The Forge Archives

Hey all. Here are some basic draft mechanics for the (rather Narrativist) game that I mentioned in this thread. Right now, I am using the working title FaeEarths, which is subject to change.

Part of my inspiration for this mechanic is a deep-seated suspicion about Target Numbers. Many RPGs set a single target number for a task. Those with high skill levels have a better chance of making that target number than those with low skill levels. This often (not always) ignores two things: (1) some tasks that may be extremely difficult for someone with little or no training are trivial for someone accomplished in the field and (2) some tasks are really only possible for someone who has received a certain amount of training. In the following system, I try to take these two factors into account. The result is a system that is somewhat free-form, but can provide good results as long as both the players and the guide (i.e., gamemaster or whatever) have an agreed upon understanding of what someone at the character's skill level should be capable of accomplishing.

Skills are rated on the following scale:

Skill Ratings    

Numerical Rating    . . .   Skill Rating . . .    Rating Bonus

1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   Unskilled              . . . . . . . .   0

2  . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . .     Unskilled        . . . . . . . .            +1

3 . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . .     Unskilled          . . . . . . . .           +2

4 . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . .     Beginner              . . . . . . . .   0

5. . . . . . . .   . . . . . . . .     Beginner          . . . . . . . .          +1

6. . . . . . . .       . . . . . . . .           Beginner         . . . . . . . .           +2

7         . . . . . . . .        . . . . . . . .  Competent       . . . . . . . .   0      

8    . . . . . . . .       . . . . . . . .        Competent    . . . . . . . .             +1

9       . . . . . . . .     . . . . . . . .       Competent     . . . . . . . .           +2

10      . . . . . . . .        . . . . . . . .     Expert         . . . . . . . .   0    

11       . . . . . . . .    . . . . . . . .        Expert         . . . . . . . .            +1

12         . . . . . . . .   . . . . . . . .       Expert          . . . . . . . .             +2

13        . . . . . . . .   . . . . . . . .        Master           . . . . . . . .   0  

14         . . . . . . . .   . . . . . . . .       Master             . . . . . . . .       +1

15         . . . . . . . .   . . . . . . . .       Master      . . . . . . . .            +2


There may be a Legendary level after Master. I have yet to decide. Ultimately, it should make little difference. You should be able to add as many extra levels as you can conceive of without the system breaking down.

Attributes do not factor into skill rolls. Characters with high attributes will find it easier to advance in skills more quickly than those without, and they may have higher default skill levels. Since attributes do not factor into skill rolls, any two characters at a single skill level are equally matched, assuming no external complications (such as environmental conditions, differences between equipment, additional assistance from others, etc.)

Skill Outcome table: Skill rolls are 2d6

Roll . . . Modifier . . . Outcome

2. . . . . . . .     -3   . . . . . . . .  Extremely poor performance. You consider this a horrible failure.

3   . . . . . . . .   -2   . . . . . . . .  Poor performance. You consider this a failure.

4   . . . . . . . .   -1   . . . . . . . .     Sub-par performance.

5-9 . . . . . . . .      0   . . . . . . . .     Average performance.

10. . . . . . . .  +1. . . . . . . .        Above-average performance.

11   . . . . . . . .   +2   . . . . . . . .     Good performance.

12   . . . . . . . .   +3   . . . . . . . .  Excellent performance. You consider this a personal success.



Note that the outcomes are not rated in terms of success or outright failure. Whether a particular task succeeds depends upon your skill rating as well as your roll. Before a roll is made, the guide must determine what would be needed for success.

Example:
Three archers line up at a standard range. One is a Beginner, one is Competent, and one is a Master. A Beginner is unlikely to hit the bulls-eye. Average performance from her might be hitting the target. Excellent performance might be required to hit the bulls-eye. A Competent archer, however, should be able to hit the bulls-eye regularly (at least under target-range conditions) with an Average performance . A Master should hit the bulls-eye every time. Extremely poor performance on her part might be hitting the edge of the bulls-eye instead of the center.

Rating Bonuses
Within each rating, there are sublevels (+1 and +2). Someone at Competent +2 is significantly better than someone at Competent. This is not reflected, however, in the interpretation of Outcomes from their skill roll. An Average performance from each of them is similar. The difference is that the individual at Competent +2 is close to becoming an Expert, and is more likely to perform at a level above Average (and less likely to perform at a level below Average) than someone who is simply Competent. This is reflected by awarding bonus die. Someone at Competent +1 will roll 3d6 and take the two highest dice to interpret on the Skill Outcome table. At Competent +2, the individual would roll 4d6 and take the two highest.

