The Million Worlds - 2 - Core Mechanics - Outcome Test

[RobMuadib]

Hi all

I mentioned to Fang that I was going to post a summary of the Outcome Test mechanic for my opus magnum, The Million Worlds: Chronicles Of The Eternal Cycle (TM). I will also point out the major advantages of the system.

To be upfront, the handling time can spiral under certain conditions, and the system itself is complex, this is mitigated through optimizations, usage tips, and internalization of the mechanics. Finally, I believe the detailed modeling gained is worth the additional handling time.

OUTCOME TEST MECHANIC
=============================
An Outcome Test is conducted in 5 steps.
1. Determine the Acting Score & Opposing Score
2. Calculate the Dice Modifier
3. Calculate Test Total
4. Determine Success/Failure
5. Calculate Success/Failure Result Score

DETERMINE THE ACTING  & OPPOSING SCORE
=========================================
The Acting Score is determined from the relevant Acting Aptitude, based on the inherent ability being used to perform the act, and the relevent Proficiency Score, being the sum of one of each of the relevant Skill,Specialty and Familiarity. Aptitude is equal to one-half of the Basis
Trait on which it is based (Where Basis Traits are Prime Statistics, Attributes, Sub-Attributes, and Demi-Attributes.)

Acting Score = Acting Aptitude Score + Proficiency Score

[This provides for dynamic Aptitude use depending on what is being done. While the cumulative 3-tiered Proficiency System allows for a detailed Skill-tree with details of related Proficiency and such nicely handled. The average Human has a Basis Trait of 10, which provides an
Aptitude of 5. Skills range from 0, for unskilled, to 20 or more for Masters, with a Score of 5 representing competence.]

The Opposing Score is set by the rules for the Outcome Test, or is based on the Trait Score of another character.

2. DETERMINE THE DICE MODIFIER
=============================================
The Dice Modifier is a zero-based modifier determined from the result of two six-sided dice, refered to as the positive dice, minus the sum of two other six-sided, referred to as the negative dice.

When rolling these dice, there are two Dice Rules applied, The Sixes Rule, and the High Five rule, which allow for open-ended results.

Sixes Rule = each "six" thrown on a die is called a Naught Die and is counted as zero.

High Fives Rule = a "five" thrown on a die for which there is no matching Naught Die in your Dice Pool is referred to as a "High Five." For Each Such High-Five thrown, you are eligible for a Bonus die. This is another six-sided die that is rolled, and then added to your dice pool.

Once you determined the number of High-Fives you have to determine the type, positive or negative, of the bonus die. Bonus Dice are of the same type as the "High Five" that spawned. Also, when matching Naught Dice, Naught Dice match fives of the same type, positive or negative, first.

After you have determined the number and type of Bonus Dice, you roll them seperately, again apllying the Sixes and High Fives rule to them to determine eligibily for further Bonus Dice. Once the number and type of additional Bonus Dice has been determined, if any, the dice just rolled are added to your Dice Pool. And the additional Bonus Dice are rolled.

This process is continued until no there is no further Bonus Dice elgibility.


3. CALCULATE TEST TOTAL
============================================
Once you have determined and rolled all the dice in your Dice Pool, you add up all of your positive dice, and subtract the result of all of your negative dice.  The result of this calcluation is your Dice Modifer.

Dice Modifier = (Sum of Positive Dice) - (Sum of Negative Dice)

[Because of the Dice Rules, the system allows for infinitesmal chances
of success/failure, also the because the open-ending mechanic is mitigated
it provides for a more heavily centered range of results, Keeping the range of results more tightly focused and predictable.]

4. DETERMINE SUCCESS/FAILURE
=========================================
In an Outcome Test, you pit the result of your Acting Score plus a dice modifier, against an Opposing Score. If your modified Acting Score, called
the Test Total, is greater than or equal to the Opposing Score, then you succeeded, if not you failed.

Acting Score >= Opposing Score = Success

[If only Pass/Fail is needed, you can skip the calculate a Success/Failure Total step]


5. CALCULATE SUCCESS/FAILURE RESULT SCORE
=========================================
Once you have determined binary Success, you can calculate a Success Result Score, if the Test was successful, or a Failure Result Score, if the Test was  failed. Success and Failure Result Scores are calculated using the same procedures.

A Success Result Score is determined in 4 sub-steps.
1. Calculate the Success Total
2. Determine The Performance Factor
3. Calculate The Result Factor
4. Determine The Success Result Score

1. CALCULATE THE SUCCESS TOTAL.
------------------------------------------------
A Success Total is determined by totaling the results of the
positive dice. However, there are two rules that must be followed
when calculating the success total.

First, the number of dice that may be counted is limited, and second, you must count the dice with the lowest results first.

The Success Dice Limit, the number of dice that may be counted to determine a Success Total, is determined from the Success Dice Step.
By default, the Success Dice Step is equal to the Governing Basis Trait of the Aptitude being used to perform the Act.

Success Dice Limit = Governing Basis Trait

[The Success Dice Limit allows the character's inherent ability to control
the range of results possible when attempting an Action.]

Divide the Success Dice Step by two to determine the number of dice to count. This is the number of dice used to calculate the Success Total.
If the dice limit includes a half-die, then half of one of the dice results is counted and added to the results of the other dice, to determine the Success Total.

If the dice limit is greater than or equal to the number of the dice in the positive dice pool, all of the dice in the positive dice pool are counted to determine the Success Total.

Once you have determined how many dice you may count, you then sort the dice by the die result, from lowest to highest.

