Task resolution system ideas

[Brian T]

Thanks for the response Mike,

Alright looking over the past few responses I have to admit that I perhaps am not providing enough information about the system. Let me list some of the basics here so maybe what I am asking for is more clear.

There are five attributes I will list them here with a very brief general description: Might (physical strength), Prowess (physical speed), Vitality (health and heartiness), Cunning (Intelligence and problem solving), and Charm (force of personality).

Each of these have other specific uses outside of modifying skill rolls. For example Vitality is used to generate health levels, Cunning is used to generate something I call "down time improvement pips" as well as modifier to number of starting skills, and as a last example Prowess will be the starting base (modified by an athletic skill) to determine movement rates.

Good attributes would be desirable for a number of reasons but will not allow a character to in any sense of the word accomplish much more than innate/natural abilities.

It is this innate "potential" that I want to be able to modify skills. This will differentiate and modify chances from two equally skilled characters in task. This innate/natural ability is the basis for other game system needs.

The character generation system is a mix of points with some things left to chance to keep things from being "cookie cutter". Granted I could drop "attributes" and represent them with "skills" but I feel it would add greatly to a list I have kept short as possible without sacrificing setting.

Speaking of setting the game is perhaps strongly Narrative but I am not looking for feedback on G/N/R, I am still reading through all the threads on that subject. I want the game to play with the heroic feel so for most tasks if a character lacks a particular skill they get a single die with a modifier based on the "attribute". In some cases a desperate attempt but one that fits the setting.

I did read your rant and I agree with many of your points. The system I have put into work is one that should allow players to pick (and in some cases hope to get) traits, be it attributes or skills (and backgrounds/edges/merit flaws/what have you) to have a character that is good at their chosen "field" but perhaps lacking in others to promote the teamwork I desire for the setting.

If there is any more information I can provide to help those following this thread let me know, and Mike I hope I am understanding the questions you are asking. As for the best strategy I have not played a game myself where a player lacked choices to mold the type of character they wanted, admittedly I have not played a very large assortment of games.

Brian T.

[M. J. Young]

When the task is rolled using the system I described in the original post the Older gent gets 7 dice against a difficulty or 8 (10-attribute) and the younger gets a roll of 3 dice at a difficulty of 6.

Minor point: is there a particular reason why you include the subtraction step? Take a look at it:

[*]Player must roll 2 or less on d10; probability of success is 20%;[*]Player must roll above 10-2 on d10; probability of success is 20%.[/list:u]If you just use the low end of the roll as success, you eliminate the subtraction step and have a lower chance of in-game error.

Now, what exactly are the chances of success in the situation you describe?

Older must roll 8, 9, or 10--30% chance. He gets 7 shots. That means with each roll, he's got a 70% chance to miss, and it's reduced by the number of rolls, so we have .7^7 chance that he will fail to get at least one success. He will succeed almost 92% of the time.

Younger must roll 6 to 10, a 50% chance; he gets 3 shots. Thus we have a 50% chance to miss, reduced by the number of rolls, so we've got .5^3 to fail, an 87 1/2% chance that he will succeed.

I think what is apparent from this is that your system not only is not intuitive, it does not create the differences in ability that you're expecting. Frankly, as one who plays percentile-based games (really speeds up this kind of thing--I think dice pools were devised to obscure the odds from the players) I don't find five percentage points a significant advantage or disadvantage when you're at that end of the scale. Both of these guys are going to succeed far more often than not, and you're not really going to have much on which to distinguish them. Of course, if the point of the system is to obscure who really is better at any given task, you've succeeded admirably--only someone with the math skills to do what I just did would be able to work it out, since it's unlikely to be apparent in play.

I want the game to play with the heroic feel so for most tasks if a character lacks a particular skill they get a single die with a modifier based on the ?attribute?.

--or words to that effect.

You are aware that the way your system is set up, this rule makes a skill level of one worthless, right? You get one die if you have a skill rating of one, and one die if you have no skill.

Again, I recommend looking at Multiverser. An unskilled character can attempt to do anything at all, but having a skill kicks his ability up 11% at minimum over not having it. That's not so much, maybe (+2 in D&D terms), but it's more than the difference between the characters in your hypothetical.

Why are you so committed to a dice pool system, particularly when you don't understand the math behind them? That may be a personal quibble of mine, but I'd think anyone who wants to design mechanics would do so in a system in which they, at least, can work out what happens when you change things. Dice pools usually have a lot of dials--what's the range of the dice? what's the target number? what's the number of dice rolled? Changing any one of these alters your probabilities rapidly, and often in unexpected ways.

I hope you don't feel like I'm picking at you; I'm very interested in what you're doing here, as I like well-crafted skill/attribute systems. I'm just trying to get to the bottom of how they work together, and why you want them to work that way.

--M. J. Young

[Brian T]

I think what is apparent from this is that your system not only is not intuitive, it does not create the differences in ability that you're expecting. Frankly, as one who plays percentile-based games (really speeds up this kind of thing--I think dice pools were devised to obscure the odds from the players) I don't find five percentage points a significant advantage or disadvantage when you're at that end of the scale. Both of these guys are going to succeed far more often than not, and you're not really going to have much on which to distinguish them. Of course, if the point of the system is to obscure who really is better at any given task, you've succeeded admirably--only someone with the math skills to do what I just did would be able to work it out, since it's unlikely to be apparent in play.

This is exactly why I have asked for the feedback. I want to find the right blend of dice and odds to do what I want. There is always the option of scrapping the whole system or simply redirecting the resolution. Such as Roll skill in dice and keep a number of dice equal to Attribute that succeed. However it would most likely still favor the higher Attribute.

