The Forge Archives

First, sorry for the long post, but I have a lot to cover.

I've been working with a concept for a while now, and I'm having trouble to create task resolution mechanics that can do what I want them to do.

The Basics

In this game, PCs are essentially ordinary people who get swept up in extraordinary circumstances. Because of this, the mechanics need to be gritty and realistic, but at the same time, slightly heroic to give the PCs a fighting chance against various obstacles.

The System

For this system I'm having attributes and skills. I'm often asked if I need to have seperate attributes and skills, and the answer is yes. Everyone has a certain degree of intelligence, but not everyone can go into a forest and know which mushrooms are safe for eating, and which are not. Also, attributes are going to affect the skills. A person with lousy coordination is going to have a harder time hitting with a sword than someone who is extremely agile. I'd like the system to reflect this.

Attributes and skills are not the be-all-end-all for the system, but they are the core. There are various other elements that I'm intending to implement that will affect game play. For example, there is a seperate Willpower stat that is not an attribute or skill, but will be used in various situations. There are also Techniques, which have prerequisites based on skills or attributes and allow a character to use a skills for certain specific tasks (like disarms, library research, etc.) or would give bonuses to certain attribute tests (like a bonus to a climbing check, which is based on Strength, and is not a skill), as well as provide many other distinguishing traits. All other features I plan for the system are quite modular and can be modified to fit whatever resolution mechanic I end up with.

The Problem

I've tried designing using a roll-under, roll-over, Silhouette variant, D-D, and dice pool mechanics. So far, I haven't accomplished what I've set out to do. Just for example, let's say that attributes and skills both range from 1-10. Some elements I would like to accomplish are as follows:

a) There are automatic successes and failures.
b) There are no skills to represent natural abilities (i.e. no "notice" skill. Everyone has eyes and knows how to use them), and so this is handled with attributes.
c) A character should be able to accomplish a typical task (meaning no difficulty modifiers) more often than not. This especially going for an "average" character making an attribute test.
d) Contested checks may involve attribute vs. attribute (Strength for arm wrestling), Skill vs. Skill (two characters at the market bartering), and skill vs. attribute (one character is using a stealth skill to evade another characters perception).
e) In contested checks, there is always a chance for the underdog to succeed. For example, one character has Barter 1, another has Barter 10, while the Barter 10 character is most likely to succed, the Barter 1 should have a chance, even if it's a long shot that requires a critical success.

I've developed over a dozen conflict resolution mechanics for this system. Items (a) and (b) are very easy to design for, so there's no real problems there. Items (c), (d), and (e), are causing me the most problems, as none of the mechanics I've developed has satisfied all these elements.

Where I Am Now

Essentially, I'm at a dead end. I've been reading articles online for the past week about game design to see if I can find anything to get me over this hurdle. While I've found some good info online, I'm still not "there" yet. Technically, I don't have a working system, but what I have at this point is as follows:

Attributes range from 1-12, 6-7 ave. (13 with racial modifiers) and include Strength, Agility, Health, Intellect, Perception, and Bearing
Attribute modifiers range from 0-4, 2-3 ave. (5 with racial modifiers)...and I'm avoiding a 0-average range here
Skills range from 1-10, average 4-7 (or 14-15 with attribute modifiers)

For an uncontested task, resolution works by rolling 2d6 and attempting to roll under the attribute or skill + relevant attribute modifier, and aims for a MoS greater than the difficulty of the task. If a character rolls double 1s, that is considered a potential critical success and can add their current Willpower (likely ranging from 0-13, though being close to 7 on average) to their MoS if a successful Willpower check (2d6, roll under current Willpower) is made. This element makes "impossible" tests, possible. If a character rolls double 6s, that's a potential critical failure. The player then needs to make a Willpower check, to see if the character can avoid a fumble. If the roll otherwise would have been a success, a failed Willpower check makes it a regular failure. If the roll was a failure anyway, a failed Willpower check makes it a fumble.

The critical success element may become a Technique which needs to be "developed" (point-buy), depending on how the rest of the system works out.

If the character "ties" with the MoS necessary for the task (meaning effective MoS=0), then the character makes a check against their current Willpower. A failed check is a failure, and successful check is a success. This will essentially create an element of near misses and close calls.

For a contested task, both characters make the appropriate checks. The person with the greater MoS is the winner.

The reason this system doesn't work is for two reasons.

1) The mechanic doesn't satisfy part (c) from above. The average person has (basically) only a 50/50 shot at succeeding at an ability test. My original correction was to make difficulty modifiers range from -N to +N to give the average character a "boost" for easier tasks, but this ended up creating more problems.

2) The mechanic for an attribute vs. skill test just broken. One correction I had considered was to have a skill vs. attribute test be like an uncontested skill test where the character is required to attain a MoS greater than the targets attribute modifier. However, this ended up screwing over lower skilled characters more than I would have liked, as well as making things way too easy for higher skilled characters.

To What I'm Attached

Of course, I'm attached to parts (a) through (e) mentioned above.

I've grown rather attached to the not using a 0-average range for attribute modifiers for two reasons. I'm not fond of saying what is "average" in this setting, and as is, the system basically says that even a low attribute contributes to a skill test.

I've also grown attached to using dice as randomizers.

I'm not overly attached to the ranges I established for attributes and skills, though I feel that any less would make the differences between characters a little too blurry, and much more might be a little excessive. In the end, though, whatever works is important.

I'm also not overly attached to the 2d6 for the roll. I've actually been tempted to switch it to a 1d12. For one, the linear probability curve would mute the differences somewhat with contested checks, which would be a good thing. Also, it would make potential critical successes and failures a bit more common, which is not necessarily a bad thing. Of course, if the ranges for skills/attributes change, then I expect the randomizer would have to change to match.

In Conclusion

Help...please? :)

Well, there are quite a few assumptions that I don't necessarily agree are necessary to achieve your goal of ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances...but I'm going to bite my tongue on those and try to help with what you've asked for.  If you want to hear the spiel on the rest, ask.

I will point out that even in a system like you're looking for I highly recommend scrapping b) from your list.  Not only is it completely unrealistic (there is a great deal of training involved in how to "notice" things properly) its also throwing a wrench in the whole works...I can hear the puzzled response now...yes, this seemingly innocuous requirement is largely responsible for your road block.  Happily it can be completely scrapped without any negative impact to your goals.

Why?  Because Attributes and Skills are always going to give you headaches as long as you have them trying to do the same thing.  Having such a thing as "natural" abilities which use only attributes rather than skills requires Attributes and Skills to effect the game in the same mechanical fashion and thus headache city.

There are numerous reasons why Attributes and Skills doing the same thing causes headaches.  You've probably encountered many of them over the course of your design attempts (even if you didn't recognize the source) so I'll save space by not including them here (plus there are numerous posts on that topic already you can search for).

The solution...if you're wedded to having both Attributes and Skills in the game as seperate entities...is to make sure they do completely different things mechanically.

Some examples ideas:

1) Attributes set the speed (e.g. initiative order) that actions occur in.  Skill determines success
2) Attributes set the number of actions you get in a "round".  Skill determines success (so your chance to pick a lock would be determined by your lock pick skill, but the number of attempts you could make before having to give up would be determined by your Dexterity).
3) Similiar to #2 but a different spin, Attributes set the number of dice you roll while Skills set the target number for success (each did is essentially an "attempt" all rolled up into a single roll)
4) Attributes rolls determine success while Skill Levels determine the maximum possible degree of accomplishment (i.e. roll your observation attribute to notice someone sneaking.  A low skill guy "hears something".  A mid skill guy "sees something in the shadows off to the left".  A high skill guy "sees two thugs in dark clothes carrying .45s moving up on the left side" A really high skill guy "recognizes one of them as Jake Smith, and notices the other is favoring his left leg"
5) Attributes have no mechanical effect in the game at all but serve merely to set how much it costs to buy each level of skill.  It costs alot of character design points to buy a skill linked to a low attribute.  It requires fewer to buy a skill linked to a high attribute.  After that, everything is skill.


I (or others) could probably come up with a few more ideas, but I bet you could think of a few yourself.  I've built probably 100 different variations on Skill + Attribute systems over the years and one thing I've learned pretty conclusively is trying to have 2 different scores operating at two different scales perform the same role in the game mechanics (i.e. both contribute to chance of success for a task roll) is just asking for trouble.

Hopefully that helps.

Hi!
  Well, I guess you really need to stop and define what the "typical" test vs a 8 represents? Then either modify the required MOS (maybe even consider allowing negative MOS for simpler tasks) or the die roll to reflect other more or less difficult tasks.
  And for the record, I agree that you should have a skill for notice. Just because you can;t take a college class in noticing things, doesn;t mean it is not a skill...
  It sounds like you have a well thought out system, and this is just a hiccup, good luck man!

Quote from: IagainstI on January 09, 2006, 06:52:42 PM
The Problem

I've tried designing using a roll-under, roll-over, Silhouette variant, D-D, and dice pool mechanics. So far, I haven't accomplished what I've set out to do. Just for example, let's say that attributes and skills both range from 1-10. Some elements I would like to accomplish are as follows:

a) There are automatic successes and failures.
b) There are no skills to represent natural abilities (i.e. no "notice" skill. Everyone has eyes and knows how to use them), and so this is handled with attributes.
c) A character should be able to accomplish a typical task (meaning no difficulty modifiers) more often than not. This especially going for an "average" character making an attribute test.
d) Contested checks may involve attribute vs. attribute (Strength for arm wrestling), Skill vs. Skill (two characters at the market bartering), and skill vs. attribute (one character is using a stealth skill to evade another characters perception).
e) In contested checks, there is always a chance for the underdog to succeed. For example, one character has Barter 1, another has Barter 10, while the Barter 10 character is most likely to succed, the Barter 1 should have a chance, even if it's a long shot that requires a critical success.

I'd sure like to help, but there's a few questions I'd like to dig into first (once answered, it may turn out I'm no help at all!)

But first, my guess is that your provlem doesn't really lie with the task resolution system. If you're attached to skills and attributes (something the guys in my group find very hard to give up, beleive you me!) Then let it stand. Rolling above/below/Silhouette/etc. are good enough. Call the dice representatives of chaos and leave it at that.

(Personally, I vote for tallying scores - roll 2d6 + attribute + appropriate skill. If you avoid negative mods you'll get a decent feeling out of the die rolls and keep players feeling like they're on an upswing. The breaks/difficulty numbers/targets/CRs for 2d6+a+i are, lessee: 10/13/18 or 20/25/33 and 42+ ...uh... ish. I mostly use those numbers because they stick in peoples' heads.)

Okay. That's fine. Leave it like that. Assume 2d6+0+0 is the worst you can do. Don't screw with the armor penalties or anything like that. It's all about giving the players some confidence, which they need for the next part:

You need to a side benefit system> Something that encourages your view of normalcy in player interactions and task resolution. Unknown Armies does a great job with "Passions" in this vein, as do the standards mentioned here (Dogs in the Vinyard and PrimeTime Adventures.) In fact, most of the games developed or bandied around this sight have great motivating mechanics.

Some suggestions I've seen include:
-- player controlled or themed failures - players get to "opt out" of rolls that are too high or that they've failed to make under special circumstances (corresponding to certain abilities/flaws or specialization skills, etc.) The player describes the failure in any way that they see fit (perhaps reaping some side benefits if the player is munchkin or clever) so long as the task itself fails.

-- emotion-linked benefits - lists of things that the character Really Really Cares About or Feels Strongly About which, when invoked, give special benefits (extra dice, free successes, etc.)

-- rechargeable failures - players have a certain attribute which works really well (automatic successes, free crits on any successful roll, something like that) once, but every time you use it, it needs to be recharged by a touch of normalcy (whatever that is) or some humanizing failure or revelation by the player on behalf of the character.

-- Responsibilities and problems as wonder charges - players list Personal Problems  from their characters' everyday lives and can "spend" those problems for bonuses, etc. during the course of play.

There are, of course, other options, but these are my favorites (and have turned out easiest to handle, in the games in which I've used them or seen them used.)

Ralph already addressed design requirement (b), so let me address requirement (c), the "typical tasks succeed most of the time" business. Now, I agree that many games take a rather bizarre approch to rolling for typical tasks; failure posp up way too frrequently, which not only seems unrealistic but also anticlimactic. It's an affront to reason and art.

But here's the question: if you want average characters to succeed at typical tasks most of the time, why are you rolling, then? Sure, you need to have a chance for an opponent to succeed even when facing a bad-ass, but that would be handled by a contested roll; in the cases where you have one character rolling against skill, you're going to get the troubles your having. Futzing around with the dice mechanic or the modifiers isn't going to help. Designers spend far too much time on this, but I will say to you what I have said before: dice mechanics are the least important part of game design.

I see two methods of elimiating the problem of whiffing rolls on typical tasks. One is well-known here: use conflict resolution instead of task resolution. Don't roll to see if you succeed in opening the lock or baking the cake, roll to see whether you or your opponent gets your way.

Now, if you want something more Simmy, here's the other approach I've been leaning towards (which can actually be combined with the first approach, but it can solve your problem on its own, too): don't roll to see if you succeed, roll to see how well or how quickly you completed your task. If you think about it, in the real world. most people can complete tasks they are capable of. especially typical tasks. The real question is how much time will it take them to complete those tasks, and how well did they complete it. So, make your roll determine whether they finished quickly or slowly, and allow other characters to block their task by completing their own tasks first.

If you were to take Ralph's first suggestion about making attributes indicate speed and make a few modifications, you could come up with something like the following:

• HIgher attribute goes first;
• Instead of setting skill modifiers or target numbers, the difficulty of a task sets how many "hit points" a task has, with typical tasks getting 6 hit points;
• If your 2d6 roll is below or equal to your skill, you do "damage" to the task equal to your attribute, or no damage if the roll is above your skill;
• Special situations and equipment, magical bonuses, and unusual talents add damage;
• On a successful roll, if the roll is doubles, add the value of one die to damage;
• If you really want to keep fumbles as an option, make a failed doubles roll do Will damage equal to the value of one die; ehen the total Will damage is equal to the character's Will, something bad happens and Will damage resets to zero.

There can be tactical options that let you temporarily add two attributes, but at a temporary reduction to another attribute or a penalty to skill. Also, as a final note, this setup keeps attributes in the same range as you described, but you might want to set average skill as 7, so that a character with an average attribute will complete a typical task in one turn 50% of the time.

Oh, I better add an example, to make it clear:

Your character Artifex is a thief with Agility 6 and Lockpicking 7. The GM mentions there is a chest in the room with a typical quality lock (6 hit points of quality.)

On your first roll, you get 4+6 = 10. That's higher than your Lockpicking skill, so, it takes you longer than one turn to pick the lock. If there is a threat in the room and you have to finish pciking the lock quickly, this might be bad, but the point is, you didn't fail the task, you just failed to pick the lock in one turn.

(If your first roll had been double 5s, you would take five points of Will damage. If your Will was only 5, this might mean that in a tense moment, you accidentally bend your lockpicks out of shape.)

On your second turn, you roll 1+2 = 3: success! You do 6 points of damage to the lock, opening it on your second turn.

If the lock was more difficult, maybe a devilishly hard 20 hit point lock, you would still need to do 14 more points of lockpicking damage to the lock. If your third roll against this much harder lock was 3+3 = 6, this is a critical success; you do 6 points + 3 points for a total of 9 points of damage.

Here's a resolution mechanism. Choose either an attribute or a skill that is relevant to the conflict. Or one of each if you want to allow that. Add the scores (not the attribute modifiers -- scrap those entirely) and that's your dice pool. Roll that many d6es. Count each 6 as a success.

The opposition -- and there's always opposition -- rolls its dice pool, too. Every 6 is a success. Most successes wins. Ties are just ties.

Typical task has an opposition of 1d6. Harder tasks can range up to 12d6 or more.


a) Automatic successes: Any task that the GM just feels is easy enough to warrant not rolling dice.  Automatic failures: Any roll with no 6's.

b) No natural ability skills: Fine, use attributes. A skill by any other name...

c) Whiff factor: Chance of 1 success on 1 die = 17%, 2=31%, 3=42%, 4=52%, 5=60%, 6=67%, 7=72%, 8=77%, 9=81%, 10=84%. Make sure an average character typically has 4+ dice to roll and they're guaranteed to roll at least one success.

d) Contested checks: Handled fine by this mechanism. Strength vs. Strength --> two dice pools. Barter vs. Barter --> two dice pools. Stealth vs. Perception --> two dice pools.

e) Underdog: Barter 1 vs. Barter 10. Barter 1 guy rolls 1d6 and gets a 6 (17% likely). Barter 10 guy rolls 10d6 and rolls no 6's (9% probable). Barter 1 guy beats Barter 10 guy 1.5% of the time. Possible, but very unlikely.

Does that solve everything for you?

Holy hell, this is longer than my initial post.

There's been a lot of good advice so far...more so than what I've found on the net in the past week or so. I'll attempt to respond to one person at a time.

Valamir

Quote
If you want to hear the spiel on the rest, ask.

Fire away. I've never been afraid of constructive criticism.

Quote
there is a great deal of training involved in how to "notice" things properly

I actually started thinking about this last night after I posted. More specifically, I had not initially intended to have any social skills in the game. I mean, everyone knows how to talk, right? I was going to make most social tests a simple Bearing check. But then I realized that was pretty retarded. In real life, all social skills are learned through socialization.

On the other hand, one of the main reasons I was scrapping a lot of these "fringe" skills (like notice, climb, barter, etc.) for a few reasons:

1) In many games I've played, I've noticed that most players ignore them anyway. I had thought that by designing a system where all these fringe skills become attribute tests, players could still use all these fringe skills without having to invest in them (more than they've invested in the corresponding attribute).