Remember, when determining a Total, Naught Dice are counted as zero. Additionally, Half-Dice are sorted as if they were half of the result thrown, rounded up, not as the number showing on the die.

The results of each die are then added up, one die at a time, from lowest result thrown to highest result thrown, until the Success Dice Limit is reached. Count your whole dice first.  If there is a half die in the die limit, half of the next highest die result, after all whole dice have been counted, is added to get the final Success Total.

2. DETERMINE THE PERFORMANCE FACTOR
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Performance Factor (PF)
The Performance Factor is determined by referencing the CORE Table. Look for the smallest total in the Value column of the CORE Table that is greater than or equal to the Success Total. The number listed in the rightmost column of that row is the Performance Factor.

[The CORE Table is our Uber-table containg the ten points to a factor of 10 progression that underlies our Trait Scale. I decided to make its use central to the game, in an effort to get players to learn to use it. It comes out as a nice little 3 column table that fits on the character sheet.]



3. CALCULATE THE RESULT FACTOR
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Success RF is equal to the sum of the Ability Factor (AF) corresponding to the Trait being tested and the Performance Factor.

Result Factor = Ability Factor + Performance Factor

By default, the Ability Factor is the smallest GP Score for which the corresponding Value is equal to the Proficiency Score of the Skill being used to perform an Act.

Ability Factor = GP Score (Prof. Score)

Note- sometimes other Scores will be substituted for the Proficiency Score when determining an Ability Factor. For instance, when using an Attribute to make a Test, the Attributes' associated Aptitude Score is used to determine the Ability Factor.

[The Ability Factor determines the magnitude of a characters success along the range determined by his Aptitude. This allows for the modeling of the difference between Talent/Ability and Skill/Experience

4. DETERMINE THE SUCCESS/FAILURE RESULT SCORE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Success Result Score is determined by referencing the CORE Table. Look in the GP column for a number equal to the Success RF. The number listed in the center column of that row, rounded to the nearest whole number, is the Success Result Score.
Note- that values of .5 or are more are rounded up, and .49 or less down, when determining a Success Result Score.

Depending on how the test is being used, the Success Result Score can be used to determine a Success Rating, or it can be converted to a Value using the CORE Table, it is also used in opposed tests and other ways.

The Failure Result Score uses a parallel process. Except that the Failure Total is limited to a Dicestep equal to the Opposing Score of the test, and instead of an Ability Factor a Difficulty Factor equal to one-half of the Opposing Score is used to determine the Failure Result Score. The Failure Result Score can then be used to determine a Failure Rating, or otherwise applied via the game system.

Now, this mechanic has a number of very nice features. The Trait Scale allows for a nice roomy, and familiar range of 1-20 for humans, with 10 being Typical. The system can handle any level of (super human) Trait Scores, without breaking down. It is finely detailed. Second, the system allows for a detailed modeling of Ability versus Skill. The CORE Table is used to limit all calculations to addition or subtraction.
Some might argue it is overly complex for many operations, it is also used for Weapon damages determinations, in which the damage can range into 100,000s for ultra scale weapons, so doing 1/10 multiple multiplications can be very time-consuming and brain numbing, thus we rely upon the learned use of the CORE Table to quickly spit out the approximate Scores we want with a minimum of math and chart ouijaing action.

The Success/Failure Total is a cumulative 1/10th multiplier of the Proficiency, since we use two dice with a range of 0-5, this provides us with an average result of 0.5 x Proficiency. Which again works out nicely.

Anyway, I am very happy with the mechanic myself, and don't dare change at this point, if I ever want to finish my damn game:) Despite that, I offer it for your comments and edification, as well as an example of the state of the art in detailed resolution mechanics.:)

[Mike Holmes]

Hmmm...

To be upfront, the handling time can spiral under certain conditions, and the system itself is complex, this is mitigated through optimizations, usage tips, and internalization of the mechanics. Finally, I believe the detailed modeling gained is worth the additional handling time.

I'm all for what you claim, personally. The question is does it work?

DETERMINE THE ACTING  & OPPOSING SCORE
=========================================
The Acting Score is determined from the relevant Acting Aptitude, based on the inherent ability being used to perform the act, and the relevent Proficiency Score, being the sum of one of each of the relevant Skill,Specialty and Familiarity. Aptitude is equal to one-half of the Basis
Trait on which it is based (Where Basis Traits are Prime Statistics, Attributes, Sub-Attributes, and Demi-Attributes.)

A lot of this is undefined, and hard to understand in the context provided. Are definitions provided elsewhere? Anyhow, I get that you add a couple of numbers.

[This provides for dynamic Aptitude use depending on what is being done.

What's the dynamic part? What changes when?

The Opposing Score is set by the rules for the Outcome Test, or is based on the Trait Score of another character.

2. DETERMINE THE DICE MODIFIER
=============================================
The Dice Modifier is a zero-based modifier determined from the result of two six-sided dice, refered to as the positive dice, minus the sum of two other six-sided, referred to as the negative dice.

Why not just have each opposing force roll two "positive dice". Then you get the result of a conflict in a single roll. If one side rolls higher total than the other, they get the positive Test Total. Isn't a lock succeeding at not being opened the same as you failing to open it?

[Because of the Dice Rules, the system allows for infinitesmal chances
of success/failure, also the because the open-ending mechanic is mitigated
it provides for a more heavily centered range of results, Keeping the range of results more tightly focused and predictable.]

Yes, this is very tight considering the range of skills and abilities. The roll will only be meaningful in a small percentage of cases. Most often the statistics will win out. Some might like this, but others will not. I think it's realistic, but that's often not what players want.