Environmental Modifiers (semi-optional)
Good or bad conditions act much like rating bonuses. Excellent conditions may add an additional die. Poor conditions may subtract one (or more). If this would cause a die pool to fall below 2d6, an additional die is added to the pool and the lowest two dice are counted.

Example:
Our Master archer (whose skill rating is Master +1) is trying to hit the bulls-eye again. Normally, she would roll 3d6 and take the two highest dice. However, it is raining horribly (-2 dice) and she is suffering from a severe headache (-1 die). Now she would roll 4d6 and use the two lowest dice.

The environmental modifier rule is semi-optional because many conditions can be incorporated into the evaluation of the Outcome necessary. In the example above, the Guide might simply determine that a Master archer would need at least a Good performance under the conditions listed to hit the bulls-eye.

Competitions
The above rules are for general task-performance. Often, characters perform actions that are directly opposed to the skill of another. The typical example is combat. Such competitions between individuals can be readily resolved through the above system with a few additional rules.

Note that not all such competitions even need additional rules. If the Master swordsman needs to fight his way through a room of castle guards, this may be an Average task. With a sub-par performance, he might have gotten nicked or not left the room in precisely the way he wished. Optional Rule: If you use this method and the character does not meet the needed Outcome goal, shift to the more detailed method below in order to determine what, precisely, happens.

How this works:
The individual with the lower skill rating rolls 2d6. The individual with the higher skill rating rolls 2d6+1d6 per level their skill rating exceeds their opponent (look at the Numerical Ratings for skills). Environmental modifiers may, of course, alter these die pools.

Example: Simon and Charlene are playing chess. Simon is a chess Master +1 (14). Charlene is an Expert (10) at chess. Simon would roll 6d6 (14-10+2) and take the top two dice. He rolls a 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5: for a 9. Charlene would roll 2d6. She rolls a 5 and 6: 11.

The results are then taken from the Modifier column of the Skill Outcome table.

Example: Simon played an Average game – for a Master – and gets no modifier. Charlene played a Good game for an Expert and gets a +2 modifier.

The modifiers are then added to the Numerical Ratings. The individual with the highest end result wins the competition.

Example: Simon gets no modifier, so his effective Skill Rating for the game stays at his normal level of 14. Charlene played a Good game for an Expert and gets a +2 modifier to her normal rating of 10, resulting in her playing at a level of 12. Simon, who is an accomplished Master, unsurprisingly wins without having broken a sweat, but he commends his opponent for a good game.

These are rules for a clear cut skill vs. skill competition. I am still working on modelling other sorts of competitions (like one-on-one combat).

I may also add a Determination/Willpower type attribute which can effect the effort put into a roll, possibly adding dice.

For those who have read the other post about this game, Story Points may be used to add or subtract dice through dramatically appropriate (and role-appropriate) environmental complications or even (depending upon role and circumstances) sheer luck.

Please let me know what you think. I am much in need of feedback.

~szilard

QuoteThis often (not always) ignores two things: (1) some tasks that may be extremely difficult for someone with little or no training are trivial for someone accomplished in the field and (2) some tasks are really only possible for someone who has received a certain amount of training.

It's my experience that most games do handle these concerns in some fashion. Some use very simple methods, and some very complex. But they almost all say something. The least of them will say something like, "Some tasks are just not possible for the untrained" which implies that there are simply two gross levels of "Skilledness", Unskilled, and skilled. Other systems, particularly those with defaults, tend to just penalize a set amount for a lack of skill in these cases.

Then you have games like JAGS, and Orbit that look closely at the sorts of things you're trying to address. JAGS takes an alternate view, that attributes do matter, but skill level affects the quality of the outcome. Orbit is similar, and even includes metagame effects resulting from high skill levels.

Also, consider that by using bell curves some games achive some of the same effect that you describe. So, to say it's unaddressed is, I think overstating the case. Usually it is addressed, but just in less detail then you have here.

Which leads me to my next comment. Which is that such a system is fairly dense and says alot about skill use and development. What does that have to do with Faeries?

Mike

Quote from: Mike HolmesWhich leads me to my next comment. Which is that such a system is fairly dense and says alot about skill use and development. What does that have to do with Faeries?