2) The climb skill actually got me started on this line of thinking. I have a friend who does rock climbing, and I never had. Some time ago, we decided to "race" up a wall. I totally kicked his ass, and pretty much consistently since. Why? Because even though he spends more time climbing walls than I do, I'm in better shape and generally more athletic. This got me thinking that a lot of skills I've seen in other systems really aren't learned abilities, but a reflection of natural abilities. Like if I was a character in D&D, I would have a 0 for a climb skill because I don't climb things, I don't know anything about the equipment, etc., but I do have the ability to pull my body weight up a wall using handholds and foot holds.

3) A lot of this fringe skills most often (though not always) rely on one attribute, whereas the rest of my skill set is somewhat more general and can be used with more than one attribute, depending on the situation. Being so niche, I can kind of understand why these fringe skills get ignored by other players.

Quote
Why?  Because Attributes and Skills are always going to give you headaches as long as you have them trying to do the same thing.

Like, seriously. I think I've already come to the conclusion that it's impossible. My regular job is as a Sociology instructor, which involves a fair bit of statistics. I've tried so many ways to manipulate the probability curvers for attributes and skill tests to do what I want, and for what I'm trying to do, the math is impossible. It's like trying to give a uni-modal bell curve two medians. It's not happening.

Quote
Some examples ideas...

I've actually used many of those so far. For example, Agility determines the number of actions in a combat round a character can take, and will also affect initiative. I used (3) for my Silhouette variant, and really liked how it worked, though my Silhouette variant had too many other problems. However, getting them to work for both attributes and skill tests has been impossible. The only one that wouldn't work is (5) as like I said earlier, many skills can be used with multiple attributes, depending on the situation. I have been toying with the idea of linking every skill to a primary attribute (as in, the attribute most often used), though that would probably only create more problems. For example, the stealth skill pretty much equally relies on two attributes. Sneaking around is agility, but hiding and tailing is perception.

Dindenver

Quote
Well, I guess you really need to stop and define what the "typical" test vs a 8 represents?

Well, there's an extremely long answer to that where I could go off into a discourse on every possible skill use and situation where the skill is used and further define what is "typical" for every skill and situation.

Or...

I can say that in terms of the laws of life, the universe, and everything (props to HHGTHG), this setting follows pretty much the same rules as our own world, barring influence from the setting's supernatural elements.

Arpie

There are a lot of good suggestions there. Many of them I've already intended to cover through either the use of Willpower, Techniques, or some combination of the two.

The problem I believe I'm having is establishing a really strong "core" for task resolution. Once that is taken care of, I can flush it out even further with the wide assortment of Techniques I'm planning. I'm thinking that Techniques might not be the best term, because it would also include various character-based elements.

Talysman

Quote
Now, I agree that many games take a rather bizarre approch to rolling for typical tasks; failure posp up way too frrequently, which not only seems unrealistic but also anticlimactic. It's an affront to reason and art.

My thoughts exactly.

Quote
But here's the question: if you want average characters to succeed at typical tasks most of the time, why are you rolling, then?

Well, there are many tasks that the characters will never need to roll for. When a character is rolling for a task, it's not just because there's a possibility of failure, but also a consequence. So the players never have to roll to tie their shoes. Why? Because even if they screw up, they can just do it again, no big deal. On the other hand. You could have the most pro-style stealthy character in the most optimal of conditions trip over his own two feet. And when that happens, there's consequences.

I don't want to just throw a bunch of obstacles at the characters that they just have to overcome. Failure is a part of life, and a part of this game. So when a PC does fail, I want to PC to have options of what to do next. And when the pro-style stealth ninja trips over his own to feet, he better have a plan B.

Quote
I see two methods of elimiating the problem of whiffing rolls on typical tasks. One is well-known here: use conflict resolution instead of task resolution. Don't roll to see if you succeed in opening the lock or baking the cake, roll to see whether you or your opponent gets your way.

What if there is no opponent? Like with baking a cake. It's not likely that I'd have some rival on the other side of the kitchen pelting me with eggs trying to mess me up. Sometimes it's just the character and the task at hand. You know, man vs. self.

I do intend to have an element of this in adventure design though (as there's almost always conflict in adventure), in that how the characters overcome the conflict will reflect in the rewards. Though, there's really nothing revolutionary there. I'm sure most designers use that approach to some extent.

Quote
If there is a threat in the room and you have to finish pciking the lock quickly, this might be bad, but the point is, you didn't fail the task, you just failed to pick the lock in one turn.

Oh, I'm definitely using an element like this. Some skills will have extended tests. Characters need to attain a certain MoS, and avoid a certain MoF in order to succeed at a task. I won't be using it all the time (as it would really bog down play), but used in certain situations, it can add tension to the game.

Adam Dray

Long story short, this system doesn't work so well with part (d), as with a skill vs. attribute test the person with the average attribute is still favored.

Where I am now

I appreciate all the help so far. I feel like I'm much closer to the solution.

Ok, so there's no attribute vs. skill tests. In fact, there's probably no attribute tests at all. There has to be a skill for everything. Like Dindenver said, just because you can't take a class in it...

But this creates a new concern. Before, by having the attribute tests that work like skill tests, it was possible to cover everything a player might think to do. If a character wants to arm wrestle a guy in the bar. There's no arm wrestling skill, but it's ok because the character can just do a strength test. Problem 1 Now I have to do that with skills, which makes things a bit more difficult to be all inclusive.

Also, I still want to keep skills general enough to cover the etc. that can happen (like, "I want to use my Melee (Swords) skill to evaluate the quality of the blade"). For the climb skill, no problem. It's now Athletics and can cover climbing, jumping, swimming, arm wrestling, and running along a tightrope while getting pelted with eggs. Of course there's a problem there. Problem 2 You have one character with max strength and no Athletics skill arm wrestling a guy with average strength and maxed athletics skill. Now, it's arm wrestling, not rugby, yet with this system, the average joe is most likely to win.

And, for the notice skill, I can make it work. Obviously is not just for noticing rogues skulking in the bushes, but anything odd or out of place in one's environment. No problems.

So I have the following skill set:

Melee (Long Blades)
Melee (Short Blades)
Melee (Impact Weapons)
Melee (Staff Weapons)
Melee (Simple)
Ranged (Bows)
Ranged (Crossbows)
Ranged (Thrown)
Barter
Socialize (includes Bluffing and Intimidation)
Diplomacy
Craft (type) - various marketable professional skills
Lore (type) - various academic knowledges
Healing
Performance (type) - acting, singing, dancing, instruments, etc.
Sleight-of-Hand (will include pickpocketing)
Ride
Sail
Survival (Region)
Stealth
Notice
Athletics

Back to problem 1, I can already think of a few situations that are not covered. Drinking games, Trap Finding/Disarming, Lockpicking, and Disguise. Can anyone think of any others?

Side note: I should probably mention my damage system. Basically, I have wound levels. Uninjured, Wounded, Injured, Help-I've-fallen-and-I-can't-get-up, etc. When a character takes damage, s/he has to make a toughness check to see if s/he takes a wound from the damage (otherwise it becomes a superficial injury and is just shrugged off). The more damaging the blow, the more difficult the check is. If the test suceeds, then no damage is taken, otherwise, the character takes a wound. There's a few more elements to it, but this is the important nitty-gritty. Now, the toughness check before was just a health check, but obviously that's not going to work because I'm not doing attribute tests, I need another method. What I was thinking of doing was putting attributes and skills on the same scale. So let's say they are both 1-12. Now, the Toughness test is a Health + Strength mod, check. Putting it on the same scale as a regular skill check makes using the skill check mechanic a viable method. Am I wrong?

Also, I know this damage system is more heroic than realistic. But this is what I mean by aiming for stradling the line between a hero and an average Joe.

So Drinking Games (and any poisoning or environmental hazards, for that matter), I figure I can cover with this Toughness check assuming that I didn't just screw up again and it works. Though I should mention, there's also a Fatigue element, and this kind of damage would do Fatigue damage before physical damage.

Lockpicking, Traps, and Disguise I mention only because a lot of games have these skills and it may seem odd that I don't with a fantasy/medieval setting. I have plans for these. I was considering making Disguise a Technique that a character can develop and use the Perform (acting) skill for skill tests. Lockpicking was also going to be a Technique, though I can't think of a skill to tie it to other than Craft (Locksmithing), though it's really not necessary to know how to make a lock in order to pick one, so I think I need a better answer for this. As for traps, this isn't D&D. The world isn't freckled with ancient ruins and dungeons waiting for ambitious adventurers to stumble into their pit traps and the like. In fact, characters in this world will never find themselves in a traditional dungeon-crawl per se.

So I think I can see the finish line. Any ideas on these last two problems so I can cross it?

Thanks again to everyone for their help so far. It's like monoliths have been reduced to just hurdles...and midget hurdles at that. :)

Hi!
  That was a rather glib answer to a serious question.
  What I mean is what is your definition of "typical"
  Aparently it is something that the average person with average training can only do about half of the time. Riding for instance, would that be galloping long distances? Show jumping? Certainly that would not be a test for trotting into town. So, what is the Mod for the trotting? Is it negative MOS required, die mod or no roll?
  Defining what is typical puts the needs of your system in perspective.

Quote

Quote
Some examples ideas...

I've actually used many of those so far. For example, Agility determines the number of actions in a combat round a character can take, and will also affect initiative. I used (3) for my Silhouette variant, and really liked how it worked, though my Silhouette variant had too many other problems. However, getting them to work for both attributes and skill tests has been impossible. The only one that wouldn't work is (5) as like I said earlier, many skills can be used with multiple attributes, depending on the situation. I have been toying with the idea of linking every skill to a primary attribute (as in, the attribute most often used), though that would probably only create more problems. For example, the stealth skill pretty much equally relies on two attributes. Sneaking around is agility, but hiding and tailing is perception.

When you say "getting them to work for both attributes and skill tests"...I'm not sure you understand me fully. 

My strong recommendation is to scrap the idea of doing both.  Having both attributes and skills in your game can work.  Having the ability to make tests that use both (either combining into a single test or testing them seperately) is fraught with obstacles and headaches.

Abilities do one thing...Skills do something else.  That is the most effective way of getting a system to work.

Meaning...if you decide to test vs. skill then you never ever ever test vs. Abilities...ever.  Abilities should do something completely unrelated to the odds of success on the test roll.  They could indicate the number of times you can try the test roll.  They could determine how quickly you make a test roll.  They could determine how expensive buying levels of skill is.  They could determine any number of things that contribute to the overall ability of one character kicking another character's butt at the given task.  But they have to come at it from a different angle.

Or, if you choose to test vs. abilities then reverse the above.

But if you try to design a system where you can test both or where both contribute to a test, you're going to have problems.  Aside from the fact that there are a ton of systems that try to do that already (and the last thing the gaming world needs is another one) they are all fraught with any of a variety of problems (often directly related to the ingame currency and reward mechanics).

IagainstI said:

QuoteOk, so there's no attribute vs. skill tests. In fact, there's probably no attribute tests at all. There has to be a skill for everything. Like Dindenver said, just because you can't take a class in it...

If you're abandoning these types of tests, how does my recommended mechanic fail to meet your requirements?

Even if you keep attribute vs. skill tests, don't you want to favor a guy with an average attribute over a guy with an average skill? Inherent ability trumps skill? If so, it works. If not, change the scale of your attributes to match that of your skills.

You might consider a trait "box" system. Say you have Strength 7 and Dwarven Strength 2 (a racial modifer of sorts) and Axes 5. You can use these traits any time you want, but each d6 you roll (temporarily) reduces each trait you use by 1. It's as if you have Strength 7d6, Dwarven Strength 2d6, and Axes 5d6. If you fight and decide to use 3d6 of your Strength plus all 2d6 of your Dwarven Strength plus 1d6 of your Axes, then you get to roll 3+2+1 = 6d6 for that task. You can bring in more dice the next round if you want. When you use up all of the dice in a trait, it's done until it resets, usually at the end of the session or via some reward mechanism.

This way, you don't have to worry about

• whether a trait is a skill or an attribute or a modifier (or even a personality mechanic trait like "Evil 2d6" or "Destined to Lead 5d6")
• if a trait is "too narrow" or "too broad" -- if it's broad, then it will get used often, but there are only so many points in it to use
• if a particular trait applies exactly to the task at hand -- the player thinks so and is willing to spend the trait to do it

No set of attributes was ever going to serve as the safety net for resolving every possible task. In fact, the more specific you make your attributes, the more likely certain problems would fall through the net. If you had, say, five attributes (Physical, Mental, Emotional, Social, Spiritual) then you might cover most situations. Once you get more specific, you have to wonder if you'll know which attribute governs figuring out how quickly a character can recover from a traumatic scare, for example.

QuoteWhat if there is no opponent? Like with baking a cake. It's not likely that I'd have some rival on the other side of the kitchen pelting me with eggs trying to mess me up. Sometimes it's just the character and the task at hand. You know, man vs. self.

I'm baking a cake. I use Knowledge 2d6 + Baking 4d6. The cake is a routine but not trivial task so it gets 4d6. Opposed rolls.

The "opposed task vs. unopposed task" dichotomy is an illusion.


By the way, in case no one else has said it, welcome to the Forge!  We tend to use our real names around here.  What should we call you?

Dindenver

Quote
That was a rather glib answer to a serious question.

I apologize, I didn't intend to be glib.

What is "typical" really depends on the skill. But I would like a character to be able to accomplish a task of low difficulty more than half the time. Also, "typical" (and the necessity of the check) is going to depend on the situation the skill is being performed and the consequences for failure.

For example, the ride check you mentioned. Just riding around doesn't require a check. In most cases, getting an animal to gallop wouldn't require a check, but that would depend on the situation. If the character is just cruising around on a horse, there would be no check. If there were a check, a character who fails the first time can just keep trying until s/he succeeds, no big deal. However, if the character is being chased down by some enemies, a ride check might be required as each failure is a gain for the enemies.

There are a lot of low level difficulty checks that would not be rolled, and would just be automatic successes. These would be checks when failure has no significant consequences. Obviously, it would be absurd to have players roll ride checks even when just cruising around just to see if they fumble and are thrown from their horse. Such a thing would not be fun for players, and not be very dramatic.

Valamir

Quote
When you say "getting them to work for both attributes and skill tests"...I'm not sure you understand me fully. 

My strong recommendation is to scrap the idea of doing both.

Oh, I understood you the first time. All I was saying was that I did try those ideas when I was trying to get the ability vs. skill element to work. I've already scrapped the ability vs. skill element, but I'm still going to use those ideas. It wasn't like I was shooting down your ideas because they didn't work with my broken element, I was just acknowledging your ideas and saying that they all would work, except (5), of course. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Also, didn't you mention some spiel about some assumptions I was making. I would like to hear it, it can only help.

Quote
Meaning...if you decide to test vs. skill then you never ever ever test vs. Abilities...ever.  Abilities should do something completely unrelated to the odds of success on the test roll.

Exactly. Though I feel that if I can't use attributes to affect the ease of developing a skill (like my example above with stealth, agility, and perception), having them provide a modifier depending on how the skill is used seems almost necessary. Well, maybe not necessary, but logical and realistic. Otherwise, my "arm wrestling" problem I described is only further worsened.

At this point, the "arm wrestling" dilemma is my biggest concern. Furthermore, I'm starting to get concerned with the symbiotic relationship that may occur between skills. For example, if a character focuses on weapon skills, but not other physical skills, it would seem kind of odd. I can't imagine a character that can rock out with swords and axes and such, but can't climb a wall or jump across a 10' gap. However, as is, the system apparently allows this.

I did consider skill groups at one point, I'll have to toy with this idea more. However, I don't think it would necessarily solve this problem.

Adam Dray

Quote
If you're abandoning these types of tests, how does my recommended mechanic fail to meet your requirements?

I'm just abandoning dice pools because it's easier to monitor the probabilities using other mechanics, therefore making it easier for me to insure that things are happening as often as I want them to happen. Dice pools involve multiple probability curves, up the the maximum number of dice possible in a pool. I may know statistics, but it's social statistics. R-squares, path analysis, ANOVA, no problem. Complex linear algebra and overlapping probability curves, definitely a problem.

Quote
No set of attributes was ever going to serve as the safety net for resolving every possible task.

Quite likely, and I bet the same goes for skills. But this creates the problem of having a system that can't handle player actions. Let's say, for example, that my system had no stealth skill. It would be quite an oversight, but it's just an example. The players are playing a game, and one decides he wants his character to sneak past some guards. What is he supposed to do?

The main reason (and probably the only reason), that I wanted to implement attribute tests before was so that I had a "catch-all" for any unexpected player actions. Now that I've scrapped that, I really have to make sure my bases are covered.

Quote
By the way, in case no one else has said it, welcome to the Forge!  We tend to use our real names around here.  What should we call you?

Thanks. I wasn't aware of the using real names bit. Mine is Michael. I should put a sig together.

Quote from: IagainstI on January 10, 2006, 06:16:29 PM
Dindenver

QuoteOh, I understood you the first time. All I was saying was that I did try those ideas when I was trying to get the ability vs. skill element to work. I've already scrapped the ability vs. skill element, but I'm still going to use those ideas.

Ahh, I obviously didn't follow your response correctly.

QuoteExactly. Though I feel that if I can't use attributes to affect the ease of developing a skill (like my example above with stealth, agility, and perception), having them provide a modifier depending on how the skill is used seems almost necessary. Well, maybe not necessary, but logical and realistic. Otherwise, my "arm wrestling" problem I described is only further worsened. At this point, the "arm wrestling" dilemma is my biggest concern.

Ahh...the classic armwrestling example...I'll make two points to this...the first is related to that spiel you've asked about.