The Success Dice Limit, the number of dice that may be counted to determine a Success Total, is determined from the Success Dice Step.
By default, the Success Dice Step is equal to the Governing Basis Trait of the Aptitude being used to perform the Act.

Why not just have the results based on the result total, limited by the GBT? This is much simpler, obviously, and it wil make your chart smaller. The results are not quite as fine, but you have a stronger correlation between the character's abilities and the outcome. Your current method adds some randomeness back into the system after the primary roll. But that's already been randomized.

[The Ability Factor determines the magnitude of a characters success along the range determined by his Aptitude. This allows for the modeling of the difference between Talent/Ability and Skill/Experience

Why does this model things more accurately? Why is it that you believe that skill adjusts the result at one point, and why does talent adjust at the other? Is this intended to model reality, or just make plain that there is a difference? Given that at the end, the result produced is not described in any way in terms of these things, how does the added complexity help the player feel the difference? Or are they supposed to feel the difference as they do the extra math? Dubious, IMO.

Anyway, I am very happy with the mechanic myself, and don't dare change at this point, if I ever want to finish my damn game:) Despite that, I offer it for your comments and edification, as well as an example of the state of the art in detailed resolution mechanics.:)

Well, FWIW, this is a Simulationist system with what seems to be some extra math to doubly emphasize, somehow, the difference between Skill and Talent. Do you find in play that the extra work is really worth it? Is that difference really what the players are interested in?

Mike

[RobMuadib]

To be upfront, the handling time can spiral under certain conditions, and the system itself is complex, this is mitigated through optimizations, usage tips, and internalization of the mechanics. Finally, I believe the detailed modeling gained is worth the additional handling time.

I'm all for what you claim, personally. The question is does it work?

As far as I can tell from my statistical analysis and hand-testing, yeah it works, and the way it works gives me the warm fuzzies:)

DETERMINE THE ACTING  & OPPOSING SCORE
=========================================
The Acting Score is determined from the relevant Acting Aptitude, based on the inherent ability being used to perform the act, and the relevent Proficiency Score, being the sum of one of each of the relevant Skill,Specialty and Familiarity. Aptitude is equal to one-half of the Basis
Trait on which it is based (Where Basis Traits are Prime Statistics, Attributes, Sub-Attributes, and Demi-Attributes.)

A lot of this is undefined, and hard to understand in the context provided. Are definitions provided elsewhere? Anyhow, I get that you add a couple of numbers.

Yeah, all of this is exhaustively explained in my Game Concepts: Rules system chapter, if you are interesting in taking a gander, I could email you a copy. It is currently between "polish" revisions, however. I'm adding
key idea "call-out" boxes to the sections to make it easier to learn.

[This provides for dynamic Aptitude use depending on what is being done.

What's the dynamic part? What changes when?

The dynamic part is the choice of the Aptitude matched with the
Proficiency Score  when deciding an Acting Score for a Test(which is also largely dynamic because of the detail represented in the Proficiency Tree.)

The Aptitude is determined from a Basis Trait (which consists of a 4-tiered
hierarchy with each tier being successively more specific ability). The Basis Trait used is dependent on what inherent ability is being used to perform an Act.

For instance, the lock-picking example, to pick a lock you would use the combination of your Steadiness Aptitude (determined from your Steadiness Demi-Attribute, with the Aptitude being pre-calculated, though it is a simple 1/2 rounded up.)

Plus your relative Lock-Picking Proficiency Score, which would be the sum of your Lock-picking Skill, and one of each relative Lock-picking Specialty and Familiarity, if you have any. (again, your total Proficiency Scores are always pre-calculated and recorded by convention - part of the Usage tip bit I mentioned above, to cut down on Handling time.:) )

Now, if you wanted to fist identify what kind of lock it would be, this would be your Acuity Aptitude (1/2 Acuity Demi-Attribute) plus your relevant Proficiency Score. If you wanted to determine if the lock had been picked already, you would use your Awarness Aptitude (1/2 your Awareness Demi-Attribute.) Thus, allowing for dynamic "type-based" "attribute" checking during the game.

Another "innovation" I didn't touch on much was the use of a Hierachial "Attribute- Tree", allowing for the option of highly detailed attributes, differentiated on the basis of orthogonality, useability, orientation, and applicability. (oops, I better stop there on that tangent before I scare the other Forge members with my slavering super-simulationist babble:) )

The Opposing Score is set by the rules for the Outcome Test, or is based on the Trait Score of another character.

2. DETERMINE THE DICE MODIFIER
=============================================
The Dice Modifier is a zero-based modifier determined from the result of two six-sided dice, refered to as the positive dice, minus the sum of two other six-sided, referred to as the negative dice.

Why not just have each opposing force roll two "positive dice". Then you get the result of a conflict in a single roll. If one side rolls higher total than the other, they get the positive Test Total. Isn't a lock succeeding at not being opened the same as you failing to open it?

I am wondering if perhaps you are making an assumption in offering this idea based on an improperly conveyed picture of the mechanic. If you are thinking that each player makes an Outcome Test for a roll, that is false. the Opposing Character is represted passively by his Opposing Score in all but outright Contests.

Normal combat attacks, and other "opposed" rolls aren't resolved as Contests, but via Outcome Test mechanic, by the pos/neg dice
roll. So in effect negative Dice, and the opposing Score, represent the
Opposing character, and the positive dice and the Acting Score represent
the Acting Character. The addition of the Acting and Opposing Scores to these totals are vital in order to provide a weighted chance of success. If only the dice rolls were considered, then it would be totally random with regards to chance of success.