I'm also puzzled, particularly when in the game description, I think it's here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3928 , there's what seems to be a level of skill all ready in the game:

QuoteHero, Mentor, Apprentice, Sidekick, Love Interest...

Surely a Hero would succeed at most tasks at the end of scenario, the Apprentice would fail at most tasks, the Sidekick would be competent, but definitely not as skilled as the Hero, the Mentor would be far better than the Hero at the start of the scenario, then get unexpectededly struck down by the Villain's Henchmen (who cheat). :)

That would seem to be sufficient to match the level of detail the players seem to have.

Quote from: Mike HolmesWhich leads me to my next comment. Which is that such a system is fairly dense and says alot about skill use and development. What does that have to do with Faeries?

Nothing. It isn't a game about Faeries. I need a system that is fairly open for a wide variety of skills. I said it was a working title... apparently it isn't working very well.

Quote from: Andrew Martin[
I'm also puzzled, particularly when in the game description, I think it's here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3928 , there's what seems to be a level of skill all ready in the game:

QuoteHero, Mentor, Apprentice, Sidekick, Love Interest...

Surely a Hero would succeed at most tasks at the end of scenario, the Apprentice would fail at most tasks, the Sidekick would be competent, but definitely not as skilled as the Hero, the Mentor would be far better than the Hero at the start of the scenario, then get unexpectededly struck down by the Villain's Henchmen (who cheat). :)

Those are roles, not necessarily skill levels. On occaision, the Sidekick can be more skillful than the Hero (see Green Hornet). Very often, the Sidekick is more skillful at some things than the Hero.

Roles will almost certainly have an effect on starting skill levels and such, but they aren't the skills themselves. Sometimes heroes aren't that competent.

QuoteThat would seem to be sufficient to match the level of detail the players seem to have.

I'm not sure what you mean.

I realize that the ties between the system presented here and the archetype-role stuff I have elsewhere isn't terribly apparent. I'm filling in the explanatory gaps as I can.

Right now, I'm really looking for feedback on the system itself. I don't know that I like the way competition works... it may be too complicated for my purposes (which are Narrativist with a hint of Simulationism, I think).

~szilard

Query: with such a heavy focus on mechanical accuracy for skill ranks, how is this game "Narrativist"? Or how do you see these mechanics in particular facillitating/contributing to Narrative goals?

Quote from: greyormQuery: with such a heavy focus on mechanical accuracy for skill ranks, how is this game "Narrativist"? Or how do you see these mechanics in particular facillitating/contributing to Narrative goals?

Maybe I am being naive, but I don't know that rules preclude meeting narrative goals.

What I'm trying to go for here is a game that will not be utterly foriegn to players of traditional RPGs.

I want the rules to be straightforward, easy to understand, and intrude as little as possible on game play. When they do intrude, I want it to be for the betterment of the story or to assist in the suspension of disbelief (which may be a Simulationist goal that I see as compatible with Narrativism. Or something). On the other hand, I don't want someone who is only familiar with, say, D20 and Storyteller games to look at the rules and throw their arms up because they are oversimplified to the point that they are utterly unrealistic.

Call it a transition game from Simulationism to Narrativism, perhaps?

I'm going for elegance and a regular-language sensibility while retaining a certain level of detail. From everyone's responses, it appears that maybe I erred on the side of detail.

~szilard

Quote from: szilardOn the other hand, I don't want someone who is only familiar with, say, D20 and Storyteller games to look at the rules and throw their arms up because they are oversimplified to the point that they are utterly unrealistic.

But D20 and Storyteller games are utterly unrealistic! Our play group made up it's own RPGs to avoid the problems that these games had. These problems include levels & hit dice for D20, and strange probabilities & simplistic Skill + Attribute in Storyteller.

Hi there slizard,

I think you're misreading Raven slightly. I think he is saying, and I agree that it's a good point, that how your stated system facilitates Narrativist goals isn't clear. No one's saying they don't, and certainly no one is saying "detailed? Ha! Not Narrativist," which would be absurd.

If you could give a hypothetical example of four people playing the game, using these rules, in such a way that a Narrativist instance of play is crystal-clear, that would be very helpful.

Best,
Ron

Hey slizard,

I read through this--and wanted to take a hand at clarifying if it isn't clear (and sorry if it is--it wasn't at all clear to me when I came here what Narrativist design entailed).

Narrativist design deals with (as I understand it) the players exercising "directoral power" through the game engine. An example is: "The result of the attempt is, according to the game rules, a success--now I as the player gets to describe what happens in the game world--possibly adding major plot twists if that's the way the system works."