1) Have you ever had a game experience where an armwrestling match was crucial to your enjoyment of the game...I mean really?  Not just that there was a funny interlude where the big barbarian challenged the dwarf over too much ale for a couple of coins while waiting in the tavern for the NPC show up...but an honest to god...Holy Cow...that was one of the most satisfying roleplaying experiences I've ever had moment...No?  Then why in the world would you even care...let alone care enough to make such situations your biggest concern?  Yes, I know armwrestling is just one example of the type of rolls you're talking about.  But seriously, step back a minute and think really hard about exactly why those types of rolls are even valuable.  Chances are you're exerting alot of effort for something that almost never makes a difference anyway.

2) Mechanically any of the above options I gave would work just fine even for this situation (and btw #5 can absolutely be made to work with calling on different attributes on the fly in game).  One example, I have a Strength of 5 you have a Strength of 3.  You have superior Armwrestling skill.  We each roll vs. Skill only...no modifiers from Attributes at all to the roll.  But you have to beat me 5 times and I only have to beat you 3. 

QuoteFurthermore, I'm starting to get concerned with the symbiotic relationship that may occur between skills. For example, if a character focuses on weapon skills, but not other physical skills, it would seem kind of odd. I can't imagine a character that can rock out with swords and axes and such, but can't climb a wall or jump across a 10' gap. However, as is, the system apparently allows this.

That's an artifact of thinking in terms of skills as discrete narrow entities.  Most gamers start off thinking this is a good way to do skills because it allows for things like "I'm good with a sword, but oh no, the GM took my sword away and all I have is this axe and I'm not so good with that"  They're right in thinking that this can be a potentially dramatic situation worth portraying in a game...but doing it by splitting sword and axe skill is really awkward in game (and especially for character creation) leads to all kinds of goofy things (like GURPS characters who are Doctors but don't know basic arithmatic) and ultimately isn't very realistic anyway.

Better is to think in terms of cultural and professional background.  Consider yourself.  Whatever it is you do for a living I guarentee you could list out 20-30 "skills" that are part of your job that you do pretty well.  If you were to make yourself as a character in an RPG...would you really want to list all 20-30 things on your character sheet...and then throw in dozens more for hobbys, background, things you learned at grandpa's knee, etc...?  I wouldn't.  But I bet if I asked you "hey Michael, what do you do for a living" you could tell me in 1 sentence or less...and from that sentence, we could get a pretty good idea of many of the skills you possess.

For instance take your arm wrestling skill.  You have a character with "Man-at-arms level 4" and "Garrisoned at Wycliff Keep" Level 3 written on the character sheet.  You want to do an armwrestling contest.  Is it reasonable for a soldier on garrison duty to armwrestle people...I'd wager that's a pretty common pass time...so you don't have an armwrestling skill in the game?  So what...just assume that knowledge comes with the territory of being a Man-at-arms and go with it.  Later on when the character is overseas and you want him to appraise the value of a barrell of ale he's being bribed with the player notes that Wycliff Keep was renowned for its fine ale and so any soldier stationed there probably has a good sense of the beverage...fine...instead of saying "you don't have the Appraise Ale skill you simply roll with "Garrisoned at Wycliff Keep" and move on.

Do you think someone trained with swords and axes should be able to climb a wall?  Then simply let them use their "Fighting" skill to make the roll and be done with it. 

If that's too loosey goosey for you...simply have 3 default skills that every character has...one for physical stuff, one for mental stuff, and one for social stuff.  Call em whatever generic phrase sounds good (like "Athletics").  Then there's always a skill to default to if nothing else applies.  Think being Athletic would help in a fight?  Fine then let the character make an Athletic test with success modifiying their Fighting test.  How many Tests can a character link together in this way...how about a number equal to their Agility...  So you mean I can charge in on my horse (riding check) out of the sun so my opponent is blinded (perception or tactics check), leap from the saddle (athletics check) and then attack my opponent (fighting check)...yup...if you have an Agility of 4 you can.  And every check I succeed on makes my fighting check better so I can basically customize my own special maneuvers without needing lists of feats and techniques and stuff...yup...works like a charm too.

That's just one option...but point being there are MANY valid workable alternatives to the long skill list. 

You asked about my Spiel...you can probably see the edges of it coming through above, but I'll get a bit more specific.  If you haven't done so already I recommend reading a bunch of the articles and stickies here (Mike's Standard Rants are especially useful for your purposes) and then start a new thread to discuss further.

QuoteIn this game, PCs are essentially ordinary people who get swept up in extraordinary circumstances.

This is what you've said your game is about...fantastic.  Knowing what your game is about is the first step of a good design.  Problem is...absolutely nothing I've seen in the rest of the thread has anything to do with this.  How does your game portray ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances better than GURPS...or Hero...of Fuzion...or any of a dozen other systems out there that look alot like this (or heck systems that don't look alot like this like Fudge)?  If it doesn't...then why are you designing it?  Are you sure that's really what you're game is about?  Note...that's not an insult...just food for thought, and a standard opening for the Spiel.

QuoteBecause of this, the mechanics need to be gritty and realistic, but at the same time, slightly heroic to give the PCs a fighting chance against various obstacles.

Do they really?  I can think of many games that do ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances REALLY WELL that don't even bother to blink in the direction of gritty and realistic.  Why do you think the two are tied together?  What do you even mean by "gritty and realistic" (two more vague game design terms are hard to find).

Part two of the Spiel usually moves into asking about what other games you've played alot of...and then into the really hard questions like "what do the PLAYERS do while sitting around the table".  and "what do you envision a typical game session to look like"   

Quote
Have you ever had a game experience where an armwrestling match was crucial to your enjoyment of the game...I mean really?

Never at all. I would debate the issue, but:

Quote
One example, I have a Strength of 5 you have a Strength of 3.  You have superior Armwrestling skill.  We each roll vs. Skill only...no modifiers from Attributes at all to the roll.  But you have to beat me 5 times and I only have to beat you 3. 

solves the problem and counters any argument I could make.

Quote
"I'm good with a sword, but oh no, the GM took my sword away and all I have is this axe and I'm not so good with that"

Back in the day, I had a 2e D&D GM that was a total goit and would do stuff like that all the time. I already have a solution for that (and that's why weapons are split into Melee/Ranged categories). Basically, there is going to be a Technique that lets you use a portion of your best Melee skill for all melee weapons (and the same for ranged weapons).

Also, combat is going to be more on the tactical side (a grid map, miniatures, etc.), so differentiating between weapon categories is going to add more flavor and options.

Quote
Do you think someone trained with swords and axes should be able to climb a wall?  Then simply let them use their "Fighting" skill to make the roll and be done with it.

If that's too loosey goosey for you...

That was a good idea, but not what I was looking for. I'm aiming for something a little less left to player/GM interpretation. The last thing I want is people arguing over rules and what a character should or should not be able to do in a given situation. Take D&D 3.5, for example. I played in a group a few years ago where people would argue over the rules somewhat often, which was actually kind of bizarre considering how comprehensive the system is.

Quote
If you were to make yourself as a character in an RPG...would you really want to list all 20-30 things on your character sheet...and then throw in dozens more for hobbys, background, things you learned at grandpa's knee, etc...?

You're absolutely right here. One of my hobbies is shooting sports. I'm great with a 1911, .357, and a Beretta 9mm, but I'm worthless with a Glock 17 (it's not a "comfortable" weapon, IMO). Actually, I'm more accurate with a Beretta .32 short barrel at 40 ft., (which is generally only good for self-defense and at ranges of less than 20ft.) than I am with the Glock at 20ft. (which has around three times the length between sights) Now most systems would just list pistols (or even firearms in general) as a skill. If I was going to be uber-realistic about it I'd have to have a skill for every type of firearm because "realistically" there is a difference. However, that would just be insane.

At the same time, I have to feel like what tasks the skill encompasses is are reasonable and related enough, while keeping the skill general enough to prevent from having an insanely long skill list. So if I was designing a contemporary setting, I'd probably have a skill for pistols, one for rifles, and maybe one for shotguns. Granted, I'm crap with a Glock, but if you put any pistol in my hand, I'm pretty sure I could handle it as well as the .357 or 9mm.

Quote
How does your game portray ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances better than GURPS...?

Well, right now it doesn't. It's pretty broken and unfinished at that. :)

I don't know enough about HERO or Fuzion to critique it, but I do know some other systems to know why they don't work for me.

But before I come off like I'm railing GURPS, I want to say that I like GURPS. It was the first game that I ever played. It's what got me into gaming, and I have nothing but respect for the system.

And as for railing these other systems. For the most part, they are fine for the settings they are used for, just not for what I'm working towards. I don't think I'm "better" than any of these designers, or anything of the sort. Also, I tend to use d20 for comparison a lot, not because I think that's what all games should be judged by, but because I've had the most experience with that system.

GURPS mechanic has too strong of a central tendency (as would occur with any 3dX mechanic) which provide dimishing returns above the mean, and makes success rather improbable below the mean. GURPS also ties every skill to a single stat, which isn't very realistic in many cases. I also don't exactly agree with many of the ties.

With Silhouette's system, there's not much of a point to get a skill higher than 3. Also, I think the mechanic is a little backwards. Attributes should add dice, while skill levels should add to the roll. Adding dice pretty much only makes it easier to get a higher MoS, while adding to the roll expands the range of the MoS. Also, Silhouette ties every skill to a single attribute (though with the way the system works, it would be easy to work around that.

D20? I don't know where to begin. In short, when you get right down to it, D20 (especially D&D) is great for dungeon crawls and hack-and-slash, but not so great for other types of adventures. The reward system is pretty much built around killing stuff, and while it is possible for a GM to houserule and tweak the system to work around it, it's a burden that no GM should have to deal with.

I liked Storyteller at first because it was pretty fast and loose. Unlike D&D where there's loads of modifiers for everything, ST has a much simpler approach, and that part of it works pretty well. What I wasn't a fan of was the skill system, which while being so general that two completely unrelated tasks could be accomplished by the same skill check, it still wasn't really all inclusive or mutually exclusive.

CODA is ok at it's core (2d6 + skill + attribute modifier), but doesn't really work well with it's other elements (particularly difficulty modifiers, the damage system, etc.). My system originally started out as a super-tweaked version of CODA, and had evolved/degraded from there.

I can't remember the name of this other system, but I believe the game was called Dreamworks Mechanus or something like that. Basically, it used this step-die mechanic that was pretty complex. Overall it was the kind of system where the players would have to spend quite a lot of time memorizing rules or looking up tables.

As for my system, I want my system to be able to handle all (reasonably expected) conflict with a contest of mutually exclusive variables (be it skills, attributes, or whatever) in a non-ambiguous manner.

Quote
Note...that's not an insult...

I'm not taking any of this as hostility. Having my ideas and intentions challenged is a good thing and will only make my game stronger in the end.

Quote
Why do you think the two are tied together? What do you even mean by "gritty and realistic"?

I don't think the two are tied together at all. You can have a gritty game that's quite unrealistic, or you can have a realistic game that's not gritty at all. But I'm aiming for both in my game. I realize though that gritty and realistic are actually more elements of setting and adventure design, not system design. You're right, everyone has their own definition of gritty and realistic.

If I had to apply those descriptors to system...

Gritty, to me, means that failure is always a possibility, and has consequences, but isn't the be-all-end-all in conflict resolution. Gritty doesn't really help define skills, attributes, and the like, but more what you do with them. Also, gritty has a certain feel that when the players are rolling the dice, it means something more than cold, hard math. I mean, if I wanted to make it easy on myself, as a designer, I would just make a d% system. Then I could choose the exact % for everything. However, for the players, a d12 system has a different psychological effect, IMO. A MoS of 1 on a d12 provides a little more tension than a MoS of 8 on a d%, even though they mean the same thing. Then again, that's just my take on the psychology of it.

Realistic, to me, means that the variables used for conflict resolution are what one would logically expect based on the laws of the universe in the game. Storyteller is a good example of an unrealistic system to me. A character who pumps their Science skill up is equivalent to someone with a Ph.D. in Nuclear Physics, Organic Chemistry, Marine Biology, Materials Science, Genetics, Ecology, Geology, and so forth. I know plenty of people with Ph.D.s, but it's usually in just one or two of those disciplines.

Is it necessary to have a system where you differentiate between Marine Biology and Nuclear Physics? Well, no, nothing's really necessary. But if one is simulating a world where the universe and its inhabitants are very similar to our own it would make sense that the Nuclear Physicist can't identify the strange sea creature that's washed ashore.

I know this is going to make me sound like a flip-flopper, but I do understand why Storyteller lumps together all sciences into one skill. For a setting like Vampire or Werewolf, characters are not going to spend a whole lot of time hunched over beakers and bunsen burners in labs so it's not exactly a crucial element of the system. Even for my own contemporary setting (which is the next stage in my project), science is not going to be a crucial element. At the same time, I don't see myself being as broad as Storyteller. I would probably work it like weapon categories and make Science a category where a character woould have to pick a discipline and can develop the Technique that lets him use a portion of the skill for other sciences.

Quote
"what do the PLAYERS do while sitting around the table". "what do you envision a typical game session to look like" 

I'm not entirely sure what you're going for with these questions, but I'll assumed that they are related and answer the best I can. I think the answer to this depends more on the setting (or at least adventure) than the system. I don't want the players to be bogged down with game mechanics outside of combat. I want to design the system in a way so that a character that wants to climb a wall doesn't have to look up modifiers for the wall's smoothness, slope, etc. That's one of the reasons I was working with a 1d12 roll-under and a non-zero-average difficulty system. With that range for a randomizer, a reasonable range for difficulties would probably be 1-5. Enough to differentiate between climbing a sheer mountain cliff, or climbing over a 10ft. cobblestone wall. Combat is going to be a little more complicated. Whereas other conflict is going to require more creativity, combat is going to require more analysis and assessment. I still don't want characters to have to spend most of combat pouring over tables and charts, but the fact that a mace is more effective than a sword against chain mail is good knowledge to have.

For any task, most of the burden of knowing the modifiers will be the GMs. For the players, it would be good for them to know that it's better to be stealthy at night, or that weapons are more accurate at shorter ranges, but they don't need to know the numbers. They just need to roll, report their MoS, and the GM deals with it accordingly.

Also going with such a small range randomizer is for the GMs benefit as well. If I went with a d% roll-under system, it would be a nightmare for the players and the GM. The players would have to deal with double digit subtraction for every skill check, not to mention the cumbersome math the GM would have to deal with for multiple difficulty modifiers. 3 - 2 + 1 is a hell of a lot easier to deal with than 47 + 23 - 12.

I have to ask: I know I started this thread to winge on about my resolution mechanic, but after all we've discussed, is it even an issue anymore? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that at this point, it's more important that I define (or redefine) my resolution variables and have a clear method for their categorization.

If that's the case, I'm kind of back to square one, no?

Hello,

Before you start work on your Task Resolution system, can I urge you to consider having only opposed rolls in the game. I know you have already addressed this, but please let me put my point of view to you.

You have noted:

Quote from: IagainstI on January 10, 2006, 02:34:21 PM
Well, there are many tasks that the characters will never need to roll for. When a character is rolling for a task, it's not just because there's a possibility of failure, but also a consequence. So the players never have to roll to tie their shoes. Why? Because even if they screw up, they can just do it again, no big deal. On the other hand. You could have the most pro-style stealthy character in the most optimal of conditions trip over his own two feet. And when that happens, there's consequences.

If you want consequences to failed actions - which is great, by the way, and I think you should focus on this aspect more - then surely there is an agency which will enact those consequences upon the character. In the stealth example, it might be a guard, in combat it's your opponent, and so on. Even enviromental factors could be considered to have 'agency' in this case; those tall cliffs above some jagged rocks would could cause consequences if your character failed to climb it.

Quote from: IagainstI on January 10, 2006, 02:34:21 PM

QuoteI see two methods of elimiating the problem of whiffing rolls on typical tasks. One is well-known here: use conflict resolution instead of task resolution. Don't roll to see if you succeed in opening the lock or baking the cake, roll to see whether you or your opponent gets your way.

What if there is no opponent? Like with baking a cake. It's not likely that I'd have some rival on the other side of the kitchen pelting me with eggs trying to mess me up. Sometimes it's just the character and the task at hand. You know, man vs. self.

I never think that there would be a rival pelting eggs, but, if there are to be meaningful consequences to character actions, then why roll for "man vs. self" tasks? If it's "I'm trying to bake a cake filled with poison that will get fed to the King", then you've got an agent of opposition (the King, or his tasters) and  they certainly have the agency to enact consequences upon your character if your Cooking roll fails.

If it's just "cooking trail food for camp tonight" - why roll? If it's "cooking something for camp tonight as we lost all our equipment and supplies", the you've got an agent of opposition (the virulent bacteria in the rotting meat you scavenged or the muddy utensils you've fashioned, etc.) and that agent can deliever consequences (cramps, damage, or worse) if it wins.

In recent years, I have come to believe that all unopposed rolls can be dropped from a game because they are simply uninmportant in play. If the roll were important, then you should be able to find some agency to oppose it, so I have grown to be very wary of any game with an unopposed resolution system.

Warren

Quote
Before you start work on your Task Resolution system, can I urge you to consider having only opposed rolls in the game.

That's certainly one way to look at it. I've heard suggestions like that before on other boards. I would never have thought for rolling a salmonella's Infectiousness skill, though.

However, with any mechanic, every check is an opposed check, the only difference is if the opposition is variable or a constant. A perfect example would be combat vs. climbing. Combat is extremely variable and prone to the Any Given Sunday effect. A lucky shot or an unlucky miss can make all the difference. That's why combat tends to involve multiple skill checks or target numbers that vary per situation. Climbing a wall, on the other hand, is essentially a constant. A wall that is 10ft. of brick and mortar will still be 10ft. of brick and mortar tomorrow, the day after that, and so on. If someone starts climbing the wall, the wall doesn't have any say in the matter, it just sits there and takes it.