Another advantage of this method is that you can conceal an opposing character's Scores where useful, since, on a successful Test, at least,
the player merely needs to be told by Rules Guide that he succeeded,
he can then determine Success Result Score, and offer that to apply
against target, or situation.

[Because of the Dice Rules, the system allows for infinitesmal chances
of success/failure, also the because the open-ending mechanic is mitigated
it provides for a more heavily centered range of results, Keeping the range of results more tightly focused and predictable.]

Yes, this is very tight considering the range of skills and abilities. The roll will only be meaningful in a small percentage of cases. Most often the statistics will win out. Some might like this, but others will not. I think it's realistic, but that's often not what players want.

Hmm, it's not quite as tight as you think, overall. Well, at least if you look at from a 1 million rolls or more:). But yeah, most of the time, character performance will be quite predictable, though I made it so combat effects add a second order of randomness to the whole thing, so it is more random than basic skill use, but the fact remains that High Ability = High Predictability.

I actually learned a bit of programming to calculate out the results for my mechanic for like 100 million rolls of my basic outcome test, plus Aced/Deuced rolls with Hero Points. the results of all this number crunching were fed into Excel and ouputted to the pretty graphs that can be seen at http://www.wildmuse.com/games/OutTestStatsPage.html

The Success Dice Limit, the number of dice that may be counted to determine a Success Total, is determined from the Success Dice Step.
By default, the Success Dice Step is equal to the Governing Basis Trait of the Aptitude being used to perform the Act.

Why not just have the results based on the result total, limited by the GBT? This is much simpler, obviously, and it wil make your chart smaller. The results are not quite as fine, but you have a stronger correlation between the character's abilities and the outcome. Your current method adds some randomeness back into the system after the primary roll. But that's already been randomized.

What you propose is very simlar to TORGS Modified Acting Value - Opposing Value equals Result system. the problems with that is that
it puts binary success and Success/Failure Result back on the same axis.
and you lose the ability to model any diference in aptitude/talent. Since they would equal to a single result score. (Now, you can model this in a dice pool system, ala LUG Trek games, or Silhouette, but then you lose ability to handle any Trait Score, another of my design goals.)

Further, you create infinitesmal chances of marginal success for very high scores, and make marginal success much more likely for average success.

Also, having the Success/Failure along a second axis, allows me to pull some neat tricks with regards to increasing chance of Binary Success, while reducing level of Success Reslt (the Playing It Safe option), as well as reducing chance of Binary Success in exchange for greater Success Result. (Going For Broke option.) Not that you can't in single axis of success systems, but it requires double billing on the Success Result end to work then.

[The Ability Factor determines the magnitude of a characters success along the range determined by his Aptitude. This allows for the modeling of the difference between Talent/Ability and Skill/Experience

Why does this model things more accurately? Why is it that you believe that skill adjusts the result at one point, and why does talent adjust at the other? Is this intended to model reality, or just make plain that there is a difference? Given that at the end, the result produced is not described in any way in terms of these things, how does the added complexity help the player feel the difference? Or are they supposed to feel the difference as they do the extra math? Dubious, IMO.

I believe it models reality accurately. In that it enforces the following rules.
1. Skill Matters Most - Skill is the most important determiner of your chance of success, and the Magnitude of your Success.
2. Talent does more with less. Meaning, that the greater your talent,
the greater the range of success you can achieve within a range of skill. and the easier you can succeed at a given task.

Actually, saying the Result produced is not based on these things is inaccurate, although it is understated in the rules at this point.(perhaps I should add a usage note.)
Your Ability Factor, the number you add the Performance Factor too, is Based directly on your Proficiency, the greater the your Proficiency, the greater your Ability Factor. I.e. your swinging a bigger stick.
The size of your Performance Factor is directly tied to your Success Dice LImit, which is based on your Governing Basis Trait, the complete expression of your aptitude in that area.

This really becomes obvious when attempting an Act for which you have no Proficiency, then you have Proficiency 0, and can only succeed Marginally, you got no stick to swing, as it were.

Finally, the end Result is a Score, just like your starting Proficiency Score, and is a function of your Proficiency Score.  (i.e - Skill/Experience)

Anyway, I am very happy with the mechanic myself, and don't dare change at this point, if I ever want to finish my damn game:) Despite that, I offer it for your comments and edification, as well as an example of the state of the art in detailed resolution mechanics.:)

Well, FWIW, this is a Simulationist system with what seems to be some extra math to doubly emphasize, somehow, the difference between Skill and Talent. Do you find in play that the extra work is really worth it? Is that difference really what the players are interested in?

Hmm, I hope that I can pitch it so that the players are interested in it. Part of the maxim for this game, is the option for great detail. Being that I am foolishly pursuing my own vision at whatever the cost, It pleases me first and last, and hey, I am like reasonably sure that besides me, Brian Gleichman will probably like it:)

Rob Muadib

(Who's got the Nobody-But-Brian-Gleichman-Will-Play-My-Game-Blues:) )


Oh yeah, thanks for taking the time to read the post and comment on it mike. :)

[Mike Holmes]

The dynamic part is the choice of the Aptitude matched with the Proficiency Score when deciding an Acting Score for a Test(which is also largely dynamic because of the detail represented in the Proficiency Tree.)