Narrativist play only tangentially deals with things like, say, exploration of a theme in a campaign, character development, social interaction, etc. Those elements can be equally existent in other types of gaming.

Simulation, additionally, doesn't deal with "simulating" or realism. It deals with the players purpose in gaming to be exploring either the GM's story (where the GM is tasked as the 'story teller'), the game world, the presented situation, etc. The rules could be utterly unrealistic and still be simulationism.

This caused me a good deal of confusion originally--and who knows, someone my post right after me and tell me I'm wrong about something.

Your mechanics look okay to me--I find them a bit complicated and, correct me if I'm wrong but the highest variance is 6 pts meaning that if one is a master, a compotent character can possibly beat you (about 1 in 1300 times).

I'd want to see how the "successes" table will work. Is there a table for archery, kung fu punches, basket weaving, etc.? Or is there a standard score (say 8 for a difficult task?)

I think I'd like to know how that works.

-Marco
A nod to Mike for pointing out that JAGS did in fact address some of these issues. :)

Okay... I think I understand some of the concerns here better. Let me see if I can address them.

On d20 and Storyteller... I've never played d20, actually (I've been studiously avoiding it for various reasons). I just listed those two because they struck me as the most common mainstream systems. I suppose "realism" wasn't what I was going for in describing them. What these systems do have are (as I understand them) are rules for an incredibly wide variety of situations. The goal (as I see it) is so that players and GM-types don't get 'lost' in a situation for which they don't have rules.

Now, I don't necessarily want to mimic the sheer number of rules in these games. What I do want to do is have a system that can be robust enough to create them if necessary (with some hints as to how to do that). I want this game to be playable by those who want those rules.

On the other hand, I want to make a large number of rules optional for those who want more Narrativist play. In terms of skills, the basic rating will be the descriptor (Competent, Expert, Master, etc.). I am considering developing this so that there is a mode of play in which that is all that is used.

The basic idea is that the extra rules will be there if needed or if the players want to play a crunchier game. What I expect is that, in many cases, the crunchy rules might be used primarily for tense events like single combat that traditional gaming groups might not be as comfortable handling without dice dictating everything, while the more narrative rules are used in-between such events.

There will be a hand-out on building trust and each players' responsibility to the story as a whole. The latter section might vary according to character role. The basic idea of these will be to attempt to introduce more Narrative concepts (and responsibilities) to those who aren't necessarily used to them.

Oh... another thing that I keep forgetting to mention. The skill list will be very free-form. There will be an option for characters to start with professions (rather than and/or in addition to single skills). So, if someone is say a Competent police officer, that individual will have a host of skills (investigation, firearm proficiency, driving, intimidation, legal knowledge, etc.) at the Competent level. These individual skills wouldn't necessarily be listed on the character sheet, and it does - I think - provide a bit more freedom to players to define their characters more fully. It also avoids the problem that can crop up in some systems of players not taking a skill that their character really ought to have (I see this in Storyteller a lot due to the lack of standardization of skill sets)

QuoteYour mechanics look okay to me--I find them a bit complicated and, correct me if I'm wrong but the highest variance is 6 pts meaning that if one is a master, a compotent character can possibly beat you (about 1 in 1300 times).

I think that sounds fairly reasonable in terms of odds. I am frustrated by systems in which people with low abilities can engage in a contest with those of high abilities and semi-regularly win (Storyteller comes to mind). On the other hand, I didn't want a system based on pure Karma in which the Master always wins (just the vast majority of the time).

If the mechanics are complicated, though, that is a problem.

The basic idea (which may not be new, but which I haven't seen done explicitly before) is that the roll doesn't determine 'how well you do' on an objective scale. It determines how well you do relative to your skill level. It is an idea I like, and one I would like to stick with. I think it has a more character-centered feel to it. So... there isn't strictly speaking a "success table" and tasks don't have standard difficulty. If someone is a Competent basket-weaver and weaves a basket, the first thing to do is say, "Well, what does a typical basket from a Competent basket weaver look like?" That's what you get on a 5-9 on a roll of 2d6. With higher rolls, you do an increasingly better job. With lower rolls you don't do so hot (though you may still get a serviceable - if not necessarily attractive - basket). In general, the options for what is better (or messed up) on non-standard rolls fall to the player (which might be another Narrativist element to the system).

It might need some tinkering if the current results from it are overly complex, though. That certainly wasn't what I was going for.