Of course, a wall not "fighting back" is obvious, but it ties into the psychology of the mechanics. Most people don't see static obstacles as providing variable resistance. If the wall is easier to climb tomorrow, it's not because the wall is having a bad day, but because the climber is more prepared, better rested, etc.

Ralph

You had said something yesterday that hit me like a ton of bricks last night. When we discussed the fact that attributes and skills can't be seperate and do the same thing mechanically (which I completely agree with), it made me rethink the entire core of my system. I do appreciate all the advice and criticism thus far.

Where I'm at now

I'm starting from the ground up, but I believe I have a good idea of what I should be doing now. What I am aiming for is a system that recognizes:

a) Traits and characteristics that everyone posesses to some degree (carry weight, resistance to damage, intelligence, etc.).
b) Abilities that not everyone possesses, but need to be developed for maximum effectiveness (combat, woodworking, etc.).
c) The fact that while (a) and (b) are related, they have a different mechancal influence on the task at hand.
d) There is a possibility to make an ability check for an undeveloped ability (though obviously with reduced effectiveness).
e) Abilities must be reasonably comprehensive (without being overly specialized) and mutually exclusive.
f) Failure is always possible, but so is success.
g) Any task a character could possibly be faced with, where failure can have consequences to the adventure or campaign, can be resolved with the conflict resolution mechanic.

Side note: by (c), I mean that mechanics which involve XdY + skill + attribute would likely be incompatable. But something where attributes determine the pool or number of dice and skills determine the range of MoS would probably work better.

I don't think I'm going with attributes and skills for psychological reasons...not the players' psychology, but my own sanity. Instead, I'm leaning towards Natures, Abilities, and Techniques.

Natures are pretty vague, intentionally, and there's only two, Mind and Body. Everyone has some sort of mental presence (unless they are a vegetable), and everyone has some sort of physical presence (unless they are a poltergeist). Natures are basically an overall assessment of a character's Mental or Physical presence. A person with a high Mind Nature is generally intelligent, witty, insightful, and fun to have a conversation with at a schwiggidy-schwag party. A person with a high Body Nature is generally fit, healthy, has keen senses, and might have been the quarterback for his high school football team. Natures are going to have two effects on abilities. First, they determine the difficulty (point cost) for developing an ability. Second, they determine the ease at which a character can use an ability (most likely it will involve skewing the probability curve), and possibly the ease at which an ability can be used against a character (I'm thinking along the lines of a difficulty modifer for certain opposed tests). Natures reflect the core of someone's being, and therefore will be extremely difficult (high point cost) to develop.

Abilities are more specific, but general enough to be exhaustive without having an overwhelming listing. One way to do this is with Ability groups. Many Abilities will be part of a group where a character develops an ability, but is focused in a particular area. So a character with a Socialize (Information Gathering) ability is going to be able to make checks when gathering information. At the same time, a person who has a high skill in Information Gathering, probably knows a thing or two about bluffing, seduction, and the like. If the character develops the right Technique, he can use his Socialize (Information Gathering) to a degree with other Socialize ability checks. Abilities are split into two groups, Physical and Mental. This will affect the difficulty (point cost) in developing the ability. A person with a low Mind Nature is going to have trouble learning Astrophysics, and the person with a high Body Nature is going to have an easier time becoming a better Ultimate Frisbee player. Now, not all Abilities are entirely Mental or Physical. Medicine, for example, is primarily a Mental ability. A character can be a blind, quadrapalegic with asthma and still know everything about the human body. At the same time, that character doesn't have a whole lot of potential as a surgeon. When an Ability is used for a task that requires the other Nature, the other Nature will be used for the test. Abilities are the meat and potatoes of an individuals conscious potential so they will be moderately difficult (point cost) to develop.

Techniques are various elements that will expand a player's strategic or creative options. They will also help add specificity to the character. For example, two characters may have the same Melee (Swords) ability, but one is more of a finesse fighter, and the other is more of a smasher. Another example would be the character who knows a lot about Genetics from reading books on the subject and the character who went to college and got a degree in Genetics, but learned a little about other sciences along the way. Techniques are much more minute elements of characters than abilities, and therefore will be somewhat easier to develop (point cost). Furthermore, Techniques will always (or almost always) have prerequisites (most likely Ability levels).

Willpower (or Spirit) is it's own variable. Conceptually, it's the most similar to Nature in that everyone has it to some degree, but it functions different, mechanically. Maximum Willpower will probably be something like Body + Mind. Willpower will be a resource that can be spent (sometimes using certain Techniques) or regained (through rest and possibly magic). Though more variable than a Nature, it functions the same way, and various things will be more challenging for people with low Willpower. For example, a Willpower check might turn a critical failure to a normal failure, or make a Hail Mary play a little bit more possible. Regardless of the standard conflict resolution mechanic, the Willpower check will have its own mechanic designed to be effective and compatable with the rest of the system.

Lastly, there are the derived statistics (carry weight, action points, etc). Because derived statistics are constants and are not tested, just various measurements of the character, I feel that I have more freedom with their derivation. For something like carry weight and encumbrance levels, I would think that a combination of Body and Athletics (or some such ability) would be sufficient. This way even the person with a high Body Nature who has never "trained" much still can lug a good deal of stuff around. Toughness (or whatever variable I use for health/hps/whatever) is also a derivation of body, and probably some other ability like Endurance. Other necessary derived stats would be deterimined similarily.

The Mechanics

This is where things are getting a little tricky.

For the sake of example, Natures range from 1-5, while Skills range from 1-10. The maximum of the range obviously needs to be flexible to the mechanic, but I am attached to 1 being the minimum of the range. I actually like the idea of a Mind Nature 0 character being a comatose patient or automaton and a Body Nature 0 character being a ghost or otherwise dead/incapacitated. In terms of variability, I would have preferred a slightly larger range for the Natures, but because Natures are affecting dice pools, I had thought that rolling more than 5 dice would not only be to cumbersome, but also create too much of a skew.

The Roll-Under

With this new core concept, I am having trouble seeing how to make the roll-under work. With all the conceptual elements that I've listed, I would think that the best way to do it would be something like roll Nd12 (where N is the Nature being used) and roll under your skill (taking the lowest die rolled). The MoS is compared to the difficulty of the task (or MoS is compared to the opponent's MoS in a contested check) and success is determined. As the average person would have a nature of 3, rolling three dice would make lower rolls more probable, essentially inversing the skew of a Silhouette-like probability curve. Of course, I don't know the exact curve for a 3d12-take-lowest as I don't know the formula, and I can't see myself computing the 1728 possibilities by hand.

Also, having some sort of automatic/critical success/failure element seems a bit difficult. Is any failure where there are 12's in the pool a critical failure? Is a single 1 an automatic success, and if so, does that mean a character with a skill rank of 1 can only succeed when he makes a critical success?

I know it was mentioned before (probably by Ralph) that roll under mechanics don't work well with 1-N range variables. But I did want to make note that I explored the possibility.

The Roll Over

I could also "Silhouette" this one (as it seems to be the best method for skewing the curve with Natures). Now, the characters roll Nd10 (keeping the highest) + skill vs. opposed check or TN. If the highest is a 0, the character then rolls another d10 and adds it to the total. This would satisfy the critical/automatic success criteria. For critical failures it would probably be logical that any failures with 1s in the pool would be potential fumbles. Now you've probably noticed I switched from a d12 to a d10. The main reason for decreasing the variance is because (IMO) in a roll over, the chaos vs. constant element needs to be monitored more carefully compared to a roll under. With a roll under, it's mostly important that the rolls fit the range. With a roll over, the designer has to be aware of how much of a check is ability, and how much is chance.

The problem I see with this method is that even with d10s, using the Silhouette method would create too strong of a skew towards 10s and make critical successes too often and too critical. At the same time, using d12s would create more variance than I would like, while making additional 10's be merely +1s would make critical successes a little too weak.

The Dice Pool

Roll Ability-d8 and the threshold for a success is the Nature. Every success is one MoS. If there are no successes and some 8s, there's a possible critical failure. Critical success, who knows?

Basically, this is Storyteller with d8s. I didn't explore this option too much because rolling up to 10d8 for an ability check can be a drag. Also, I couldn't figure out how to have a critical success mechanic. Furthermore, the reliable range of MoS (probably around 6, at max Ability) is a little too low to play with regarding difficulty modifiers (especially in combat, or using wound levels).

.
.
.

And so here I am. Any tips?

Quote from: IagainstI on January 10, 2006, 10:50:49 PM
Back in the day, I had a 2e D&D GM that was a total goit and would do stuff like that all the time. I already have a solution for that (and that's why weapons are split into Melee/Ranged categories). Basically, there is going to be a Technique that lets you use a portion of your best Melee skill for all melee weapons (and the same for ranged weapons).

Also, combat is going to be more on the tactical side (a grid map, miniatures, etc.), so differentiating between weapon categories is going to add more flavor and options.

Sure.  But here's a thought to mull over.  What does tactical combat with weapon categories have to do with "ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances"?  That question will probably only start to make sense after you've spent some more time at the Forge and read some of the articles.

Quote
That was a good idea, but not what I was looking for. I'm aiming for something a little less left to player/GM interpretation. The last thing I want is people arguing over rules and what a character should or should not be able to do in a given situation. Take D&D 3.5, for example. I played in a group a few years ago where people would argue over the rules somewhat often, which was actually kind of bizarre considering how comprehensive the system is.

You're absolutely right here. One of my hobbies is shooting sports. I'm great with a 1911, .357, and a Beretta 9mm, but I'm worthless with a Glock 17 (it's not a "comfortable" weapon, IMO). Actually, I'm more accurate with a Beretta .32 short barrel at 40 ft., (which is generally only good for self-defense and at ranges of less than 20ft.) than I am with the Glock at 20ft. (which has around three times the length between sights) Now most systems would just list pistols (or even firearms in general) as a skill. If I was going to be uber-realistic about it I'd have to have a skill for every type of firearm because "realistically" there is a difference. However, that would just be insane.

At the same time, I have to feel like what tasks the skill encompasses is are reasonable and related enough, while keeping the skill general enough to prevent from having an insanely long skill list. So if I was designing a contemporary setting, I'd probably have a skill for pistols, one for rifles, and maybe one for shotguns. Granted, I'm crap with a Glock, but if you put any pistol in my hand, I'm pretty sure I could handle it as well as the .357 or 9mm.

Unfortuneately that's one of those impossible Holy Grail goals.  No matter where you draw the line its open to player/GM interpretation.  Broad skills, narrow skills, where the "realistic" difference is.  There is no such thing as as not open to interpretation.  Do some searches on the Lumpley Principle to see what I mean. 

As an idea...instead of thinking as rules as some "authority" to refer to keep players and GMs from having to exercise judgement, consider writing rules designed to encourage and assist players and GMs to work these things out themselves...then you don't have to stress about writing rules to cover infinite possibilies and in the end have most people disagree with them anyway (as always happens with those sorts of rules).

Consider as an example a rule that has gives every skill 3 "background slots" (or 1 per level, or whatever).  Any time the player wants they can use a (broadly defined) skill to make a test that seemingly has nothing to do with that skill by defining (i.e. like with a flashback), this is then written into one of the slots and from that point forward, that character can use that skill for that sort of test.  No long lists, no arguements, tapping into the collective creativity of the group, and developing fun useable game material to boot.  Thus if a player wants to describe how he can use his Man-at-arms skill to Armwrestle, or Fighting to climb, or Garrison to evaluate ale its simple, within the rules, and doesn't involve any argueing.

Rules like this can even cover your own Glock example.  Pick something that would normally be included in the skill and exclude it as one of your backgrounds like "bad with a glock" and earn some in game benefit...like an extra background slot, or experience, or whatever.

Don't treat rules like a straight jacket to control and limit player actions...use them as guidance to encourage behaviors you want to see in your game (once you decide what those are...which is part of the questions of "what do players do" and "what is your game about".

QuoteAs for my system, I want my system to be able to handle all (reasonably expected) conflict with a contest of mutually exclusive variables (be it skills, attributes, or whatever) in a non-ambiguous manner.

An excellent goal.  My biggest recommendation is that game mechanics for game mechanics sake isn't enough for a good game design.  Those game mechanics need to be put in the service of pursueing some design objective.  Those questions above are a good place to start.

Quote

Quote
Why do you think the two are tied together? What do you even mean by "gritty and realistic"?

I don't think the two are tied together at all.

Actually, I meant why do you think "ordinary people/extraordinary circumstances" is tied to "gritty/realistic"

QuoteI have to ask: I know I started this thread to winge on about my resolution mechanic, but after all we've discussed, is it even an issue anymore? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that at this point, it's more important that I define (or redefine) my resolution variables and have a clear method for their categorization.

If that's the case, I'm kind of back to square one, no?

Actually IMO that's actually square 2.  Square 1 is deciding what's important about your game, what you want to concentrate on, what's most important to you.  THEN define your resolution variables around accomplishing those goals.

I'm coming into this one a little late, but my 2c:

Quotea) There are automatic successes and failures.
b) There are no skills to represent natural abilities (i.e. no "notice" skill. Everyone has eyes and knows how to use them), and so this is handled with attributes.
c) A character should be able to accomplish a typical task (meaning no difficulty modifiers) more often than not. This especially going for an "average" character making an attribute test.
d) Contested checks may involve attribute vs. attribute (Strength for arm wrestling), Skill vs. Skill (two characters at the market bartering), and skill vs. attribute (one character is using a stealth skill to evade another characters perception).
e) In contested checks, there is always a chance for the underdog to succeed. For example, one character has Barter 1, another has Barter 10, while the Barter 10 character is most likely to succed, the Barter 1 should have a chance, even if it's a long shot that requires a critical success.

At first look, none of this seems all that difficult. I'll look at it from the perspective of a multiple d6 system:
a) A matter of setting the appropriate difficulties or special case rules. In this case, you could look at the statistical distribution of rolls and say "you can always roll, or automatically take a 2 on each d6". This gives you a floor for automatic successes, and you set the difficulty for certain tasks accordingly. This is really just a tuning issue to get the relationships right. "Taking 2 on d6" gives different results than "taking 2 on d10".
b) Agree...and disagree. Yes, some of these things are Attribute-based and should have defaults, but unless you are using a dedicated Perception attribute, something like a perception roll will be based on Awareness, Intelligence or some multiple Attribute-based function (Intelligence, Health, Willpower). And this can be trained and improved independent of the attributes, i.e. skills. This would require a system where skills add to Attributes for determining total rolls. How you fractionate that is an entirely different can of worms.
c) Goes back to a). I agree with other posters in that you shouldn't make a roll you don't need to. So some of these "most of the time" rolls will be automatic successes, and if you throw in various modifiers that can apply in non-critical situations, then you eliminate more rolls, while still having the situation be skill-based. So, if I need a roll of 8+ and I have a 3d6+0 skill roll, I have about a 75% chance of success (I think). Or, I could "take 2" on each die, then take a "extra time" modifier worth +2 and just automatically succeed in that time interval.
d) Seems straightforward and reasonable. It will require proper scaling so that it is not unreasonable to acquire a level of Stealth that gives you an XX% chance of sneaking by someone with a perception roll of Y. Like a), this is a tuning issue rather than a fundamental problem.
e) This is really a dice mechanic question, and a matter of "how much chance" the underdog has. If I'm rolling 2d6 and the bad guy is rolling 3d6, that gives me a certain chance of success. If I'm rolling 3d6 to beat my skill and the bad guy is rolling 3d6 to beat his skill, that gives a different chance of success. In any dice mechanic, there will be tweaks that can affect these things. I use a fudging mechanic where players have a limited pool of extra dice they can use. Shadowrun did the same (called it Karma), and also had a "reroll 6's" rule, which extended the dice curve and allowed extremely lucky shots and such.

It seems to me that all of a) through e) is not only readily doable, but has already been done. Everything on the list can be done fairly well by GURPS or Hero or Shadowrun or d6. My personal (game designer) take on it is:

1) Skill roll = skill dice + relevant Attribute dice. Skill dice start at +0, which just allows you to offset the penalty in 2) below. Skill dice cannot exceed Attribute dice, giving a maximum skill roll in something of 2x the Attribute roll.
2) Unskilled task use (e.g. trying to drive a car without having ever done so) uses relevant Attribute minus 1d.
3) Difficulty is a roll-over amount for passively opposed tasks (like the difficulty of picking a lock), or the relevant Attribute or skill roll of an opponent for actively opposed tasks (like a chess match). Time and situtational modifiers can be used in passively opposed tasks to get automatic success.
4) You only keep the best 3 die results. This gives a cap to the total a player can get (not their roll, but the total). In my case, best 3d6 and a +2 gives a maximum total of 20.
5) Players have a limited pool of dice than can be spent no more than 1 at a time to add or subtract to any roll in a pinch.
6) I use multiple d6's and +1 and +2, based on the level involved divided by 3. So an Agility of 10 and a +3 skill (adds up to 13) would roll 4d6+1, keep the best 3 die results and add 1 to the total. An Agility of 10 trying to do a skilled task that a) can be done with no training and b) they have no training for, would roll 2d+1 (their base of 3d+1 for the Agility of 10, with a -1d untrained penalty).
7) Attributes can be + or - specialized. Your Awareness attribute could have a +1d for "keen eyesight", giving you a normal roll for IQ tasks and a better one for spotting stuff. Skills are fairly broad, but can be specialized, so you could have +3 in "firearms" and an additional "+3 in "pistols". The broad attributes and skills plus personal specializations allow characters to be as simple or in depth as you want to get.