OK, I get that. For the record, however, it's not new. There are a slew of games that have come out recently where you add whatever appropriate stat with the appropriate skill to get a total bonus. Which has led, ironically, to the eventual realization that all traits can probably be handled by a single system, and that the skill/ability split is unnecessary. But that's another level of abstraction. :-)

The Aptitude is determined from a Basis Trait (which consists of a 4-tiered hierarchy with each tier being successively more specific ability). The Basis Trait used is dependent on what inherent ability is being used to perform an Act.

That sounds new, four tiers of Attribute. Actually this all reminds me of a system that I've been working on for years that combines skills and attributes in a total-tree kinda concept, that allows for a potentially infinite amount of specificity. Why four, though? Do they default, or does the player have to develop each sub-stat separately? Just curious, not really important.

(again, your total Proficiency Scores are always pre-calculated and recorded by convention - part of the Usage tip bit I mentioned above, to cut down on Handling time.:) )

Yes, we'll call this the Rolemaster technique. In general all calculations that can be should be done prior to play in any game. Pretty obvious. Use spreadsheets where possible.

Another "innovation" I didn't touch on much was the use of a Hierachial "Attribute- Tree", allowing for the option of highly detailed attributes, differentiated on the basis of orthogonality, useability, orientation, and applicability.

Is this the same tree you mention above, or some other additional mechanic?

I am wondering if perhaps you are making an assumption in offering this idea based on an improperly conveyed picture of the mechanic. If you are thinking that each player makes an Outcome Test for a roll, that is false. The Opposing Character is represted passively by his Opposing Score in all but outright Contests.

Nope. I got that part. I'm suggesting that making all contests "outright contests" would be easier. What you have is unnecessarily complicated as far as die conventions and number of rolls.

So in effect negative Dice, and the opposing Score, represent the Opposing character, and the positive dice and the Acting Score represent the Acting Character. The addition of the Acting and Opposing Scores to these totals are vital in order to provide a weighted chance of success. If only the dice rolls were considered, then it would be totally random with regards to chance of success.

Wasn't suggesting that you change any of that. What I'm suggesting is that instead of having everything be a series of rolls back and forth between the combatants that everybody rolls simultaneously, essentially. Appropriate bonuses plus two dice for you, appropriate bonuses plus two dice for me. The end result has the same curve, but you get the result of a "round" in half the time. In essence, I'm agreeing with Fang that initiative is probably something that is best modeled by the random part of the die roll, or, rather, initiative is included in the dice modifier.

If you want to argue about whether the "all-opposed rolls" concept is valid, we can do that elsewhere. It's a long debate that I'm not about to get into here. Just consider it for a moment. For an example of how it works, see the combat/resolution system in Paul Elliot's (Mithras) Zenobia (or check out Sorcerer if you don't mind a Narrativist example).

Another advantage of this method is that you can conceal an opposing character's Scores where useful, since, on a successful Test, at least,
the player merely needs to be told by Rules Guide that he succeeded, he can then determine Success Result Score, and offer that to apply against target, or situation.

??? You aren't saying that other methods can't allow for the character's scores to be hidden, are you? Not that it's very important, but in any system you can hide the scores from the players. In the method that I'm suggesting even if the dice were visible to the opponent you wouldn't know what his score was on a simple test. And for one which needed a result number, all you need to do is roll in secret and do the math yourself. Or am I missing your point?

Hmm, it's not quite as tight as you think, overall. Well, at least if you look at from a 1 million rolls or more:)... the results of all this number crunching were fed into Excel and ouputted to the pretty graphs that can be seen at http://www.wildmuse.com/games/OutTestStatsPage.html

Checked out what you have, and it looks correct statistically. But what the statistics say is that the standard deviation is within about a ten point range (from -5 to +5). Given that your stats and skills seem to add to bonuses of around say twenty on the average and range usually from ten to thirty or so, that means that skill is going to be much, that means that the luck portion of the roll is relatively insnificant. In GURPS, for example, the range of likely available scores and likely outcomes for a die roll seem to add aboutr equally on the average to rolls. Most skill resolution systems come out something like that. OTOH, I may just still be confused about how your system adds bonuses. Or, you may be trying to model reality more closely, which I think you succeed at. As I said, though, some players don't want reality.

What you propose is very simlar to TORGS Modified Acting Value - Opposing Value equals Result system. the problems with that is that
it puts binary success and Success/Failure Result back on the same axis.

??? What does that mean? I must be mistaken, but the outcome of all the math still seems to be just one figure that translates into success if positive and failure if negative if you want only the binary result. How are these not "on the same axis"?

and you lose the ability to model any diference in aptitude/talent. Since they would equal to a single result score.

Does your system give more than one result score in the end? I really must be missing something here.

(Now, you can model this in a dice pool system, ala LUG Trek games, or Silhouette, but then you lose ability to handle any Trait Score, another of my design goals.)

???

Further, you create infinitesmal chances of marginal success for very high scores, and make marginal success much more likely for average success.

The system that I am advocating does the same. Increases remain proportionally the same. By rolling dice you are just multiplying the end outcome by 3.5 per die on average. So the same result can be gotten by dividing your outcome chart by 3.5 and not rolling more than the initial die roll.

Also, having the Success/Failure along a second axis, allows me to pull some neat tricks with regards to increasing chance of Binary Success, while reducing level of Success Reslt (the Playing It Safe option), as well as reducing chance of Binary Success in exchange for greater Success Result. (Going For Broke option.) Not that you can't in single axis of success systems, but it requires double billing on the Success Result end to work then.

Double billing? You mean explaining what the results mean? Like your system does with its chart? I'm not following, again.