I hope this clears some things up.

~szilard

Quote from: MarcoNarrativist design deals with (as I understand it) the players exercising "directoral power" through the game engine. An example is: "The result of the attempt is, according to the game rules, a success--now I as the player gets to describe what happens in the game world--possibly adding major plot twists if that's the way the system works."

Narrativism is about focusing play priority on what creates the best story, that is, examining the theme through play. It is not about the exercise of directoral power through the game engine, that is, such does not define Narrativism.

There is a confusion here between Style (Narrative) and Stance (Director), when such exist as seperate entities. Yes, Narrative play has a larger share of games which utilize Director stance, but this is confusing part for the whole.

By the above definition, Donjon would be Narrativist because of the heavy use of Director-stance, when I believe Donjon is definitely Gamist, as it does not attempt to address an Egri-style Premise through play.

QuoteNarrativist play only tangentially deals with things like, say, exploration of a theme in a campaign, character development, social interaction, etc. Those elements can be equally existent in other types of gaming.

All the above are required, to some extent, for good Narrativist play.  Character development is, after all, a cornerstone of good fiction, and thus good Narrative play.  Unless, of course, you're talking solely about character development currency-wise, ie: "My Strength atrribute increased two points this session!" in which case we're discussing a seperate issue.

However, exploration of a theme is what Narrativism is about, the addressing of a Narrativist Premise ("focus on producing Theme via events during play. Theme is defined as a value-judgment or point that may be inferred from the in-game events." - Ron's GNS Essay)

"Narrativism is expressed by the creation, via role-playing, of a story with a recognizable theme. The characters are formal protagonists in the classic Lit 101 sense, and the players are often considered co-authors. The listed elements provide the material for narrative conflict (again, in the specialized sense of literary analysis)."

"Facilitating Narrativism relies on bringing specific Premise and the ability to have an impact on it into the foreground, over and above any descriptive or explanatory elements."

As I've found it, Narrativism is "Story Now," meaning the actions of the characters are direct and meaningful, of human interest to the players involved in the game, as players.

Quote from: On the other hand, I want to make a large number of rules optional for those who want more Narrativist play. In terms of skills, the basic rating will be the descriptor (Competent, Expert, Master, etc.). I am considering developing this so that there is a mode of play in which that is all that is used.

From what I see of your response, your stand is that because you can make it "lite" it does so...which is untrue. Narrativism does not mean rules-lite, LARPy hand-waving and purple prose; it is not based on Drama methods of resolution. Hence my earlier question as to how the above proposed system helped facilitate Narrative play?

I think you're committing one of the standard untrue assumptions about Narrativism: that such play is inherently "rules light" or "non-crunchy."

Case-in-point: I am running a Narrativist D&D game right now -- or so I learned after posting about it to Actual Play -- but I am using the standard D20 rules to run the game (that thread is here (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3544)).

Quote from: greyorm

Quote from: On the other hand, I want to make a large number of rules optional for those who want more Narrativist play. In terms of skills, the basic rating will be the descriptor (Competent, Expert, Master, etc.). I am considering developing this so that there is a mode of play in which that is all that is used.

From what I see of your response, your stand is that because you can make it "lite" it does so...which is untrue. Narrativism does not mean rules-lite, LARPy hand-waving and purple prose; it is not based on Drama methods of resolution. Hence my earlier question as to how the above proposed system helped facilitate Narrative play?

I don't think that fewer rules=Narrativist. What I was trying to say was that rules can dictate things that in a more narrative game could simply be (for lack of a better word) narrated. That doesn't mean that being rules-heavy is necessarily anathema to narrativist play. What it does mean is that - under some systems - extremely exhaustive rules may not be needed (or at least not as frequently needed) in narrative game play.

If I am mistaken as to the use of the term Narrativism, I am sorry. I am really less concerned about making this game Narrativist according to the GNS model than I am about encouraging a certain type of game play that focuses upon the personal development of characters, classic themes, epic plots and player collaboration in the above. If that fits your definition of Narrativism, great. If not, please excuse my use of the term (and feel free to suggest a less confusing one).

QuoteI think you're committing one of the standard untrue assumptions about Narrativism: that such play is inherently "rules light" or "non-crunchy."

Again, I don't think I was making this as a general statement. I was trying to say that by making rules optional (and accounting for how to do that), those involved in the game might gain a bit of freedom. It wouldn't necessarily be required for 'Narrativist' play, but it might be a useful tool.