Hope this was of some use.

Greg Porter
BTRC guy

Greg

Actually, those (a) through (e) criteria was for my "first incarnation" of the system. The discussion here has led me to rethink some core elements. My new core philosophy is outlined in (a) through (g) in Reply #15

Ralph

In writing this post, I realize that we are kind of discussing two seperate things which are almost one in the same. That is, system and setting. The reason why I think they are almost the same is because, in my perspective, the primary purpose of the system is to emulate the reality presented in the setting.

Also, the name of the system/setting is The Legacy of Rhei Dragoon (LRD).

Quote
What does tactical combat with weapon categories have to do with "ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances"?

In short, not really anything. Tactical combat is meant to reflect the nature of reality in LRD. You're not going to win a fight by flipping through the air, chopping off heads like ninjas who have real ultimate power...just because you decided you wanted to spend ability points developing your skills in Flipping, Chopping Heads, and Real Ultimate Power. The world just doesn't work that way.

Quote
There is no such thing as as not open to interpretation.  Do some searches on the Lumpley Principle to see what I mean.

You're right, and I'm familiar with the Lumpley Principle. The LP, and some bizarre gaming experiences I have had, are the main reasons why I'm concerned with the elements of interpretation and allowance.

Quote
Consider as an example a rule that has gives every skill 3 "background slots"...

I'm not shooting this idea down, but I see some potentially serious balance issues with this mechanic. Basically, a player can find a reason to tie any two abilities together:

"The guy who taught me how to use a sword used to be a linguist who liked to fence, that means I can use my Melee (Swords) ability to decipher scripts."

"The blacksmith who mentored me used to be a scout in the militia. So I'm going to use my Craft (Blacksmith) Ability to sneak into the manor."

etc.

A lesser problem would be PCs who develop backgrounds that are essentially useless outside the situation for which they were created.

Furthermore, this is a classless, leveless system. As is, players can create characters that can use two-handed swords, be stealthy, and speak five languages...if they spend the points to develop these abilities. If a player wants a character who knows about ale from working at a garrison, that's fine, but they have to spend some AP on Craft (Brewing), or something like that.

Maybe I'm a cynic, but using a flashback mechanic makes me think of game sessions where people are arguing over which ties are reasonable, and which are not. Besides, (as an example) one of the people who taught me how to shoot is an electrician, but I can't wire a house. In fact, just the other day, it took me a few minutes to figure out how to properly use a battery tester from Radio Shack.

Quote
Don't treat rules like a straight jacket to control and limit player actions...

That's not my intention for the rules at all. The rules are only meant to simulate the reality of the game world. It's the game world that's meant to be limiting to the players. In D&D, Exalted, WoD, and so many other systems/settings I've seen, the world/setting is merely the PCs' "oyster". Theoretically, in Forgotten Realms, by level 20 or so, it's actually possible to kill a god, become a god, destroy the world, and live to tell the tale. At a high enough level, a character can roshambo with the Terrasque, and win.

So, I'm not trying to control player actions, and whether I'm trying to limit them is debatable (though if I was accused of such, I wouldn't argue it).

With LRD, the PCs are not necessarily a pivotal element. Furthermore, while they have great potential, they don't have the potential to be the baddest MFs (I assume actually swearing is bad etiquette here) this side of the Bronx. In fact, if the PCs wanted, they could spend the entire campaign working at an inn, tanning leather, or making a living by other means, and the world will go on. Opportunities they pass up will be taken by others, and may be resolved differently because of this. LRD is very dynamic, with many entities which have their own agendas. The PCs are not children in a sandbox, but each are individual grains of sand.

The intended appeal of LRD is that instead of immersing the PCs in the world that's "theirs for the taking", they are becoming entities in an organic environment that is much bigger than themselves. They certainly have the potential for great things (technically more so than most characters in LRD as adventures are designed to give PCs opportunities), but they have to finesse their way through relationships that are varied and complex.

Quote
Actually, I meant why do you think "ordinary people/extraordinary circumstances" is tied to "gritty/realistic"

Well, the gritty/realistic is more attributed to the "ordinary people" part, and less the "extraordinary circumstances". In other words, I want the PCs, who are ordinary people, to be defined by gritty/realistic standards. "My father was a werewolf ninja, and my mother was a pirate who invented penicillin, so I can shapechange, chop off heads, sail a ship, and invent Viagra" would totally not fly.

I know I'm using some extreme examples, but I figure they help differentiate the elements that I'm trying to avoid from the elements from those for which I am designing.

General Questions

I'm wondering at this point if my resolution mechanic (described below) is compatible or contrary to the philosophies developed in this thread up to this point. The most important of these philosophies being that one can have seperate attributes and skills, but they cannot do the same thing mechanically.

So, using the core elements that I described above (Natures, Abilities, Techniques), and similar ranges (Natures are 1-6, Abilities are 0-13), I am considering a roll over mechanic where the players roll 2d6 + Ability + Nature compared to TN. Double 1's are a potential critical failure, and double 6's are a critical success allowing them to add another d6 (and another d6 if another 6 is rolled, etc.) Basically, this is much like CODA's core mechanic.

MoS will also function much like CODA's core mechanic. So for each increment of 5 (or whatever balances out right) over the TN, the character gains one MoS. The value of this is elaborated in Point 2.

Point 1

Now I've said before that an xDy + skill + attribute type mechanic would likely be imcompatable, and here I am using it. I'm not going back on what I've said, but I've thought deeper about the elements of Nature and Abilities and what they really mean. It would seem that Natures and Abilities are two seperate things in terms of concept and definition, but they may have more in common than not. Abilities are essentially various skill groups, and there's two types, mental and physical. Now, most Abilities are not entirely Mental or Physical, but are predominantly one or the other. Abilities are like skill groups (with focus areas) in this system. So you don't make an Athletics check, but an Athletics (Climb) check or an Athletics (Swim) check.

The reason why I think Natures have much in common with abilities is because, in a way, Natures are just a larger Ability group. An Ability is just a rating of a character's development with that ability, while a Nature is a rating of a character's development with that nature. So a character's Body rating is an overall assessment of the character's physical state (and their general ability to use their body for a given task). A character's Melee (Swords) Ability is an overall assessment of a character's ability to use their body in a way that allows them to swing a sword and hurt things.

Point 2

So let's say that Natures and Abilities are actually too different and should not be used the same, mechanically. Using the mechanic described above, it is easy to argue that they are not being used the same. Two points:

1) The randomizer is a 2d6 roll, creating a bell-curve probability distribution.
2) A MoS occurs every increment of 5 rolled over the TN.

So the range of Natures is 1-6. Adding Nature isn't going to increase the MoS, but nudge the probability curve to make a test a little easier. Of course, a Nature of 5 or 6 would automatically be a MoS.

On the other hand, adding to a skill doesn't increase the MoS either, but nudges the probability curve. The larger skill range just creates more nudging. I'm guessing that Point 2 is probably invalid, and definitely invalid if Point 1 is invalid.

.
.
.

Now the simple solution would be to just not use Natures in Ability checks, but I want to for a few reasons. First, it makes things a slight bit easier for a character to make an Ability check in an undeveloped ability especially when it comes to a contested check, as well as take into consideration that characters with Nature ratings are generally more competent with that Nature than a character with a lower Nature rating. Second, it really fits in well with the supernatural portion of the game, as it's going to tie into certain spell effects and so forth. Lastly, Natures represent this all-encompasing rating of a core element of a character. If all they did was determine point costs for ability development, it really takes the steam out of their grandiousity. I really want them to have a more active role in the game.

So I guess my questions are:

1) Based on how I've defined them, are Natures and Abilities really that different?
2) If so, are they really doing the same thing mechanically?
3) If (1) and (2) are true, what can I do with natures instead so they can take a more active role in the game?

Ralph

In writing this post, I realize that we are kind of discussing two seperate things which are almost one in the same. That is, system and setting. The reason why I think they are almost the same is because, in my perspective, the primary purpose of the system is to emulate the reality presented in the setting.

Quote

As food for thought consider that it is up to the players (GM included) to emulate the setting through their choice of narration and that the primary purpose of the system is to help the players (GM included) come to an agreement on what just happened in the game as a result of that narration.

Quote

Quote
What does tactical combat with weapon categories have to do with "ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances"?

In short, not really anything. Tactical combat is meant to reflect the nature of reality in LRD. You're not going to win a fight by flipping through the air, chopping off heads like ninjas who have real ultimate power...just because you decided you wanted to spend ability points developing your skills in Flipping, Chopping Heads, and Real Ultimate Power. The world just doesn't work that way.

What I mean is...why are ordinary people fighting at all?  Ordinary people farm, keep shop, go fishing.  You want to take these ordinary people and put them in extraordinary circumstances...Ok...that sounds interesting.  Take a random selection of ordinary people from your setting.  Under what conditions would they suddenly be thrust into extraordinary circumstances?  What are those extraordinary circumstances and why do those circumstances involve fighting (gritty or otherwise)?

That's where I'd focus a good bit of effort.  1) who are these ordinary people, 2) why have they been thrust into extraordinary circumstances, 3) why are these circumstances interesting to players.

For instance 1) characters are villagers of a given culture, 2) the village is being overrun by an enemy and now they have to fight for their homes, 3) Important to the game are concepts of loyalty to family, duty to king and country, opportunity for personal gain. 

In such a game those concepts may well be of as much interest (and thus as worthy of game mechanics) as tactical combat rules. 

Quote
I'm not shooting this idea down, but I see some potentially serious balance issues with this mechanic. Basically, a player can find a reason to tie any two abilities together:

"The guy who taught me how to use a sword used to be a linguist who liked to fence, that means I can use my Melee (Swords) ability to decipher scripts."

"The blacksmith who mentored me used to be a scout in the militia. So I'm going to use my Craft (Blacksmith) Ability to sneak into the manor."

Problem?  Or extraordinary opportunity to get your players to buy in and contribute?  Neither of those examples would cause me to bat an eye...in fact...they'd get me really excited.  Again...rules aren't there to protect the GM from player abuse...no rule set can do that.  Rules are there to help players and GMs come to an understanding about what just happened.

Quote
Furthermore, this is a classless, leveless system. As is, players can create characters that can use two-handed swords, be stealthy, and speak five languages...if they spend the points to develop these abilities. If a player wants a character who knows about ale from working at a garrison, that's fine, but they have to spend some AP on Craft (Brewing), or something like that.

Why?  There's no game design law from on high that says that.  They may be an assumption you've been operating under...and maybe its a good one...I'm not trying to design your game for you...but maybe its just one more sacred cow to be shot and left by the wayside on your way to finishing your game.

So one player gains some brewing ability for free...so what...every player has that opportunity to grab different abilities so where's the harm?

QuoteMaybe I'm a cynic, but using a flashback mechanic makes me think of game sessions where people are arguing over which ties are reasonable, and which are not. Besides, (as an example) one of the people who taught me how to shoot is an electrician, but I can't wire a house. In fact, just the other day, it took me a few minutes to figure out how to properly use a battery tester from Radio Shack.

My advice.  First, worry less about argueing players.  Second, write rules that describe the PROCESS for how decisions are made.  Players follow that process...decision gets made...no arguement.

Here's a REALLY simple example:

"Any player can at any time on their turn select any skill to add as a background slot to any existing skill on their character sheet as long as that skill has an available background slot to use.  The player must narrate details from their background that demonstrate how, in the course of learning the existing skill, the character also picked up knowledge of the new background slot skill as well."

See. simple.  No room for arguement.  Any player can do this period. If you want to allow other players to object to something they find unenjoyable...simply write the rules for how that PROCESS might look.  e.g. "any other player may, upon hearing the narration, veto this action by giving one of their own Drama Points (or a Drama Point in the case of Veto by the GM) to the narrating player."

Boom.  See.  Argueing at the table occurs for two primary reasons, both the artifact of the way games have been historically designed.  Historically RPGs provide little to no rules for process and to compound the problem generally include stupid language like "feel free to change any rules you don't like" and what not.  This is pure Lumpley Principle in action.  In the absence of rules telling you how to arrive at an agreement as to what happens, and in the presence of rules telling you to feel free to ignore what rules there are, groups are left with nothing but pure social interaction to decide.  In the absence of process, pure social interaction generally winds up in arguement where ego, charisma, and social bullying prevail.  Instead of realizing the problem and fixing it by writing better rules, the historical defense to this is more stupid language like "the GM is God" in an effort to empower one person to simply steam roller over all of the argueing. 

Point being, write rules that describe the process, make it clear that the rules are meant to be followed, and 90% of all argueing disappears.  The other 10% of argueing is just due to stupid gits who aren't worth playing with anyway.  Note that's not to say disagreement disappears.  Disagreement is fine (its creatively necessary).  Rules are there to resolve disagreement without devolving to argueing...not prevent disagreement from happening.

QuoteThat's not my intention for the rules at all. The rules are only meant to simulate the reality of the game world. It's the game world that's meant to be limiting to the players. In D&D, Exalted, WoD, and so many other systems/settings I've seen, the world/setting is merely the PCs' "oyster". Theoretically, in Forgotten Realms, by level 20 or so, it's actually possible to kill a god, become a god, destroy the world, and live to tell the tale. At a high enough level, a character can roshambo with the Terrasque, and win.

With LRD, the PCs are not necessarily a pivotal element. Furthermore, while they have great potential, they don't have the potential to be the baddest MFs (I assume actually swearing is bad etiquette here) this side of the Bronx. In fact, if the PCs wanted, they could spend the entire campaign working at an inn, tanning leather, or making a living by other means, and the world will go on. Opportunities they pass up will be taken by others, and may be resolved differently because of this. LRD is very dynamic, with many entities which have their own agendas. The PCs are not children in a sandbox, but each are individual grains of sand.

The intended appeal of LRD is that instead of immersing the PCs in the world that's "theirs for the taking", they are becoming entities in an organic environment that is much bigger than themselves. They certainly have the potential for great things (technically more so than most characters in LRD as adventures are designed to give PCs opportunities), but they have to finesse their way through relationships that are varied and complex.

This is a great paragraph outlining your goals.  I would make the following 2 observations. 

First you can absolutely accomplish this without needing alot of limiting rules to do so.  Some of this is mechanical in nature...making sure that characters don't routinely have a high chance of beating odds defined and "nearly impossible" and that's the math part you've been hammering through.  But a big part of this is color.  How player's narrate their character's actions, what is an acceptable narration what isn't, etc.  This has less to do with die mechanics and more to do with how the rules and setting are presented and the process of how what players narrate gets accepted into the shared imaginary space.

Second, I interpret what you're saying (correct me if I'm wrong) to mean that you want players characters to be the center of their own stories...but you don't want those stories to be the central stories of the world.  The great armies of the evil empire that overruns the village is a story of the world.  The PC's can do much about that.  But they can protect the lives of the village children and save them, some of them at least, from being sold into slavery.

If that's accurate than consider this.  One way to accomplish that is to simply tell the GM to design scenarios where the big bad is way too powerful for the PCs to take and provide smaller goals that are better suited to their abilities.  However, that's been done to death.  How can your game get those kinds of stories told without simply telling the GM to go run the game like that.  What can you provide in terms of system, dice mechanics, metagame mechanics, game structure, interplayer power structures, etc that will make it all but inevitable that any reasonable group of players will wind up with a story of that nature simply by following the rules.

Sigh. I had a nice long reply ready to go and then my browser crashed. Anyway, to succinctly recap what I was trying to write:

1) How about having mind, body and spirit, and a derived ability from each pair (like hit points as a function of body + spirit).
2) If you have levels in mind, body and spirit, and then have the player define what and who the character is in those terms, this covers in "nature" a lot of rolls or resolutions, leaving a smaller number of abilities to be dealt with. Example:

Body: I'm a soldier
Mind: I'm fascinated by ancient history
Spirit: Outgoing, but morally conservative

My potential leadership ability (mind + body) is high, but I could buy an ability to make it higher. Or, I could have level X in body because I'm a "soldier", but I could be hell on wheels with a sword, and have +Y in swordsmanship. All the stuff that is neither a nature or ability is an unskilled use, and takes a penalty on the nature.

On the resolution system, take an average person, an average PC, and an expert PC, and set them easy, moderate and hard tasks. See if it works. Can an average person who has never picked up a gun (but has seen them in the movies) hit the broad side of a barn at ten paces? Can an average hunter do a called shot on a deer at 200 meters with a scoped rifle? Can a pistol expert like Jelly Bryce drop a coin from shoulder height, draw a holstered pistol and shoot the coin out of the air before it passes his hip? Then reverse it. How likely is Jelly Bryce to miss that broad side of a barn, and how likely is Grandma Moses to make that trick shot? (if you want a system where the expert can always blow it and the novice always has a chance of success). If your resolution system works at the extremes, there's a better chance it will work in the middle.

Greg Porter
BTRC

Ralph

Once again, I appreciate you keeping up with this thread. You've been a great help in getting me closer to my goal. With how long my posts are, I'm surprised that anyone would still follow it.

Quote
As food for thought consider that it is up to the players (GM included) to emulate the setting through their choice of narration...

Is that part of that whole GNS debate? I tried to read the article, but it was a little muddy. From the little I got out of it, I believe I'd fall into the category of Simulationist (more so with combat, but to an extent with other dramatic elements). Then again, I could be wrong, the article wasn't too clear. What I can say is this, I'm soooo not into free form, LARP, or games where players can do what they want, just because they want to.