I believe it models reality accurately. In that it enforces the following rules.
1. Skill Matters Most - Skill is the most important determiner of your chance of success, and the Magnitude of your Success.
2. Talent does more with less. Meaning, that the greater your talent, the greater the range of success you can achieve within a range of skill. and the easier you can succeed at a given task.

Yes, I get that. But have you read a study somewhere that says that this is how things really work? Why not reverse the roles? I could as easily argue that no matter how talented a painter that only skill can allow a painter to achieve great heights. If I'm not mistaken, right now, an unskilled character with a lot of talent can (unlikely though the result may be) make a painting with his best possible effort that is superior to that produced by a character who is highly skilled, but has less talent. Sounds fishy to me. Perhaps it should be skill that limits you, and talent that makes you consistent. I don't really believe one way or the other, but all this is moot.

Actually, saying the Result produced is not based on these things is inaccurate, although it is understated in the rules at this point.(perhaps I should add a usage note.)

My point was that the outcome of the system was a single scalar value. That value itself cannot say anything about how it was generated. By usage note are you suggesting that the player or GM look to how much of the result seems to be from one or the other factor and describe the character's actions by it? I can see that, maybe.

Hmm, I hope that I can pitch it so that the players are interested in it. Part of the maxim for this game, is the option for great detail. Being that I am foolishly pursuing my own vision at whatever the cost, It pleases me first and last, and hey, I am like reasonably sure that besides me, Brian Gleichman will probably like it:)

Well, the question is will players care about this potential detail, and if so, will they agree with your definition of how these factors are modeled? By reducing the normal level of abstraction with these things, you are making claims about the reality of the game world. Perhaps you should make that manifest in your text if you haven't already (i.e, just say that this is how things work).

But even then, you're betting that this additional detail will be more of a benefit to play than the additional time and effort that it takes to do the calculations. I myself have systems just as complicated or moreso. But in the name of play-flow, I only use them on computers with spreadsheets programmed to run the simulations. Which is a slight hassle itself. I'd never consider running them manually. Because even with the most grognardy Simulationists around (a good number of my friends, for example; we playtest games like Europa), a game that drags too much just becomes work. It's a simple matter of the ratio of quality and quantity of feedback to work required to get it. I don't sugest simplicity for simplicity's sake, I like complexity when it actually produces a relatively high feedback output.

So, does all this work for one small detail really pay off? Mileage on this will, of course, vary by user, but...

Mike

[RobMuadib]

The dynamic part is the choice of the Aptitude matched with the Proficiency Score when deciding an Acting Score for a Test(which is also largely dynamic because of the detail represented in the Proficiency Tree.)

OK, I get that. For the record, however, it's not new. There are a slew of games that have come out recently where you add whatever appropriate stat with the appropriate skill to get a total bonus. Which has led, ironically, to the eventual realization that all traits can probably be handled by a single system, and that the skill/ability split is unnecessary. But that's another level of abstraction. :-)

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that it is new, just that I think it is a good thing, but as you point, it is only useful if you make skill versus ability somehow
mechanically different.

The Aptitude is determined from a Basis Trait (which consists of a 4-tiered hierarchy with each tier being successively more specific ability). The Basis Trait used is dependent on what inherent ability is being used to perform an Act.

Another "innovation" I didn't touch on much was the use of a Hierachial "Attribute- Tree", allowing for the option of highly detailed attributes, differentiated on the basis of orthogonality, useability, orientation, and applicability.

That sounds new, four tiers of Attribute. Actually this all reminds me of a system that I've been working on for years that combines skills and attributes in a total-tree kinda concept, that allows for a potentially infinite amount of specificity. Why four, though? Do they default, or does the player have to develop each sub-stat separately? Just curious, not really important.

Is this the same tree you mention above, or some other additional mechanic?

Its newish, yeah:) Four was the limit to the difference in use I could see. They default to their immediate ancestor in the hierarchy, so you only have to record them if they are different. The four divisions start on the orthogonal level, Physical, Mental, Empathic (Body,Mind,Psyche,),
then they are split into Aptitude and Capacity elements, then those are split into inward focused, and outward focused, finally those are split into instant/immediate and continual/gradual aspects.

With each defaulting to it's immediate ancestor in the hiearchy, which all default to Body/Mind/Psyche eventualy (there is a fourth one Power, that normally defaults to a score of 0, since it is non-existent in most cases, and generally power is limited to a particular type, i.e. magic, or psychic, etc.) The rules specify the use of Attributes, Sub-Attributes, or Demi-attributes, with the most specific to the task the object of choice.

I am wondering if perhaps you are making an assumption in offering this idea based on an improperly conveyed picture of the mechanic. If you are thinking that each player makes an Outcome Test for a roll, that is false. The Opposing Character is represted passively by his Opposing Score in all but outright Contests.

So in effect negative Dice, and the opposing Score, represent the Opposing character, and the positive dice and the Acting Score represent the Acting Character. The addition of the Acting and Opposing Scores to these totals are vital in order to provide a weighted chance of success. If only the dice rolls were considered, then it would be totally random with regards to chance of success.

Nope. I got that part. I'm suggesting that making all contests "outright contests" would be easier. What you have is unnecessarily complicated as far as die conventions and number of rolls.

Wasn't suggesting that you change any of that. What I'm suggesting is that instead of having everything be a series of rolls back and forth between the combatants that everybody rolls simultaneously, essentially. Appropriate bonuses plus two dice for you, appropriate bonuses plus two dice for me. The end result has the same curve, but you get the result of a "round" in half the time. In essence, I'm agreeing with Fang that initiative is probably something that is best modeled by the random part of the die roll, or, rather, initiative is included in the dice modifier.

