Otherkind Crafting

When you craft an item you should be able to make, roll d6s equal to unlocked options and assign:

[] Provide +1d (3-4) or +2d (5-6) to its Problems roll
[] Takes notably less than the maximum time (4-6)
[] Takes notably less than the maximum resources (4-6)

[] (locked) It's quite impressive craftsmanship (5-6)
[] (locked) It has a magical bonus (5-6)
[] (locked) You may appraise it to discover any problems up front, before use (4-6)
[] (locked) You're on a roll; take +1d to your next similar crafting roll (3-6)
[] (locked) It's well forged; not recognizable as your work (3-5), recognizable as target other's work (6)
[] (locked) Provide +1d to its Problems roll (4-6)
[] (locked) make up more stuff you can unlock through whatever character advancement system you have :D

When you craft an item you may not be able to make, the GM will tell you how many extra dice to roll. After rolling, discard that many of your highest dice.

When you use a crafted item for the first time (that the GM deems relevant enough), discover its problems. Roll 3d6 and assign:
[] It's as robust as it should be (4-6)
[] It's as easy to use as it should be (4-6)
[] It's as immediately effective as it should be (4-6)

Comments

  • I like this; particularly the "find out how well it works when you use it" aspect of the rule.

    It might be nice to have some problems in construction, too, though. Maybe something like:

    5-6 You can complete the crafting faster than you expected, or take the usual time to add +1d to the Problems roll.
    3-4 You can complete the crafting at the expected speed/rate.
    1-2 It will take longer than usual to craft the item. If you wish to complete the work at your normal pace, ask the GM how many extra dice to roll (and then discard) on the Problems roll.
  • Nifty, I can see that being a fun mechanic to apply to other activities (kind of like how Diaspora broke things down into mini-sims.] For example, diplomacy or car chases.
  • Neat.

    I had a game (that I wrote and playtested, but never quite finished) where you were wizard types and you used Otherkind mechanics for spell research. When you tried to discover a spell that would do what you wanted, you rolled some dice and assigned them to things like: "It does what you want", "It does not consume rare ritual components", "It does not take a long time to cast", a complication created by the player and a complication created by the GM.

    So every spell you created had some interesting flaws and wrinkles. But they were always ones the players had bought into.

    That was a case where you were rolling to prevent flaws. Your setup here is more about rolling and allocating to get benefits, which is sort of a different conceptual framework. My experience playing Psi*Run leads toward most categories being problems for the player, that high die rolls are used to mitigate. That seems to me a more natural fit for Otherkind's dice mechanics, but this post has me reconsidering that.
  • Cool, would like to read that some day.
  • Ooh, I like using it for spells.

    This framework is also all about avoiding flaws... as I pictured it. The three basic dice are for not taking up time, not taking up resources, and not producing an item with flaws. That last one is phrased as getting benefits (+d) but their only use is to have fewer Problems. Most of the text is about benefits but is (locked), and I'd expect any given character would end up with 0-1 of them, or if focused maybe 2... They take the place of simply getting bonus dice.

    That said, they are all _phrased_ as benefits. I wonder if the mindset feels different in play. "It's all upside!" with the default being a crappy rattling irritating item, rather than "how did I screw up" with the default being a useful solid intuitive item.
  • Yeah, that caught me off guard at first, too. But it's not what it looks like! (Because of the Problems roll.)
  • What kind of genre/style would you find it fitting?

    Pre-iron age? Diablo 2 style 'crafting high fantasy'?
  • That said, they are all _phrased_ as benefits. I wonder if the mindset feels different in play. "It's all upside!" with the default being a crappy rattling irritating item, rather than "how did I screw up" with the default being a useful solid intuitive item.
    Yeah, that is the part that I'm wondering about. Ideally, you'd playtest it a couple times with each formulation of the roll: a couple times where options are all upside, a few where they are all downside, maybe a few where things are mixed. Determine through play what version produces the result you want.
Sign In or Register to comment.