Narration is a pretty loose term, and probably needs a more concrete definition. Narration can mean, "Joe the Fighter sidesteps around the goblin to flank him, and then brings his axe down for a crushing blow." But then movement points are used, dice are rolled for the attack, and success is determined. Narration can also mean, "Joe the Fighter rushes across the battlefield to help the peasant, drawing his sword along the way, and skewering the goblin." And because Joe has invested in skills in Sword and Running, he's successful, regardless of the distance or the difficulty of the attack.

The system is merely a quantitative framework using qualitative elements. I'm having a hard time understanding the interaction between how a player describes his character's actions, and how the system resolves intended actions.

Quote
What I mean is...why are ordinary people fighting at all?

That's easy:

A wolf has been attacking a farmer's cows, the party needs to hunt it down.
Travelling merchants are being harassed by highwaymen.
There's a war brewing.
Monsters are terrorizing a village.

That last one was pretty generic and lame. However, to go into all the details of why there are various "monsters" in this game, where they came from, what they are doing, etc. would essentially involve dumping 30+ pages of setting materials into this post. Frankly, I think my posts are too long as it is.

Combat isn't going to be the only conflict that needs resolution, and it's not the only extraordinary circumstances that the PCs will be in. A party is probably going to have a decent face-man. There will be treaties and trade contracts that need negotiating. Roguish types will have to not only infiltrate organizations and the like, but also do so without getting caught.

Like I said, it's a very complex world with many different organic and interrelated elements.

Quote
1) who are these ordinary people, 2) why have they been thrust into extraordinary circumstances, 3) why are these circumstances interesting to players.

1) These ordinary people happen to be the PCs.
2) The PCs happen to live in a region that's a hotzone for social, political, and supernatural problems (once again, there's much more to it than that, but 30+ pages of setting materials...)
3) Because in exploring these extraordinary circumstances, and taking advantage of various opportunities, the PCs will learn much more about the world around them, why things are they way they are (including the source of magic, which is a big element in this system in terms of social interest), and possibly influence some major sociopolitical changes (depending on their associations).

LRD isn't Faerun, or WoD. It's more like our own world in the middle ages, but with a supernatural element (which has it's own element of mystery and social importance). We really didn't know squat back then. The world was flat, and the universe revolved around it. It was through exploration and investigation that we began to learn the truth about the world we live in, and why things are they way they are.

Quote
Problem?  Or extraordinary opportunity to get your players to buy in and contribute?

To me, it's a problem. I see it turning into Calvinball.

Quote
Why?  There's no game design law from on high that says that.

Oh, no, let me be clear. IMO, there's no game design law period. Calvinball is a good example. I don't have a problem with Calvinball, I even played it myself when I was a kid, but there will be some games where a Calvinball element doesn't fit into the concept.

Quote
So one player gains some brewing ability for free...so what...every player has that opportunity to grab different abilities so where's the harm?

This is like my third attempt at answering this, because the other two could easily offend some people. This one is still probably a little offensive, but...

Here's one take at an answer. So the players create a party. The party goes out, faces some challenges, and in the end are rewarded with AP (basically experience points) to develop their abilities. The reason why they get AP is because they were challenged. And in being challenged they are made stronger. Having higher abilities isn't a right, it's something you have to work for, and they are more rewarding when you do.

The flashback mechanic (IMO) seems to me that it merely gives the players an easy out from a challenge, and doesn't really do anything for the characters. In that sense, it's a little too meta-gamish for my liking.

Also, the flashback gets in the way of having mutually exclusive variables. Call me old fashioned, but using a Swordfighting ability to appraise ale is just lunacy, IMO, and doesn't fit with what I'm going for in this setting.

side note: APs are an actual metaphysical entity in the setting, though the PCs won't be made aware of this until they learn more about the source of the setting's supernatural element.

Quote
e.g. "any other player may, upon hearing the narration, veto this action by giving one of their own Drama Points (or a Drama Point in the case of Veto by the GM) to the narrating player."

Whoa...

Simply put, that is so not happening. That is the exact opposite of what I intend for LRD. Designing elements with the express intent to support metagaming is out of the question. I actually have even designed an element that would reduce the rewards for players who metagame. This Drama Point mechanic emphasizes exactly what I'm trying to avoid. Using a mechanic like this creates an adversarial relationship not just between player and GM, but also between player and player.

The best way to describe it is that in LRD, there is no player, and no GM. There are characters, there is the world. Every single element of the system represents a natural, supernatural, or universal law in the setting. People in this world don't say, "You're a big bad guy, and I'm going to spend a drama point to stop you, because I can". LRD mechanics are about having an abstract representation of in-game elements, not a real representation of abstract elements. In a way, one thing I'm designing for is to meta-metagame. Players (and GMs for that matter) cannot have an affect on LRD, but characters can.

Quote
In the absence of rules telling you how to arrive at an agreement as to what happens, and in the presence of rules telling you to feel free to ignore what rules there are, groups are left with nothing but pure social interaction to decide.

I've been gaming for quite a while. I've played Earthdawn, d20, various Silhouette games, Exalted, and a few other that I can't think of off hand. The only time I've had this happen is with Exalted, and that's only because the system is so fast and loose that so much is left to personal interpretation.

I mean, what part of the "happening" is not agreed upon? What's going on around them? The GM tells the players that. How to make a skill check? It's in the rules. Every arguement that I've had in a group isn't because the players can't agree on how an in game issue should be resolved (mechanically), it's been because people are either exploiting weaknesses in the system, dominating the game, or just being an ass in general.

I have a feeling that there's elements of the LP that I just haven't been exposed to personally, so I might not be understanding something properly.

Quote
How player's narrate their character's actions, what is an acceptable narration what isn't, etc.

Is it a problem to assume that pretty much anything is acceptable? I mean, I'm not going to have anything perverse going on in LRD, but the rest of it is pretty much fair game. I've played with people who are elaborate RPers, who even narrate actions that are of no consequence. Then there have been players that stick to the meat and potatoes of RPing and don't use a whole lot of "flavor". Either one is fine with me.

Quote
The great armies of the evil empire that overruns the village is a story of the world.  The PC's can do much about that.
.
.
.
One way to accomplish that is to simply tell the GM to design scenarios where the big bad is way too powerful for the PCs to take and provide smaller goals that are better suited to their abilities.  However, that's been done to death.

That's not happening at all, and you already explained why. I fully expect that that PCs would rise up against the great army (if that becomes a concern of theirs), but they aren't doing it alone. That's what is important. The PCs are perfectly capable of becoming powerful warlords/generals themselves, pulling together a great army, and facing off against the BBEG (I do intend an element of mass/unit combat, btw). But they aren't going to be able to do it just because they are the PCs and they're cool beans. Raising the army, and being given that level of military power will require that they make the right friends and associations that will give the support necessary for such a huge effort.

As we say in Sociology, "One person has never made a difference, it just sometimes looks that way."

And this is part of the complexity for which I'm designing. Developing their contacts is not only a challenge in itself, but it was also provide them with challenges in order to maintain the relationships. Not only that, but which contacts they make are going to affect opportunities and the resources they can tap into. In LRD, the game makes the players as much as the players make the game.

Greg

Quote
1) How about having mind, body and spirit, and a derived ability from each pair (like hit points as a function of body + spirit).

OMG, I had a total flashback when you mentioned that. One of the first systems I attempted to design (a couple years ago), had a similar element. It was a pain to work. Not that there's anything wrong with the mechanical concept, but it didn't work for what I was going for.

Quote
If you have levels in mind, body and spirit, and then have the player define what and who the character is in those terms, this covers in "nature" a lot of rolls or resolutions, leaving a smaller number of abilities to be dealt with.

It's definitely too free-form for what I'm going for.

Quote
My potential leadership ability (mind + body) is high, but I could buy an ability to make it higher. Or, I could have level X in body because I'm a "soldier", but I could be hell on wheels with a sword, and have +Y in swordsmanship. All the stuff that is neither a nature or ability is an unskilled use, and takes a penalty on the nature.

In a sense, with LRD, that is already how Natures and Abilities work with each other, somewhat.

Quote
On the resolution system, take an average person, an average PC, and an expert PC, and set them easy, moderate and hard tasks. See if it works.

Testing the stats isn't an issue at this point. When I get to that, I can handle it, no problem. What I'm more concerned with at this point is that how I'm resolving conflict properly uses the elements involved in its resolution.

For example (this isn't about my system, just an example):
I could say that Attributes are inherent abilities, while Skills are learned abilities, both have a range of 1-20. According to the laws of the universe in system X, both contribute equally when attempting a task. Therefore, I'm going to have an ability test be Attribute + Skills x 2 + 3d10.

If I state that Attributes and Skills have an equal affect on success, why am I doubling the Skills value? This is an obvious example as to how I am defining the elements doesn't match how I'm using the elements.

That is what I am working with now, and why I was wrestling with Attributes and Skills in the first incarnation. With this new incarnation, I am hoping that:

1) Natures are balanced with each other so that one is not necessarily stronger than the other.
2) Abilities are balanced in their scope, so that none are necessarily more useful (generally) than the others.
3) Natures and Abilities accurately affect the laws of the universe in LRD.
4) The mechanic for resolving conflict properly utilizes the elements of Natures and Abilities.
5) There is a way to compute the various derived statistics (carry weight, action points, Willpower hps or equivalent, etc.) using Natures and Abilities in a logical manner.

I know I haven't really put together an ability list at this point (what I posted before was only a sample for example), but at this point, their interaction with the rest of the system is more important than the specific list.

There's definitely much more that I'm trying to do, but I'm starting with this. Once I have the core put together, I can build upon it the other important elements of LRD.

Hmmm...

Quote1) Natures are balanced with each other so that one is not necessarily stronger than the other.
2) Abilities are balanced in their scope, so that none are necessarily more useful (generally) than the others.

Both of these are really a matter of definition in terms of your intent as the designer, and also out of your control the instant a GM other than yourself gets hold of the game. Unless the plot and genre is so narrowly defined that GM's and players are railroaded down the track, there is always the possibility that a GM might stress combat more than exploration more than puzzle solving more than character development. The best you can hope for is a universe that starts with the abilities and natures in balance. Or at least weighted according to their usefulness (does four years of training get me the same level in cooking as it does in swordplay?).

Quote3) Natures and Abilities accurately affect the laws of the universe in LRD.

This goes back to:
Quote

Quote

QuoteOn the resolution system, take an average person, an average PC, and an expert PC, and set them easy, moderate and hard tasks. See if it works.

Testing the stats isn't an issue at this point. When I get to that, I can handle it, no problem. What I'm more concerned with at this point is that how I'm resolving conflict properly uses the elements involved in its resolution.

And I have to disagree with you on conceptual grounds. The dice mechanic and testing of stats represents how the laws of the universe in LRD work. A munchkin-esqe example: If the laws of nature (game mechanics) are such that even schmucks can succeed on occasion against a vastly superior foe, no general would ever show his face on the battlefield. Why? Because the enemy commander would have everyone aim for his eyeballs. Someone is going to get a lucky roll and put an arrow through the slit in the general's visor. In general, a "you can always get lucky" mechanic means that quantity always trumps quality. So, does this mean that only PC's always have a chance to get lucky? Or, what about foes of the PC's? Do they always have a chance to get lucky, but only against PC's?

Your resolution mechanic defines the way reality works, and to some extent how it is perceived within the gameworld. Just think of how we would perceive this world if once every dozen years or so, some 80-year old man won the Boston Marathon, or an unknown ancient language got deciphered by a learning-disabled 9-year old, or every thousandth time you dropped something it fell up. We would not be rolling dice, but we would live our lives differently if the laws of nature and probability had daily results far different than what we are used to.

The way you want reality in LRD to work is a design principle. The way it actually works won't be known until you get a resolution mechanic and crunch the numbers. "Properly using the elements involved in its resolution" is the way to go, but you've got to get your hands dirty and try out different resolution systems to see how they "feel", both from a statistical and a game/GM/player interaction standpoint.

Quote4) The mechanic for resolving conflict properly utilizes the elements of Natures and Abilities.

Perfectly sensible.

Quote5) There is a way to compute the various derived statistics (carry weight, action points, Willpower hps or equivalent, etc.) using Natures and Abilities in a logical manner.

This seems at first glance to involve combinations or permuations of the Natures and/or Abilities, which I thought you said you tried and didn't like.

Looking over what I just wrote, sorry if I seem a little critical. If I'm going to get labeled, I'm a "simulationist", which is probably not the best type of person to critique a system catering to a specific genre. But I will stand by the statement that the rules of any game define the reality of that gameworld. So, generating stat and resolution mechanics, even if they are bad ones that you discard (repeatedly) will at least point the way to an ideal that by its very nature tends to steer players into courses of action that are genre- and world-appropriate, even when they are not used.

Think of your rules as "gravity". Gravity colors all your actions, but you seldom consciously think about it. The best game rules affect the players (and thus the characters) in the same way. Ever-present, but not consciously intrusive.

Greg Porter
BTRC guy

Greg

Well, before I start:

Quote
Looking over what I just wrote, sorry if I seem a little critical. If I'm going to get labeled, I'm a "simulationist", which is probably not the best type of person to critique a system catering to a specific genre.

Don't be sorry, you're targeting the elements that I'm trying to "fix", and I appreciate the help. And like I said before, I'm probably more of a simulationist, too (assuming I was able to understand that article), so we're probably more on the same page than you think.

Also, I intend to span LRD across genres (or at least time periods). The world is going to evolve, and so is the supernatural element. A later incarnation will take place in a contemporary setting, with a completely different supernatural element coming from a different source. It will still be the same world, and the changes will make perfect sense once the players get to that point.

Quote
Unless the plot and genre is so narrowly defined that GM's and players are railroaded down the track, there is always the possibility that a GM might stress combat more than exploration more than puzzle solving more than character development.

In a way, I've designed for that. There's a lot going on in the world at the time. In the region where the PCs will be from, there is a civil war brewing, not to mention strained relations with neighboring sovereignties. Also, much is still not understood about the supernatural element of this world. In LRD, people don't really know the origins and purpose of the "monster" element.

There are many directions that a GM can take the party, whatever angles that are not explored will evolve on their own through the campaign and become background information for the PCs. So if they follow the monster element, they might later discover (by word of mouth, or a similar current events information network) that a civil war has erupted in their empire. If they follow the political element, they might hear that the "monsters" are starting to become more organized.

And if the GM stresses combat, the PCs can develop those abilities just as easy if the GM were to stress politics and the PCs wanted to develop those abilities.

Most of this probably ties into the ability listing, which still needs to be worked on.

Quote
And I have to disagree with you on conceptual grounds. The dice mechanic and testing of stats represents how the laws of the universe in LRD work. A munchkin-esqe example: If the laws of nature (game mechanics) are such that even schmucks can succeed on occasion against a vastly superior foe, no general would ever show his face on the battlefield.

Exactly!

These are the concepts I'm working on now. Side note, your example would be handled with unit combat, but I know where you're going, so I'll roll with it. First, it's important to seperate combat and confict in LRD. Combat is life and death directly, and if a character "fails", they are probably dead. Conflict is more dramatic, and if the character "fails", they are quite likely to live and "fight" another day.

One way to handle the grievous nature of combat is the way that most systems do, and that is make combat an extended test. A single roll isn't going to decide who lives and who dies. It's multiple rolls, multiple levels of damage, etc. Therefore, using a bell-shaped probability curve ensures that the "rank 0" swordfighter is not going to have an easy time taking down the "rank 12" swordfighter...at least not without some help. Actually, the same is true with a linear curve, but to a greater extent with a bell curve.

As for what is "rank 0" and what is "rank 12", that's relative, though I realize that it's greatly affected by not only the randomizer used, but also how Natures are used. A "rank 0" is meant to be an amateur, not someone who is necessarily good, but who has weeded the "bad habits" out of his system. For example, in martial arts, most people come to their first class not even knowing the proper way to make a fist. So, a "rank 0" martial artist has basically learned how to make a fist.

The first 2-3 ranks or so in a skill are no indication of mastery. For many skills, most people likely have a few ranks. Athletics is a good example. Most people are not professional athletes, but many people work out to stay healthy, or enjoy playing a sport for recreation. When you get to rank 6ish, this person is a dedicated to the discipline, but not really pro-style. They are more of an enthused hobbyist, and the ability is at least a small part of their identity. By rank 12, you have the pro-style masters. These are the people by which all others are judged.

To put this in perspective, using the LRD system, a "real-world" scale of martial artists would be:

0- the guy who has taken his first few classes.
3- Actors in action movies, who have to learn a few moves for the stunts; a martial artist who has gained a couple belts.
6- Many amateur competitive martial artists (possible "local" champions)
9- Many professional competitive martial artists, Jet Li
12- Bruce Lee

As you can imagine, most people, if they have any rank, would fall between 0 and 3. The "value" of higher ranks will be represented by an increasing cost (probably exponentially) for developing an ability further.

At this point, I don't have to go into detail as to how the dice mechanics affect the probability curve, you obviously know all that. What I realize is that for the rank 0 guy to have a chance at all (no matter how small) against the rank 12 guy in a contested check, the range of the randomizer has to be equal to or larger than the range of the variables being tested.

So, if I'm using a 2d6 mechanic (R=2-12) without the "double 6s allowing a character to add another d6", skills would have to range from 0-9. This way, if the 0 rolls a 12, and the 9 rolls a 2, the 0 can win. Of course, the probability of this happening in any given situation is 0.0007, or less than one in a thousand. Still, the Any Given Sunday Effect exists in this mechanic.

Now, because I have the "double 6s = +1d6 until no 6s are rolled" mechanic (or double 6s lets you add your current Willpower/Spirit value, the point is there will be something), this allows me to extend the range of the skills. Actually, I should mention that I'm leaning towards double 6s allowing you to add your current Willpower/Spirit value, as it's a better fit with the metaphysics of the game.