~szilard

Quote from: szilardWhat I was trying to say was that rules can dictate things that in a more narrative game could simply be (for lack of a better word) narrated.

However, that was my point: "Narration" does not equal "Narrative." That is, "story-telling" or Drama-based methods of resolution are not inherently Narrativist (ie: "Oh, well, you can just describe that").

Anyways, this is really beside the point, and if you're interested in figuring out the differences in styles, there are plenty of other threads that deal with such, or you can start a new one.

QuoteI am really less concerned about making this game Narrativist according to the GNS model than I am about encouraging a certain type of game play that focuses upon the personal development of characters, classic themes, epic plots and player collaboration in the above.

Ok. The initial reason I asked was because of your statement about the game being Narrativist, and I couldn't see what WAS Narrativist facillitating about the rules.

As it stands, the above could be described as Simulationism with focus on Character Exploration or Setting Exploration, or it could be Narrativist, with the same sorts of focuses.

As Ron asked, could you post an excerpt of how you see a game running, using the above rules. That way we can see what, exactly, you mean these rules to DO or encourage in play, so we can provide you some feedback on if they're going to work along the lines you envision (as outside observers).

Hi there,

This thread might do better to put aside the Narrativism-issue entirely. Slizard is clearly interested in feedback on his task resolution system, with a strong emphasis on individual differences in effects. Let's take a look at the proposal in those terms and see what comes up, and if anyone wants clarification about the GNS side of things, we can take it to that forum.

Best,
Ron

As Ron says, and I agree, so to-wit:

So, you know what you're capable of before you roll, just not how well you actually do it (ie: a master *knows he can hit the bullseye, he just doesn't know how close to center he'll actually get...an expert knows he can hit the target, just not where).

The only thing I'm seeing as providing difficulty to a gamemaster are the "call-it-as-you-see-it" of results. That the GM needs to make up, on-the-fly, the results for particular tasks seems problematic in that this is a great deal of responsibility and work for them in addition to the task of actually running the game.

So, does cohesiveness matter?
That is, if I say the Archery task is about hitting the bullseye one time, and then I say its about hitting the target at all another time, will this matter? Or will it be a problem for players?

This leads into the next problem: When are the task results discussed (ie: what its all about, as above)?  Is it before the players roll, and is it discussed with them? (frex: "The task is Archery, and you'll be aiming for the bullseye.")

And will the GM have to list the options each time?
"Ok, novice, you'll be lucky to hit the target; expert, you can hit the target, probably the bullseye; master, you can hit the bullseye with no difficulty."

If so, this would bog the game down considerably IMO, not to mention coming up with the task and the standard results of the task for each level of skill on the fly.

As a post-script to my explanation:

I, of course, agree with Raven--I was thinking about the Narrativist *mechanics* I've seen presented. Dunjon is designed to be Gamist and does, as well, seem to be.  

But yes, Narrativist play focuses on answering a Narrativist Premise--so the rules would, IMO, tend to center around that premise rather than on generic outcome resolution.

otherwise:
I do like the ideas presented, but I agree with Raven that I'd want to know what the "success" levels are for each task.

-Marco

Quote from: greyormAs Ron says, and I agree, so to-wit:

So, you know what you're capable of before you roll, just not how well you actually do it (ie: a master *knows he can hit the bullseye, he just doesn't know how close to center he'll actually get...an expert knows he can hit the target, just not where).

Something like that. In general, characters should have a reliable idea of their own level of ability. There may well be exceptions to this (such as a character with an unknown aptitude for something, selective amnesia, or under the influence of luck or magic), but as a general rule, I think that the master archer should know that the bullseye isn't a difficult shot for her. The "how close to the center"-thing is fairly trivial in this instance. In some other circumstances (attempting to shoot something out of someone's hand, attempting to shoot through an eye-hole of a fully-armored opponent, or whatever)  that may make an enormous difference.

QuoteThe only thing I'm seeing as providing difficulty to a gamemaster are the "call-it-as-you-see-it" of results. That the GM needs to make up, on-the-fly, the results for particular tasks seems problematic in that this is a great deal of responsibility and work for them in addition to the task of actually running the game.

Well... I do see the players as taking partial responsibility for this. For instance (this is a drawn out example to illustrate the point),

Player: "I'm a Master Archer, so I am going to try to shoot the stiletto out of the assassin's hand from across the ballroom before he kills the Princess."