I know no one that owns multiverser so I cannot look over your system without purchase.

Why are you so committed to a dice pool system, particularly when you don't understand the math behind them? That may be a personal quibble of mine, but I'd think anyone who wants to design mechanics would do so in a system in which they, at least, can work out what happens when you change things. Dice pools usually have a lot of dials--what's the range of the dice? what's the target number? what's the number of dice rolled? Changing any one of these alters your probabilities rapidly, and often in unexpected ways.

This is your feeling and I respect it, myself I feel if man did not attempt and work at think through things he did not fully understand we would probably still be throwing rocks and sticks at our food. While some advanced math is certainly helpful I don't believe all or even most game designers (and aspiring designers) posses these skills, so the rest of us start with what we think looks right and ask for help to see if what we think is correct is actually so.

As for a percentile system I personally never really liked them. Perhaps it has to do with 3rd Ed Gamma World or maybe the Palladium system. In both cases I loved the settings but disliked the mechanics. If I were to look into at a percentile system I think I would start with a base number "generated" by an attribute and add a certain value for each skill level.

As for the dials I have a definite idea of a very limited range (-2 to +2) to adjust for situation out side of the difficulty and number of dice but again it seems to favor attribute. The insanity!

Brian T.

[Mike Holmes]

...Mike I hope I am understanding the questions you are asking. As for the best strategy I have not played a game myself where a player lacked choices to mold the type of character they wanted, admittedly I have not played a very large assortment of games.

You're getting closer to answering the questions I'm asking, but still missing the mark a little.

On the subject of why you need to have the skill/attribute split, your answer continues to be circular. That is, you say, "Here's how the system works. So therefore it needs to work this way." The question we have is to ask why it is that you want the system to work the way it does. An anaytical approach to design says that you have goals that you're trying to meet, and that you then try to make mechanics that accomplish those goals. You haven't told us what goal is achieved by having the split.

So, I now know that the attributes are used to develop secondary characteristics. Fine. Why do you need those? And don't answer that the downtime points are used with character advancement or that sort of answer. Tell me what it is that this all is achieving. Is it more realistic in your opinion to do things this way? Is that your goal? Is your goal adventure, and you feel that the attribute/skill mechanics deliver that? The one goal that I did see you mention was:

I want the game to play with the heroic feel

But then you point to a rule that allows untrained individuals a default chance. Well, that's cool, you have one mechanic that arguably helps achieve one goal. But what goal does the attribute/skill division accomplish?

As for the best strategy I have not played a game myself where a player lacked choices to mold the type of character they wanted, admittedly I have not played a very large assortment of games.

Interestingly, we've postulated a lot about games that don't allow player choices in chargen. And there are the cases of playing with pregen characters that most of us have encountered. But you miss the point. I'm not saying that your system is problematic because it leaves players choices. No, I'm all for that.

It's problematic because it takes away sensible choices. That is, there's an apparent choice to go with increasing attributes or skills. But given the system you're describing, for a given character it's always going to either be more efficient to raise the stat behind a group of skills, or to raise the skills. Given that fact, you'll only see one behavior in play for a given character. The player's only activity in play is to recognize that fact, and do what the game is telling him to do (or go against the grain, and be punished). This was the point of the rant.

Now it may be that your system doesn't have this actual problem because of something that I don't know about it. So, I'm just warning based on the information presented so far. You have a single currency that can be used to buy stats or skills. Stats are made more costly than skills because of the fact that stats add to many skills (including ones that you haven't purchased), and have some additional effects on their own - secondary stats. This is precisely the set up that I describe in the rant. Unless there's something you haven't told us, you have the problem in question.

Mike

[John Kim]

First of all, to Brian T -- I think you misunderstood the point of the Mr Jack's and my suggestion, re: 1-5 for attributes and 1-10 for skills.  The suggestion was assuming a mechanic like Storyteller or many other games.  Your effective value is based purely on attribute + skill.  This could be rolling attribute + skill as dice in a dice pool, or it could be adding attribute + skill + 3d6 vs a difficulty.  

This has the simplicity of those other systems, but it also achieves the primary purpose you expressed.   Attribute makes some difference, but not an overwhelming one.  Someone with a world-class attribute (i.e. 5) has an advantage over a less-talented person, but requires skill to be effective.  

Interestingly, we've postulated a lot about games that don't allow player choices in chargen. And there are the cases of playing with pregen characters that most of us have encountered. But you miss the point. I'm not saying that your system is problematic because it leaves players choices. No, I'm all for that.

It's problematic because it takes away sensible choices. That is, there's an apparent choice to go with increasing attributes or skills. But given the system you're describing, for a given character it's always going to either be more efficient to raise the stat behind a group of skills, or to raise the skills. Given that fact, you'll only see one behavior in play for a given character.

Well, agreed -- but nearly any character creation system exists to take away choices.  That is a good thing, in general.  What you consider problematic is for these systems is that they discourage, say, a dumb character who has bought up a large number of intelligence-related skills -- or a clumbsy character who has bought up a large number of dexterity-based skills.  How many skills are "large" here depends on the specific implementation.  

While this is a limit, I'm not sure what makes it particularly problematic compared to any other character creation method.  For example, Over the Edge and other define-your-own-trait systems encourage having only very broad traits -- as broad as you can wheedle your GM into accepting.  

As you point out in your rant, the problem can be fixed by allowing, say, +1 to all Dexterity-based skill for slightly less than +1 to Dexterity.  It's pretty simple, really -- I'm not sure why you characterize it as being necessarily too hard to calculate.  It can get tricky for non-linear attribute costs, but you can always just make a table for it.