If you want to argue about whether the "all-opposed rolls" concept is valid, we can do that elsewhere. It's a long debate that I'm not about to get into here. Just consider it for a moment. For an example of how it works, see the combat/resolution system in Paul Elliot's (Mithras) Zenobia (or check out Sorcerer if you don't mind a Narrativist example).

Hmm, I would have to consider it more, my initial reaction is no, since
I am planning for a more detailed causal combat model, with more explicit
action structure, especially in the Tactical combat rules.

As for all opposed rolls, I think it is fine in a more abstracted combat system.:)

Another advantage of this method is that you can conceal an opposing character's Scores where useful, since, on a successful Test, at least,
the player merely needs to be told by Rules Guide that he succeeded, he can then determine Success Result Score, and offer that to apply against target, or situation.

??? You aren't saying that other methods can't allow for the character's scores to be hidden, are you? Not that it's very important, but in any system you can hide the scores from the players. In the method that I'm suggesting even if the dice were visible to the opponent you wouldn't know what his score was on a simple test. And for one which needed a result number, all you need to do is roll in secret and do the math yourself. Or am I missing your point?

No, just the way the scores are handled makes this easier to do.

Hmm, it's not quite as tight as you think, overall. Well, at least if you look at from a 1 million rolls or more:)... the results of all this number crunching were fed into Excel and ouputted to the pretty graphs that can be seen at http://www.wildmuse.com/games/OutTestStatsPage.html

Checked out what you have, and it looks correct statistically. But what the statistics say is that the standard deviation is within about a ten point range (from -5 to +5). Given that your stats and skills seem to add to bonuses of around say twenty on the average and range usually from ten to thirty or so, that means that skill is going to be much, that means that the luck portion of the roll is relatively insnificant. In GURPS, for example, the range of likely available scores and likely outcomes for a die roll seem to add aboutr equally on the average to rolls. Most skill resolution systems come out something like that. OTOH, I may just still be confused about how your system adds bonuses. Or, you may be trying to model reality more closely, which I think you succeed at. As I said, though, some players don't want reality.

Oh, I noticed I made a major mistake in explaining my mechanic, the Average Basis Trait is 10, however, it gives an Aptitude of 5, not 10
as well. This combined with a Proficiency Score of 5 for a Competent Proficiency, yields an average competent character's Acting Score of 10, which meets the Opposing Score of 10 for Average Difficulty Act.

Average PCs will have Aptitudes between 5-8, with Proficiencies between 3-8, and possibly 8-11 in a signature skill area.

Your are correct though in that the Test Total you are comparing is going to be very close to your Acting Score. about 9% of time equal to your Acting Score, about 27% +/- 1, 56% +/- 3, 78% +/- 5, and 96% of the time it will be +/- 10.

What you propose is very simlar to TORGS Modified Acting Value - Opposing Value equals Result system. the problems with that is that
it puts binary success and Success/Failure Result back on the same axis.

and you lose the ability to model any diference in aptitude/talent. Since they would equal to a single result score.

??? What does that mean? I must be mistaken, but the outcome of all the math still seems to be just one figure that translates into success if positive and failure if negative if you want only the binary result. How are these not "on the same axis"?

Does your system give more than one result score in the end? I really must be missing something here.

Ahh, I misunderstood what you meant in terms of result. True, my mechanic still gives one scalar result, it just differs in how it arrives at the result, and the limits of the result.

Perhaps examining the extreme results will show the point I was trying to make. With a standard Attribute + Skill - Target success Score (with open-ended success/failure),
your end cases (0 Attribute/Talent  or 0 Skill/Experience)have no particular effect beyond to reduce the likelihood of results to infinitesmal chances, but if you roll high enough you can still achieve any success result. Now this differs in my mechanic in that if you have 0 Aptitude,
then you can't count any dice to determine your Success Total, and therefor you have a success Total of 0. And since 0 times anything is 0, you can only achieve a Success Result Score of 0 maximum. The same holds true for 0 skill. You may succeed, but that
success is capped at 0. Because of your multiplying your success total by 0.

(Now, you can model this in a dice pool system, ala LUG Trek games, or Silhouette, but then you lose ability to handle any Trait Score, another of my design goals.)

???

This is in reference to the LUG Trek system, where attributes provide a number of pick highest result dice (thus skewing towards higher results), and skill adds a flat amount to that amount to get your success score(giving a higher base result). Giving a differing effect to Talent/Skill (talent skews to higher results, while Skill improves those results), Silhouette has talent and skill effects reversed, but they represent a difference.

Further, you create infinitesmal chances of marginal success for very high scores, and make marginal success much more likely for average success.

The system that I am advocating does the same. Increases remain proportionally the same. By rolling dice you are just multiplying the end outcome by 3.5 per die on average. So the same result can be gotten by dividing your outcome chart by 3.5 and not rolling more than the initial die roll.

It looks like we are having quite a bit of miscommunication here. Perhaps if you write me a short example of how the change you are advocating would work I could see what you mean better.

Also, I think we might have different "defintions" of a dice roll. My systems works with one roll, possibly multi-step, due to open-ending via
bonus dice, to determine both binary success and Success/Failure Result.
The dice are simply counted twice, once to determine binary success, and then a second, albiet limited partial recount, to determine Success/Failure.

Like I said, perhaps an example will make this more clear.

Ok, the trustiest of examples, the lock-picking example. Our Hero is trying to pick the lock on a door, it has already been determined that the door only has a standard tumbler door lock with an Opposing Score of 10, so we just determine our Acting Score.