GM: "You don't have a very clear shot, as a few people are dancing. On the other hand, the assassin doesn't appear to notice that you've seen him. It won't be any problem for you, as a Master, to hit the assassin and avoid hitting any of the dancers, but you'll have to time it perfectly in order to hit him just right."

Player: "So, an Average hit would probably just hit the assassin and not disarm him? I don't want to kill the guy. So I'd rather have an Average hit be an arrow between him and the Princess. That should alert her and her guards."

GM: "Okay. That's reasonable. An above-average shot will be particularly well-placed to alert the guards and scare the assassin. A good shot will hit him in the arm. It might disarm him."

Player: "Cool. An Excellent shot will strike the stilletto, then?"

GM: "Yeah."

QuoteSo, does cohesiveness matter?
That is, if I say the Archery task is about hitting the bullseye one time, and then I say its about hitting the target at all another time, will this matter? Or will it be a problem for players?

The task is variable. Sure, you want to maintain cohesiveness between difficulty levels. If an archer is under similar conditions, victory conditions should be similar. If the archer you mentioned only cares about hitting the target, that should be easier than hitting the bullseye (all other things being equal).

QuoteThis leads into the next problem: When are the task results discussed (ie: what its all about, as above)?  Is it before the players roll, and is it discussed with them? (frex: "The task is Archery, and you'll be aiming for the bullseye.")

I think I might have answered this. If not, let me know.

QuoteAnd will the GM have to list the options each time?
"Ok, novice, you'll be lucky to hit the target; expert, you can hit the target, probably the bullseye; master, you can hit the bullseye with no difficulty."

Well... the character will have a specific skill level. There'd be no need for the GM to list the possibilities for other (irrelevant in this case) skill levels.

Does that help?

~szilard

Ahhh, I see.  Very interesting.  That deals with the concerns I raised nicely: that is, it appears that what you're attempting to do, and the Average result, are discussed in play, as a condition of what the player wants and is attempting to do (the "situational solution," as it were).
Very nice.

Let me clarify my final question, though.
When I asked if the GM would be required to explain the different Average results for each level of skill in a situation, I asked assuming that there would be players attempting the same given task who had differing levels of skills.

Frex, a group consisting of a knight (a Master swordsman), his squire (Competent in swordplay) and a travelling scholar (a relative Beginner in the same) are set upon by a dragon -- what the Average roll achieves for each is going to be different.

Going through the process described in your post above with each individual could, conceivably, take a good chunk of play.  However, given the way you envision the game running, that isn't so much a concern, as I can see interest generated for the non-involved players as what their companion can do and the overall group tactics based on this are described and explored.

This will, you realize, lead to a certain amount of metagame thinking, as players shift what their characters will do to better complement and support the efforts of their companions. Is that desirable? Desirable in some situations (when the group has had time to plan their tactics as characters)? Or completely undesirable?

I ask as I can see situations in which such a method would be both beneficial to "realism" and at odds with it -- for example, a band of warriors who has had much time in battle together can read one another and work off cues and knowledge a less experienced (as a group) band of warriors would be able to.

Thus in the latter case, players altering tactics to better complement their companions' actions would be problematic from a situational standpoint where realistic reactions are desired (allowing for the possibility of two or more actions by companions interfering with one another, or at the minimum being non-complementary).

Are there any rules which describe how to handle these situations (such as an initiative scheme and a 'Tactics' skill which must be rolled to alter your action, or something else), or is it not a concern?

Quote from: greyorm

When I asked if the GM would be required to explain the different Average results for each level of skill in a situation, I asked assuming that there would be players attempting the same given task who had differing levels of skills.

Frex, a group consisting of a knight (a Master swordsman), his squire (Competent in swordplay) and a travelling scholar (a relative Beginner in the same) are set upon by a dragon -- what the Average roll achieves for each is going to be different.

Hmmm...

I have two answers for this. The first is that it is unlikely that all three will be doing the same thing. Under this system, "I hit it with my sword" is rarely an acceptable declaration of ones character's action. I'd expect that the scholar would either run and hide or would try to defend himself as best he could. The knight might attempt to draw the dragon away from his companions in order to engage it one-on-one. The squire could do any number of things. Let's say, though, that the knight draws it away and then engages with it, but the squire follows him. The knight might attempt to slay the dragon while the squire attempts to distract the beast, making the knights attempt easier. We might say that slaying a dragon is an impressive feat even for a Master. On Average, the knight is going to hold his own. As his results increase, the knight might cause increasing wounds to the dragon. As his results decrease, the dragon might cause increasing wounds to the knight. The squire's efforts might result in a modifier to the knight's roll. A lot of it will depend upon exactly what the individuals are trying to do (in a more specific sense than 'slay the dragon').