Ok, so taking into consideration the two criteria stated before:

1) Combat is more simulationist, affected by many situational factors, requiring multiple ability checks.
2) Conflict is more dramatic, usually resolved with a single ability check.

Using the system elements described above, a combat situation has a fair bit less of the Any Given Sunday Effect as the superior opponent has to consistently bottom out his rolls and the inferior opponent has to consistently max out his rolls in order for the inferior opponent to win. This makes sense. If you're trying to kill Bruce Lee, you're not going to send a single ninja and hope he gets lucky, you're going to send 100 ninjas with swords to attack him in his sleep. On the other hand, with conflict using a single check, characters have more of a chance to get that lucky "zing" in on a superior. So, in diplomatic relations (for example), the underdog has a chance to get lucky and come out ahead.

Quote
Your resolution mechanic defines the way reality works, and to some extent how it is perceived within the gameworld.

I totally agree.

Quote
This seems at first glance to involve combinations or permuations of the Natures and/or Abilities, which I thought you said you tried and didn't like.

Yes to the first part, no to the second. I may have misunderstood your post. I thought you were referring to a more free-form character model where the characters had a few stats and the players defined what they meant. I'm aiming to make a character more objectively defined than that.

Let's take carry weight, for example. Pretty much everyone in the world has a certain degree of physical strength, even if they don't develop it by working out or such. The guy who just sits around on his duff, drinking beer and playing video games is likely still able to lift a full garbage can. Say there is a Body nature, and an Athletics ability. Well beer-drinking-xbox-boy doesn't have any athletic ability, but he can still carry some stuff around. So let's say that every point of body is 10lbs. of unencumbered carry weight (which would probably be 30-40lbs. average, with the scale I used), and every point of Athletics is another 5lbs. for this example. Now, the "average" un-athletic person can lug around 30-40lbs. no problem, while an athletic person can extend this range to 35-100ish.

In this particular case, does this unbalance the Athletics ability, as it not only is used for ability checks, but has this "added" benefit? In general, does giving "added benefits" to some Abilities and not others unbalance Abilities?

All In All

It seems like I should be presenting an Ability listing here, but I know I'm too early in the game for the actual ability list to matter...at this point. In essence, I'm trying to take into consideration elements that every person has which crossover with elements that some people choose to develop, and balance the interaction.

Sounds like you're on the (or a) right track. One thing to remember:

QuoteAt this point, I don't have to go into detail as to how the dice mechanics affect the probability curve, you obviously know all that. What I realize is that for the rank 0 guy to have a chance at all (no matter how small) against the rank 12 guy in a contested check, the range of the randomizer has to be equal to or larger than the range of the variables being tested.

To maintain the "lucky hit" effect, this spread also has to cover the lower end person having the maximum possible negative situational modifiers, and the higher end having the maximum bonuses. It's not just skill ranks, it's skill ranks, whether or not they add to attributes (or natures) in any way, and situational modifiers that only affect one of the people in the conflict.

Otherwise you have a range where the lucky hit is there most of the time, but there is a threshold after which it becomes impossible. You send a hundred ninjas after Bruce Lee, but he puts on his "mystical ki sash +1" and suddenly the 1% chance each ninja has drops to 0% and Bruce fearlessly wades through them. That is, just as you can have automatic success thresholds, you should have automatic failure ones.

Making the lucky hit possible without fudging over the total modifier range (not just skill ranks) is going to be hard. And, depending on your level of realism, remember that while conflict may be several rounds, combat can be "bang! you're dead", so one lucky hit is all you need...

Practically speaking you can usually fudge this with a special case rule like "for a skill use with no voluntary negative modifiers (like called shots or movement), a roll of (insert best possible roll) is always a basic success, regardless of any other penalties or situational modifiers." This gives you the lucky shot effect, but doesn't let players say "since I need a lucky shot anyway, I'll do it while standing on my head with my eyes closed and aim for his left eyeball." Okay, that's munchkin-esqe again, but you see what I'm saying.

As a slight tangent, you might try to set up a mechanic that scales properly across the entire skill range. This is difficult to do in anything approaching an elegant fashion. What I'm saying is that a modifier that drops your chance to hit by 50% should drop a 100% chance to 50%, and a 50% chance to 25% (not 0%). That would be the ideal, but anything that approaches it is good. This eliminates the problems of "I have a 200% chance to hit, so I can take a -100% modifier and still automatically hit", while all those people who have merely a 100% chance to hit are totally screwed.

Greg Porter
BTRC guy

Greg

Quote
To maintain the "lucky hit" effect, this spread also has to cover the lower end person having the maximum possible negative situational modifiers, and the higher end having the maximum bonuses.

Good point, and easy for me to design for conflict, more difficult for combat.

I want characters to always be striving to gain advantage. It will make combat a bit more interesting and dynamic if opponents are always competing for "higher ground", rather than an I-attack-him-he-attacks-me scenario.

In that sense, there are -so- many environmental and strategic factors to deal with like concealment, higher ground, flanking, feints, etc. If I were to design with all that in mind, I would probably drive myself insane.

But your comments give me a good idea. If the number of environmental/strategic factors that a character could take advantage of were limited by a character's Mind Nature in some way, this may be one attempt at pulling in the reins, and therefore limiting the range of modifiers.

Quote
That is, just as you can have automatic success thresholds, you should have automatic failure ones.

Definitely, that's why I was intending to have double 1s be a potential automatic failure (possibly determined by a Willpower check or something like that).

Quote
Making the lucky hit possible without fudging over the total modifier range (not just skill ranks) is going to be hard. And, depending on your level of realism, remember that while conflict may be several rounds, combat can be "bang! you're dead", so one lucky hit is all you need...

With what I intend for a damage system, I don't see a "bang! you're dead" scenario being all that possible. Characters take wounds, and after several wounds they fall unconscious and start dying.

Quote
"for a skill use with no voluntary negative modifiers (like called shots or movement), a roll of (insert best possible roll) is always a basic success, regardless of any other penalties or situational modifiers."

Very good point, I didn't even think of that. I don't forsee having too many voluntary negative modifiers though. The types of voluntary actions that could produce the modifiers would have to be purchased as Techniques, though some will involve negative modifiers in their use. However, I will have to keep aware of your advice when I'm designing these elements.

Quote
What I'm saying is that a modifier that drops your chance to hit by 50% should drop a 100% chance to 50%, and a 50% chance to 25% (not 0%).

I agree with what you're saying, but that has to be somewhat difficult to design for. On the other hand, I would think that by using a randomizer with a bell curve probability distribution, that problem pretty much solves itself. For example, you have three tasks of different difficulties. One is easy, one is moderate, one is hard. Difficulty modifiers are going to have less of an statistical effect on easy tasks, which makes sense, as with an easy task, the difficulty modifiers are less of a distraction (i.e. I can tie my shoes in the dark). With a moderate task, difficulty modifers have more of an impact to the task at hand, as the task is challenging enough where distractions have more of an effect (i.e. I could try making scrambled eggs with peppers and onions and not burning anything, in the dark, but the dark would pose a significant problem). WIth a difficult task, your odds are small enough anyway that more distractions aren't going to be as much of a problem (i.e. if I were to attempt to suture a wound in the dark, I'd most likely fail, darkness or not).

I know it sounds like a "cheap and easy" solution, but is there a better way to handle the issue without bogging down the players or GM?

QuoteI know it sounds like a "cheap and easy" solution, but is there a better way to handle the issue without bogging down the players or GM?

The problem I've seen is that with linear modifiers in a bell-curve (i.e. XdN) system, small modifiers have no real effect at the high end, and a disproportionate effect at the low end. If I'm rolling 3d6 and trying to roll at or under my skill of 8, a +3 to my roll is absolutely devastating, while to a person with a skill of 18, they can ignore it. Instead of it affecting reach person in a proportionate fashion, the skill 18 guy (100% chance) takes a 5% penalty (100% down to 95%), while the skill 8 guy (25% chance) takes an 80% penalty (25% down to 5%).

In EABA, I tried to minimize this by using a multiple d6 system and "keep the best 3". This puts a cap on maximum rolls, and reduces the effect of extremely high levels of skill. So, if you're rolling 3d6 and trying to hit a 17, it's hard. But even if you have 6d6 and you only keep the "best 3", it's still hard to get that 17 (I think it is an 18% chance for a 17+ on "6d6 best 3"). If you simply kept all 6d6, you'd have well over a 50% chance of 17+. I've actually got a chart for "nd6 best 3" resolution at:

http://www.btrc.net/html/eaba/EABA%20dice.pdf

Like I said, it's not easy to implement an elegant "proportional modifier" mechanic, and you may not need it depending on your resolution method. But the potential pitfalls of disproportionate modifier effects are something that might sneak up on you. I believe ALBEDO addresses it by using multiple die types. If you normally roll 2d8 and you have a bonus, you might roll 2d10 instead, or if there is a penalty, you roll 2d6 or 2d4. So, even if you are god's gift to marksmanship and roll 2d12 normally, a three die type penalty drops you to 2d6. Your roll is still a bell curve, just one with a lower maximum value.

Not sure it is something you want to get bogged down in at the moment. Once you have a resolution system you're sort of happy with, then you test it to destruction and learn what you can from the mangled wreckage.

Greg Porter
BTRC guy

Quote
Not sure it is something you want to get bogged down in at the moment.

Actually, I think this is exactly where I'm at right now. I'm forseeing development going in this order:

1) Define variables.
2) Choose a conceptually compatable mechanic to utilize the variables.
3) Define the influence each variable has on the mechanic.

I believe (1) has already been taken care of, which puts me at step (2).

Quote
The problem I've seen is that with linear modifiers in a bell-curve (i.e. XdN) system, small modifiers have no real effect at the high end, and a disproportionate effect at the low end.

In a roll-under system, yes. In a roll-over system, it has the same effect on either end. That's one of the few reasons I'm leaning towards a roll-over.

Quote
If I'm rolling 3d6 and trying to roll at or under my skill of 8, a +3 to my roll is absolutely devastating, while to a person with a skill of 18, they can ignore it.

I see why this would happen for one major reason. It's a 3d6 mechanic. The more dice you roll, the steeper the curve and the stronger the central tendency. That's why I'm sticking with a 2dN mechanic. It creates a more subtle curve, where modifiers have a more significant effect around the mean, but not overwhelmingly so.

Also, with 1-N ranged variables in a roll-under system, implementing difficulty modifiers that hinder the high end without totally botching the low end can be extremely difficult or even impossible.

Quote
I tried to minimize this by using a multiple d6 system and "keep the best 3".

Silhouette does this and it has some problems. Basically, there's no point in improving a skill past the halfway point. It seems that the numbers work out better in your system though, as you're "keeping" more dice. In Silhouette only one dice was "kept", which makes it pretty easy to get a six on a 5d6 (0.598), and not that hard on a 3d6 (0.421). By keeping three in your system, it makes having more dice more useful. (I just want to clarify that I'm not criticizing your system)

I suppose I could do that with the 2d6 mechanic, Roll 2d6 + 1d6 per Nature point, and keep the best two. However, I do see some complications with the mechanic in terms of critical success/failure. Logically, it would make sense that all 1's would be a critical failure, but on a 5d6 (which would be "average" for this system), the chances of that would be 0.0001. Also, it would make critical successes much more common (0.192 on a 5d6).

Quote
If you normally roll 2d8 and you have a bonus, you might roll 2d10 instead, or if there is a penalty, you roll 2d6 or 2d4. So, even if you are god's gift to marksmanship and roll 2d12 normally, a three die type penalty drops you to 2d6.

Step-die mechanics kind of scare me. For a system like what I've got going so far for LRD, scaling the range of the Abilities for a 2d6 randomizer is a delicate enough process. Attempting to scale Abilities for a 2d4, 2d6, 2d8, 2d10, and 2d12 randomizer is probably impossible for all the other system elements I'm trying to include.

Side note: Do you have any opinions on limiting environmental factors using Nature? I do see this as being potentially unbalancing as it would have much more of an effect on combat than conflict, though I'm not entirely certain myself.

QuoteSide note: Do you have any opinions on limiting environmental factors using Nature? I do see this as being potentially unbalancing as it would have much more of an effect on combat than conflict, though I'm not entirely certain myself.

If by "environmental factors" you mean "things the character can do to give themselves an edge", I'm not sure. A limit based on Mind or other abilities makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. The good characters get even more potential to increase the modifier spread.

And there are all kinds of environmental modifiers that are unrelated to abilities. I don't need a special ability to fire a weapon from a moving horse. An ability would help, but it is still a hell of an environmental penalty. And if it is a moonlit night, or foggy, or whatever, you can rack up modifiers of far more than the normal skill spread.

Have you considered the merits of a threshold system like Shadowrun? NdX, but each dX is counted separately and compared to a target number. The number of successes gives how well the task was performed, and rolls of the maximum for a die type reroll and add.

Example: I have a target number of 5 and roll 4d6. Each 5 or 6 rolled is "a success". More than one success increases the quality. If I had a target number of 8, I would roll 4d6, then reroll and 6's and add them to the "6" result, thus allowing me to get a result of up to 12.

The only statistical drawback is the flat spot in the curve at X+1 (if I reroll a 6, I'm guaranteed a result of at least 7, so 6 and 7 are effectively the same number).

This gives people the ability to get extraordinarily lucky, and also has other benefits.

Greg Porter
BTRC guy

You know, I really wish I played Shadowrun back in the day. That's one system I feel like I missed out on by not playing. Is there an OGL for the Shadowrun mechanic? I would like to learn more about how that works.

Side note: Being that Natures have such a small range, I'm almost tempted to make them static. As in, the players can't improve them though play. What they are "born" with, is what they get, in other words. That approach might even support certain metaphysical elements of the setting...

Quote
A limit based on Mind or other abilities makes the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Yeah, I had an element in mind when I was thinking of that. I was thinking that characters who build big, strong, dumb, brutish types of fighters who can really deal damage would have less of a tactical advantage than the "witty" finesse fighters. In a sense, there would be a David and Goliath effect. But I can see how that might unbalance things.

Quote
Have you considered the merits of a threshold system like Shadowrun? NdX, but each dX is counted separately and compared to a target number.

It seems like it would involve a lot of math, but as soon as you mentioned that, a mechanic did pop in mind (assuming I read your suggestion correctly). This would involve keeping the same range for Natures (1-6) and changing the range of Abilities to (1-10). Players rolls Nd8 where N is the Ability rank. They have to roll under their Nature for success, and then add up the total that they rolled under.

Example:

Player A has a Firearms Ability of 6 and a Body Nature of 4. He rolls 6d8, and adds up all that he rolls under 4. So, he rolls a 6, 2, 1, 8, 4, and 1. The 6, 8, and 4 are discarded leaving the 2, 1, and 1. The 2 is 2 under, and both 1s are 3 under. Adding it together (2 + 3 + 3 ) nets the character an MoS of 8.

I do see problems with this mechanic though, which is the same for any dice pool mechanic I can think of. Critical successes become much more common, and critical failures are too rare to consider (or more common if it works like Storyteller's botch mechanic). With this particular mechanic, it can also be a little math heavy at higher skill levels. However, if I use a mechanic where each die can only provide a single success, I have the problem of not having a large enough MoS range to tweak with the various modifiers possible in combat.

Quote
And if it is a moonlit night, or foggy, or whatever, you can rack up modifiers of far more than the normal skill spread.

That is definitely a problem. I mean, a lot of environmental penalties may be lessened or eliminated with Techniques, but I can see it possible that situational penalties rack up to the point of negating any skill. However, I'm wondering if this is a bad thing. After all, put Bruce Lee in a pitch black room with a greasy floor that is shaking around because of an earthquake, and see how well he can perform the 24-form simplified Yang style. Know what I mean?

The range of skills is getting to me for another reason. From a statistical perspective, I think they're too small. Let's take the mechanic I described above: 2d6 + Nature + Ability.

More often than not, on a 2d6, you are going to roll between a 4 and a 10 (SD of 2d6 is 2.4). Now, Bruce Lee was built, and generally pretty healthy, except for that whole dying at 33 business. Overall, let's say he would have a 5 Body (on a 1-6 scale).

So, most of the time when he lays the smack down on some ninjas, he's doing so at a quality of 21-27, and only 44-57% of that is because of ability, the rest is a combination of nature, or just chance. This could be eliminated by not using Nature for the checks, increasing his ability contribution to 55-75%, but I definitely forsee a problem with that. There is a crossover with some abilities in that abilities which are predominantly physical are going to have mental uses, and abilities that are predominantly mental are going to have some physical uses. If someone is using a Socialize (Intimidate) ability (where Socialize is predominantly Mental) to "muscle" information out of a target, it requires that you actually have "muscle" (or at least a means to enforce it). Also, the difficulty of many physical abilities can be assessed with a check using the Mental Nature. Having the option to switch the Nature modifiers depending on the situation is necessary, I believe.

I could increase the skill range, but then I'd have to increase the randomizer range, but that will really only nerf Natures and increase chance. It wouldn't help out Abilities too much.

Of course, another way to look at it is that his Body Nature contributed to his high Ability (which is philosophically congruent with the system). In that case, his total ability actually contributes to 63-81% of his success, which isn't that bad at all.

Oi...

You know, don't get me wrong. I love math, and I love stats. It's a big reason why I'm in the line of work that I'm in. Still, sometimes abstract mathematics can suck a big, fat...

-Michael

QuotePlayer A has a Firearms Ability of 6 and a Body Nature of 4. He rolls 6d8, and adds up all that he rolls under 4. So, he rolls a 6, 2, 1, 8, 4, and 1. The 6, 8, and 4 are discarded leaving the 2, 1, and 1. The 2 is 2 under, and both 1s are 3 under. Adding it together (2 + 3 + 3 ) nets the character an MoS of 8.

