving them some other styles of weaknesses instead of having to decide and debate over only three for the lifetime of the character.

So in short i would say this is a good way to give some good ideas for character generations.

I understand that point (Pun intended). The fact of the matter is though, that it remains the players choice. If they wish to take four moderates weaknesses, thats their option. They could just as easily take three modderates and two minors to erk out that last extra point, and from ive seen of AVA, this system is all about options.

I concur, Master Relish. Even before, a player's choice of weaknesses or lack thereof could potentially rob them of points, so nothing's changed there. Smart play is and always has been key to a good build so this rules change will simply continue to encourage that.

The only really detrimental con I can think of besides the ones I listed is that the weaknesses may be a little more complicated to explain to new players than "choose three non-racial", but we'll get around that. Your thoughts, Mayo?

I would think that it would open up a new style of making the characters being more able to have multiple weaknesses that would be able to work around, then having the three huge ones that we had beforehand.

So i think it would be good for the game-play having the options to take multiple weaknesses than just the three huge ones which could really throw the character for a loop.

All in all i would approve of this which would make getting characters a little more in-depth personalities, suited for the weaknesses/severity they would chose.

I think we're all in agreement this idea works and should be implemented, so let me just close this discussion by saying thanks for thinking of it Master Relish and I'll be editing the Weakness section to reflect this change shortly.

For the last few months, Relish and I have been working on a project for Peanut Butter. This project is getting a plan together for conquering AVA's Final Frontier: tactical movement. (Tactical Movement is, in a nutshell, how far a character can move in a single turn and still attack.)

We've been working on equations trying to find something that could be truly unique to AVA while still being realistically balanced. We think we've got a couple that might work, and would like to get the other moderators' insight before they enter into play-testing in our tabletop game.

OPTION A
~ Base Speed Equation: 10 feet + (5 feet x 1/2 Swiftness rounded down) + (5 feet x Movement Mode-based Swiftness bonus)

~ What it means for a basic human (assuming human does not have Speed Demon or the Godspeed variants): 10 ft + 10 ft (5 ft x 2 [half of 5 Swiftness rounded down]) + 0 ft (5 feet x 0 Movement Mode-based Swiftness bonus) = 20 ft. A basic human can move 20 feet in a single turn and still attack.

~ What it means for a basic Dancer: 10 ft + 25 ft (5 ft x 5 [half of 10 Swiftness]) + 20 ft (5 feet x 4 Speed Demon) = 55 ft. A basic Dancer can move 55 feet in a single turn and still attack.

OPTION B
~ Base Speed Equation: 10 feet + (5 feet x Swiftness) + (5 feet x Movement Mode-based Swiftness bonus)

~ What it means for a basic human (assuming human does not have Speed Demon or the Godspeed variants): 10 ft + 25 ft (5 ft x 5 Swiftness) + 0 ft (5 feet x 0 Movement Mode-based Swiftness bonus) = 35 ft. A basic human can move 35 feet in a single turn and still attack.

~ What it means for a basic Dancer: 10 ft + 50 ft (5 ft x 10 Swiftness) + 20 ft (5 feet x 4 Speed Demon) = 80 ft. A basic Dancer can move 80 feet in a single turn and still attack.

Further Points of Interest
~ Why is this necessary again? Okay, so PB wants to publish AVA eventually--which means table-top games rather than forum. Currently, AVA cannot stand on her own as a table top game. As a forum system, she's great! But as much as it pains me to admit...she's not very good at the table-top. She needs a TMS. Which is why PB told me to work on making one for her in the first place. And what PB wants, especially for AVA, PB gets.

~ Will the TMS ever be adopted into the forum games? I don't know. That's up to PB and all of us as community. It will mean retraining how we all think--but perhaps not really. Look at Option B. Unless you're on an open battlefield that stretches for miles, the answer for "can I move there and still attack?" is a definite "yes". And there's time for that. This isn't going to be an overnight change or even a month-long one. This is a project that could stretch for months, if not years. And it's in what I like to call the "fertilization" phase. It's an egg (idea) and sperm (action), full of potential, but parts are still aligning.

~ Why now? Like I said further up, PB asked a couple of months ago (back in early April). I'm just recently got it to where I have some equations that I like. I'm really slow on math. (I think he expected to be back by the time I actually had something.) Now that I have something to show, I don't want to keep anyone in the community in the dark on this project.

~ When we actually get a tactical movement system working and adopted, ranges of abilities will need to be fixated as well. The best method we have been able to come up with for this problem is take the similar equation to the one that gets chosen for the tactical movement system and swap out the Swiftness attribute for the attribute that corresponds with the ability in question. (Example: Bow and Arrow would use Attack while Fire Attack would use Magic.) But this is a separate issue and will only be dealt with when we've reached the point that we're seriously considering implementing a tactical movement system. Do keep it in mind, however.

~Shadow Jump is a hiccup that will need to be dealt with as well. Best solution I've come up with is "any shadow within a number of feet equal to your Magic + 1/2 your Swiftness".

Any insights are worthwhile. I can't wait to hear what y'all think.

By the way, this is posted just for preliminary discussion. Any suggestions of actual changes to the system will take place after extensive playtesting in a tabletop version of AVA. Then I'll bring our findings back to the drawing board for further discussion. Like stage two of a five stage plan. I don't consider this even ready for the beta testing that goes on in our adventures.

Just to clarify further: this is not anything other than keeping the entire community up-to-date and as involved as possible. The reason that it's posted is that this is the easiest way to make sure that everyone has access to the formulas and that no one can be accused of working in the shadows on something. On a similar note: if you have something you want to add/change about these ideas, either save it for the group chat designated for its discussion or post it here so that nothing gets lost and PB has access to everything.

We are a team here, even with our delicious captain on hiatus. We need to work as one.