The second answer is that the above (largely-narrated if not narrativist) system is really designed more for task-resolution than for contests and such. My initial example of the chess match was an attempt to deal with such things, but I think the system was too clunky and didn't quite give the desired results. I'm still working on a manner of resolving direct conflict that could be used between two characters (or characters and major NPCs).

QuoteGoing through the process described in your post above with each individual could, conceivably, take a good chunk of play.  However, given the way you envision the game running, that isn't so much a concern, as I can see interest generated for the non-involved players as what their companion can do and the overall group tactics based on this are described and explored.

This will, you realize, lead to a certain amount of metagame thinking, as players shift what their characters will do to better complement and support the efforts of their companions. Is that desirable? Desirable in some situations (when the group has had time to plan their tactics as characters)? Or completely undesirable?

I think it is generally desirable. Ideally, it will allow for more dramatic scenes. On the other hand, I don't necessarily want to encourage players to optimize the effectiveness of their characters' actions simply for the sake of optimization. I'm hoping that the reward system (in which characters receive points at least in part depending upon how they fulfill their role) will do something to prevent that.

QuoteI ask as I can see situations in which such a method would be both beneficial to "realism" and at odds with it -- for example, a band of warriors who has had much time in battle together can read one another and work off cues and knowledge a less experienced (as a group) band of warriors would be able to.

Thus in the latter case, players altering tactics to better complement their companions' actions would be problematic from a situational standpoint where realistic reactions are desired (allowing for the possibility of two or more actions by companions interfering with one another, or at the minimum being non-complementary).

Well, I'm less concerned with realism than with good story (not that the two are mutually exclusive). Assuming my reward ideas work, companions will, almost certainly, interfere with one another in some way. One idea I had was to allow Sidekicks to gain points when they "Get in the Way" or Rivals to gain points when they attempt the same action as their rival in a non-complementary way.

QuoteAre there any rules which describe how to handle these situations (such as an initiative scheme and a 'Tactics' skill which must be rolled to alter your action, or something else), or is it not a concern?

There will likely be a basic initiative scheme for use at the beginning of tense situations where it matters who reacts first. My experience has been that systems in which there is an initiative order, declaration of actions (usually in reverse initiative order), and then actions taken in initiative order (with some sort of penalty for changing actions) tend to break down in play. I realize that certainly isn't everyone's experience. I understand the issues and share some concern about the, but I don't have a good way of handling it realistically without a lot of rules that I'd rather do without... so I think I will largely try to emphasize drama rather than realism here.

~szilard

I have to say: oooo....aaaaah.
Very impressive, szilard-san.

I see hints of how the rest of the system works in this as well.
Overall it looks good, and thanks for putting up with the twenty questions.  Keep us updated!

(Do you need anymore feedback on it?  Anything specific bothering you about the design or whatever that hopefully one of us can adress?)

More feedback is always welcome.

~szilard

I can only say that this is a very elegant system. I look forward to seeing what kind of setting you are going to come up with to going along.

Chris

Is there some way to make this a more direct mechanic?
Like rolling +1D4 -1D4?

Not sure about the likelihood of certain results and whether it would properly reproduce the system you've created.

Including additional Negative Die  for environmental problems, and additional Positive Die for superior skill in challenges. Taking the highest of all the rolled die of course.

Quote from: thothIs there some way to make this a more direct mechanic?
Like rolling +1D4 -1D4?

Not sure about the likelihood of certain results and whether it would properly reproduce the system you've created.

Including additional Negative Die  for environmental problems, and additional Positive Die for superior skill in challenges. Taking the highest of all the rolled die of course.

I wasn't planning on having random environmental problems. Environmental penalties will subtract dice.

The way negative dice work: add the number of negative dice to the 2d6 and take the bottom two. EX: Joe is a Competent +1 carpenter. He is trying to build a shed. Normally he'd roll 3d6 and take the top two. With one penalty die, he rolls 2d6. With two penalties, he rolls 3d6 and takes the bottom two. With three penalties he rolls 4d6 and takes the bottom...

Environmental impediments may be placed by the gm or by other players (though, depending, it may cost them story points to do so...).

~szilard