I do see problems with this mechanic though, which is the same for any dice pool mechanic I can think of. Critical successes become much more common, and critical failures are too rare to consider (or more common if it works like Storyteller's botch mechanic). With this particular mechanic, it can also be a little math heavy at higher skill levels. However, if I use a mechanic where each die can only provide a single success, I have the problem of not having a large enough MoS range to tweak with the various modifiers possible in combat.

You may be onto something here, but I think there are too many steps: roll 6d8, compare to Body, add up successes, compare to target number.

What about setting up the threshold for "success" as being a certain number of "roll unders". Something like:
Short range - 1 success
Medium range - 2 successes
Long range - 3 successes

Called shot: +1 success
Spending a turn to aim: -1 success

With the proper dice pool, this might work out. Throw in some stuff like "unskilled use of an ability always rolls 1d8", "you can never count more successes than your current Mind score", "each extra success in combat is +1 damage", etc.

This system would give you automatic success thresholds (if you apply modifiers that make you require a total of zero successes to hit), automatic failure thresholds (if you need more successes than you have dice to roll), and the "smart fighter" bonus (can't get more successes than your Mind score). It also self-limits in terms of modifiers. If you're rolling 3d8 and you need 3 successes to hit, you won't take that called shot because that would be impossible under the current circumstances.

I'm not totally sold on the "roll Ability dice and try to get under your Nature" idea, but if it works in practice, run with it.

It's kind of lonely here in this thread now. I seem to have driven away all the narrativists (they're very shy around numbers). Maybe I should drop off this thread and see if they come back...;)

Greg Porter
BTRC guy

One thing is not quite clear to me: why do you have a combat mechanic that is completely different from the rest of the system?
It implies a certain focus on combat. You should come up with numerous extended conflict resolutions or use a single one for all of them, if you do not want to focus on combat.


Oh, and for the record, the people in the Dark Ages didn't consider the world flat.

Quote
You may be onto something here, but I think there are too many steps:

You're right, that's one of the reasons that I didn't like the mechanic.

Quote
What about setting up the threshold for "success" as being a certain number of "roll unders"

This is basically the standard mechanic for a dice pool. The problem I have with this is that it essentially gives you a MoS range from 1 to 10 (if skills range from 1 to 10), and reliably from about 1-5. That means that any modifiers are going to have a much more significant impact on task resolution. It would be like trying to make a Sim using Storyteller, the resolution results are just too broad.

OTOH, with a 2d6 + Nature + Ability mechanic, the MoS range can be from 3-27+, which is more wiggle room for something as detailed as combat.

Quote
This system would give you automatic success thresholds...automatic failure thresholds.

I'm not too big on automatic successes and failures. I always want failure to be a possibility, as well as success.

Quote
It's kind of lonely here in this thread now. I seem to have driven away all the narrativists (they're very shy around numbers). Maybe I should drop off this thread and see if they come back...;)

Funny, but that's quite alright. In the past two years of designing this game, it has been very rare that I've crossed paths with another Sim designer. Most people I discuss design with are either rules-lite, free form, or LARP, and I wonder why that is. Where's all the Sim people at? Especially now, when I'm getting close to the number crunching, a Sim community is definitely one I would want to be a part of.

Don't get me wrong, the non-Sim people have been a great asset. They're a great help when it has come to helping me define my variables and how they should interact. Furthermore, they've regularly challenged my system on a conceptual level which has only made it stronger. The original system I started out with was basically a d20 clone, just more broken. Now, I believe it more accurately accomplishes what I want it to (though there's still plenty of tweaking to be done).

Quote
One thing is not quite clear to me: why do you have a combat mechanic that is completely different from the rest of the system?

Actually, the mechanic is the exact same.

Like I said earlier in the thread, combat is more Sim, while conflict is more Dramatic. Sim players (in my experience) get enjoyment out of the multiple parameters that can affect combat, but not as much so from the more social elements. This is especially true when combat uses miniatures and grid maps, making combat more "tangible". Not as many Sim players really want to have to make multiple Socialize checks at various difficulty modifiers depending on various elements. Furthermore, if that were the case, players would have to learn not only the detailed rules for combat, but also for every single individual ability that they plan to use. Sim systems are complex enough without extensively quantifying every element of the setting's universe.

And that's not what I'm designing for. LRD is intended to be Sim/Drama...a kind of "best of both worlds".

Quote
Oh, and for the record, the people in the Dark Ages didn't consider the world flat.

I know, Aristotle was one of the first who figured it out, which was what? 2,300 years ago? I was being metaphorical.

QuoteOTOH, with a 2d6 + Nature + Ability mechanic, the MoS range can be from 3-27+, which is more wiggle room for something as detailed as combat.

Of course this also means that your fixed elements (nature & ability) can become more important than all other factors. If I read it right, you can be rolling 2d6+15 as a maximum case. It doesn't seem to be kosher to be trying to minimize the spread of fixed modifiers, when you have a 1-15 spread in the "fixed modifiers" of nature & ability.

And there is always the "self-examination" phase, which is where you ask yourself "How accurately can I simulate this reality with my level of game design skill?". Anyone who feels confident that they can model 1% granularity (a percentile dice system) is either kidding themselves or a helluva better game designer than I'll ever be.

What is the minimum useful level of variance you think your system should have? 3%, 5%, 8%, 10%? I'm personally comfortable with the 8-10% level as a meaningful amount of difference, but the number you pick will be the benchmark for the simplest possible combination of dice and dice types you are willing to accept.

And don't ignore the intangibles. There is something to be said for rolling a big handful of dice on occasion. There is more expectation and tension than with say 2d6, and even if it takes a little longer to resolve, the extra enjoyment may be worth it. Part of tense situations in Shadowrun might have been trying to make that key roll against a difficulty of say 11, where you rolled a handful of d6, kept the 6's and rerolled them trying to get a 5+ on the rerolls. The "okay, I have a chance to succeed!", followed by the "did I succeed?". The extra rolls took time, but added dramatic tension. An extra roll, counting successes or 6's or other simple and fairly quick tasks might be worth it, and might also give you the granularity you are looking for.

Here's another optimum to aim for. For any given combination of skill and tasks, a real-world success curve is generally a half-bell curve shape, starting at a peak of 100% chance and trailing off to effectively zero chance. If you take a combination of nature and ability and start at or near 100% success chance in difficulty, will increases of difficulty in 1 point increments generate the slow-fast-slow dropoff that most real-world tests will follow?

This only matters of course, if that is the kind of results curve you want. The nature of your gameworld and dramatic sense of resolution may work better with a different curve, but the question remains as to whether it will be the same curve shape for both novice, intermediate and expert skill users?

Greg Porter
BTRC

btw, I hope you don't see me as being argumentative. The debate is rather helpful as it has helped me better understand the elements that work, and better adjust the elements that need work.

Quote
It doesn't seem to be kosher to be trying to minimize the spread of fixed modifiers, when you have a 1-15 spread in the "fixed modifiers" of nature & ability.

I'm not totally sure if I read that right, but if you mean fixed modifiers as environmental effects and "fixed modifiers" as nature and ability, I wouldn't say I'm trying to limit the range of environmental effects. It's more like I want to be sure I have a wide enough spread for nature and ability so that when I get to designing the various environmental effects I don't have to "retro-fix" natures and abilities to be compatible with them.

Quote
And there is always the "self-examination" phase, which is where you ask yourself "How accurately can I simulate this reality with my level of game design skill?". Anyone who feels confident that they can model 1% granularity (a percentile dice system) is either kidding themselves or a helluva better game designer than I'll ever be.

You're absolutely right. There's no way I'd ever design a d% system. One of the major criteria I am using for determining granularity (at least when considering roll over/under mechanics) is what is the odds of the lowest possible result, and the odds for the highest. It really helps with designing the critical success/failure element.

Quote
What is the minimum useful level of variance you think your system should have? 3%, 5%, 8%, 10%?

I suppose that's really debatable depending on the designer and system. For what I'm doing, and what I'm trying to build, I could be comfortable with a 3% variance, though it might not be necessary for many situations. It's not too much of a concern as long as I feel like I have small enough increments to work with. Technically, I actually could do a d% mechanic, which would ensure my increments were small enough, though if I were to do that, I'd only end up doing everything in 5% increments, anyway (and not a true d% system).

Quote
For any given combination of skill and tasks, a real-world success curve is generally a half-bell curve shape, starting at a peak of 100% chance and trailing off to effectively zero chance.

Crap.

I had just typed out a whole counterargument as to how a 2dX roll-over mechanic could be used to simulate that curve when I realized I screwed up my math and it actually didn't work. That slow-fast-slow dropoff bit blew it out of the water.

This is what I meant by adjusting the elements that needed work.

Still, the slow-fast-slow dropoff would only apply to a character attempting a task that is essentially beyond his/her ability and having a large enough pool of positive modifiers to make the task quite probable. At first, the modifiers wouldn't help so much, but if you lump enough on, the character starts to have a real chance at success, but then at a certain point, it the benefit of the modifiers peter out.

This, of course, would require a novice character to be attempting an extremely difficult task where everything is in his/her favor, which would likely not be terribly common, if not extremely rare. And when this does happen, I'm not sure this would be a problem. It would just be a rare situation where the character was really lucky. It's certainly happen to me on occasion.

Of course, if it really were a problem, I could always switch to a linear curve and go with a 1d12.

Quote
Part of tense situations in Shadowrun might have been trying to make that key roll against a difficulty of say 11, where you rolled a handful of d6, kept the 6's and rerolled them trying to get a 5+ on the rerolls.

I don't disagree. Pool mechanics certainly have their appeal. The main thing that concerns me is the diminishing returns that occurs with pool mechanics. Players will have no reason to master an ability if the returns crap out at the halfway point (or wherever). Granted, I could "fix" it by making the best Techniques require the higher ability levels (which I was planning to do anyway), but designing such an element as a "fix" is kind of a cheap way out.

What it boils down to is that for most pool mechanics, the range of significance is much too low for a range of skills. How can a shortcoming like this be resolved?

Also, the "flat-spots" at the intervals of 6 with the Shadowrun mechanic intrigue me. While there is a part of me that thinks the breaks are unnatural, there is a larger part of me that believes there is a way to take advantage of its uniqueness.

Quote
but the question remains as to whether it will be the same curve shape for both novice, intermediate and expert skill users?

Well, the curve shape is relative to the difficulty of the task and ability of the user. If you take a task that is of moderate (50/50 chance) difficulty for the intermediate user, it would be extremely easy for the expert and extremely difficult for the novice. Likewise, situational modifiers will have more of an effect on the intermediate user than the novice or expert (like with example before with tying my shoes, making scrambled eggs, or stitching a wound...all in the dark).

Does that answer that question or am I missing something?

And here I thought I was the being the argumentative one... Since I really know nothing about your world or what your design has gone through in the last 2 years, I'm just tossing out mechanics ideas and design philosophies in the hope that it will steer you towards what you are hoping to do, rather than my ideas of what is a "good" system. Speaking of systems, another possibility is the "table", a grid of "skill/nature total" cross-referenced with "modifiers" to get the "to hit" number. This allows you to generate any success curves you want, including proportional modifiers, but it requires the table for all skill use. You can add color coding too. It has its plusses and minuses, like any other resolution system.

QuoteStill, the slow-fast-slow dropoff would only apply to a character attempting a task that is essentially beyond his/her ability and having a large enough pool of positive modifiers to make the task quite probable. At first, the modifiers wouldn't help so much, but if you lump enough on, the character starts to have a real chance at success, but then at a certain point, it the benefit of the modifiers peter out.

True enough. I was using a typical firearms hit probability as my model, where you start at zero range (100% chance to hit) and go down from there. If you take novice, intermediate and experts, all their curves have the slow-fast-slow dropoff, just at different ranges. God's gift to pistols does not have a significantly better chance to hit something with a .45 at 100 meters than the average joe. His chance may be better, but it will still be in the tiny probabilities at the tail of that curve. A long barrel revolver with a telescopic sight is another matter entirely. You would see a similar curve with a tank's main gun when fired stationary at a stationary target, moving at a stationary target, stationary at a moving target and moving at a moving target. The curves still follow the slow-fast-slow dropoff, just at different ranges (I did a field trip to the Aberdeen Proving Ground research library for one of my game projects once...)

It's really quite tricky to set up a simple resolution system that lets a novice hit something at point blank without making experts too expert at long range, or which lets experts do expert stuff without making novices unable to do easy stuff. Anyone can make a system that works for a narrow range of average values. The extremes of a skill curve are where things break down.

But, as I said, this is just something to keep in the back of your mind, not a mandatory design goal. If you can make it happen seamlessly with the system, it can add a felt but unseen level of versimilitude that may make the system "feel" better, but adding a clunky step to the mechanic to make it happen would defeat the purpose.

Greg Porter
BTRC

Quote
Since I really know nothing about your world...

It's really not too "out there". It's like an alternate Earth, with a subtle supernatural influence that will get stronger over time. For the fantasy medieval installment, the supernatural element is mostly utilitarian and not terribly powerful. By the time players reach the contemporary installment, it will have "grown" significantly in scope. Players will be have powers that could possibly let them fall three stories and not take a scratch (for example), but there will be limitations in how much they can use their power. So, it's not like characters could consistently throw themselves off buildings and survive.

Quote
Speaking of systems, another possibility is the "table"

I thought about "the table", and it was really, really tempting at one point. Being able to customize any curve I want, and its relation to other curves would be a pretty nice for a designer. However, I'm not sure I want to force a table lookup on the players.

Quote
I was using a typical firearms hit probability as my model, where you start at zero range (100% chance to hit) and go down from there.

You have a good point there. However, another argument exists that a "controlled" environment like the shooting range can really only serve to test the impact of various ranges, and not overall skill or difficulty. I have a good example for this one (and it's one of my favorite stories). I have a friend who is a police officer. He did a spectacular job for all his firearms testing, which has earned him the "Sharpshooter" distinction. Basically, it's a little pin he gets to put on his uniform. Anyway, one day he ends up in an elevator with a crack dealer (he's not in uniform), and the dealer tries to sell him some rock. Well, being a police officer, my friend tries to make an arrest. The dealer isn't having that, so he draws and starts firing, as does my friend. Between the 13 rounds in his pistol, and whatever the crack dealer had, neither of them hit each other. My friend figures that the whole thing just happened too fast for either of them to be all that accurate.

Regardless, you're still right about the slow-fast-slow dropoff. That really has me thinking.

Quote
It's really quite tricky to set up a simple resolution system that lets a novice hit something at point blank without making experts too expert at long range,

The extremes of a skill curve are where things break down.

Like, seriously.

I'm trying to be very careful about that, but it's not easy.

Quote
But, as I said, this is just something to keep in the back of your mind, not a mandatory design goal.

Granted, but every system has room for improvement, and it's not like I'm on a deadline.

Well, you probably won't like this, but here it goes anyway...
In normal situations, d6-d6 is the roll. Each factor that favourably increases randomness increases positive die. Elements that eliminate negative effects reduce the positive die. Elements that reduce positive coincidences reduce the negative die. And things that increase adversial randomness increase the negative die.

So, for example, shooting someone is d6-d6. If it is foggy, d6-d8. Quite dark, d6-d10. Multiple enemies in dark, d8-d10 (might hit well, or not, pretty random).
Armwrestling would be d3-d3 or something like that, because it isn't very random. Lottery is d100-d100.

I have very simplistic systems here (you can get some inspiration there): http://s14.invisionfree.com/Tablets_of_Dleinr/index.php?showforum=9

I was just looking at Dream Pod 9's "Core" system and it has a threshold/success system that you could look at the curves for. It seems like an "NdX, keep best 1", but then each maximum die roll (in their case, 6's) counts as an extra success.

Example: I'm rolling 5d6 against a target number of 5. I roll 1, 3, 4, 6, 6. I keep the 6 and get 1 extra success for the second 6. So, I get 2 successes.

This might be a be coarse in the granularity, but the concepts involved might be worth looking at for an "NDX best 2" or similar system.

The system also rates skills as x/y, where X is your level, and Y is your depth of knowledge. A 5/1 would be a whiz at a narrow field, while a 3/3 would be a less skilled generalist in a broader aspect of that field. Like say knowing how to shoot one type of gun vs. a lot of types of guns.

Greg Porter
BTRC

Quote
I was just looking at Dream Pod 9's "Core" system and it has a threshold/success system that you could look at the curves for. It seems like an "NdX, keep best 1", but then each maximum die roll (in their case, 6's) counts as an extra success.

Yeah, I'm familiar with this. The probability curve it creates is rather interesting. It's one of the few mechanics that creates the log-linear curve that one would expect in a "natural" environment (so no slow-fast-slow, or flatline progression), except that it's inverted (it "rises" toward 6, when it should actually drop). Of course, the easiest way to invert the curve is to switch to a roll-under system, but there's other problems as well.

Quote
This might be a be coarse in the granularity, but the concepts involved might be worth looking at for an "NDX best 2" or similar system.

I drew out a table of a roll X take highest scenario. Actually, it was more of a probability of X 6s when rolling n dice. As expected, the returns are diminishing, even when keeping multiple dice. What was more concerning was how quickly the curve centered around 6s.

Quote
The system also rates skills as x/y, where X is your level, and Y is your depth of knowledge.

I totally forgot about that. Thanks for refreshing my memory. I knew I was missing something when "picking apart" the system. DP9 released a great core rules supplement that was mainly designed for CORE Command, but can be used for any of their settings. I don't own it, but I've borrowed it from a friend on many occasions. I think I'll need to borrow it again...or just buy it.

I have to admit, despite the flaws of the system, it always had the best "feel" to me.