1. - DETERMINE ACTING SCORE
==========================
This is a physical lock-picking task, relying on steadiness of hand, so our Heroes' Steadiness Demi-Attribute  is applicable, checking his character record yields a Body: STD of 13[7], which is a Steadiness Demi-Attribute of 13, and a Steadiness Aptitude of 7. Next he determines his applicable Proficiency Score, checking his character record he conveniently has:
Lock-Picking - 4 (4)
  [Tumbler Locks] - 2 (6)
     (Door Locks) - 2 (8)

Since he has an applicable Skill, [Specialty], and (Familiarity), he uses their total of them (written in parenthesis next to the relative Score) as his Proficiency Score (8).

Adding His Proficiency Score of 8 to his Aptitude Score of 7, gives an Acting Score of 15, which is being Tested against the Opposing Score of 10.

2. Calculate The Dice Modifier
===================================
Ok, we know our Acting and Opposing Score, now time to determine a Dice Modifier. The player, having read that handy usage note in the Rules system chapter:), has several D6 of each of two different colors at hand.
Grabbing two white dice in hand, declared as his positive dice, and two black dice in hand, declared as his negative dice, he rolls them.

This is how they came up:
P[ 5, 2] N[5,2]

Now the player determines bonus dice. He sees that he has 2 High Fives, since there are two fives with no matching Naught Dice (sixes). That means he is eligible for two Bonus Dice. Now, for type, since they High Fives spawn dice of the same type (or color if you prefer), he has one pos Bonus Die and one Negative Bonus Die.

So the player grabs another white D6 and another black D6 from his handy pile, sets aside the rest of his dice pool and rolls the Bonus Dice.

They come up as:
PB[6], NB[3]

Applying the Sixes and High Fives rules, we see that the player is not eligible for any bonus dice (since no fives not matched by a six were rolled.), further he rolled one Naught Die (the dice that came up as a six).

Seeing that there are no more Bonus Dice, the player then adds dice just rolled to the dice he set aside and determines his Dice Modifier.

His Dice Pool consists of:
P[5, 2, 6] N[5, 2, 3]

Now, he adds up the total of his Negative Dice and Subtracts them from the positive of his Positive Dice. However, the player remembers the "Matching Pairs" usage tip, that says that the when determining a Dice modifier, he can find match pairs of positive and bonus dice and set them aside, since they will cancel each other out. Applying this tip, the player sets aside the pairs of "fives" and the pairs  of "twos", which leaves the player with the dicepool shown below.
P[6] - N[3]

One more thing, since he rolled a Naught Die, the player knows that is counts as 0, so he just has 3 in the negative dice pool. So his Dice Modifier is -3.

Adding this to his Acting Score of 15, gives him a Test Total of 12.

3. DETERMINE SUCCESS/FAILURE
============================
To determine Success/Failure we compare the Test Total of 12, determined in the Dice Modifier step, against the Opposing Score 10.
12 is greater than or equal to the Opposing Score of 10, so the character succeeded. Since we want to know how well the character succeeded, we go to Step 4. - Calculate Success/Failure Result

4. CALCULATE SUCCESS/FAILURE RESULT
===============================
Ok, we know our guy succeeded, lets find out how well he did.
This is accomplished in five simple substeps

[list=5]Calculate the Success Total
=================================
The character's Success Total is determined by adding up a number of
positive dice in his Dice Pool.
The Player remembers from a Usage note that if his Governing Basis Trait for the Test is over 10, he only needs to worry about the Success Dice Limit if there are more than 5 positive dice in his Dice Pool, otherwise he just counts what was thrown to get his Success Total. Since there are only 3 positive dice in his Dice Pool, he justs adds them all to get his Success Total.
His Positive Dice are [5,2,6]. Ignoring the Naught Die( the six thrown, which counts as zero), this gives him a
Success Total of 7 (5 + 2 = 7).

Determine the Performance Factor
====================================
For this step, the player needs to perform a little chart ouija action with the CORE Table, which is listed on his character record. Comparing his Success Total of 7 to the CORE Table, he looks for the smallest Value in the Value column that is greater than or equal to his Success Total of 7.
A quick perusal of the chart reveals that this is 8, as shown below.

         CORE TABLE
Gauge Points   Value (Step Value)   Performance Factor
8                   6.5(0.40)                       -2
9                   8.0(0.50)                       -1
10                   10.0(0.65)                       +0

He Then looks across to the Performance Factor colum to determine the corresponding Performance Factor, which in this case is -1.


Calculate the Result Factor
==================================
The Result Factor is equal to the sum of the characters relevant
Ability Factor, and the Performance Factor. The character's Ability Factor
is based on his Proficiency Score, and has been precalculated and recorded on his character record along with the Proficiency.
His Proficiency Score of 8 corresponds to an Ability Factor of 9.

Adding the Performance Factor of -1 to his Ability Factor of 9 yields a Result Factor of 8.

[Incidentally, along with his Ability Factor, he also has recorded his Profieciency Rating of W-Td., which lets the player know that his Proficiency Score of 8 in picking Tumbler Door locks makes him Well Trained in picking locks.]



Determine the Result Score
============================
The player then performs a bit of chart ouija action by comparing the Result Factor of 8 to the GP Score column of the CORE Table.

         CORE TABLE
Gauge Points   Value (Step Value)   Performance Factor
8                   6.5(0.40)                       -2

Looking at the CORE Table, we see that a GP Score of 8 corresponds to a Value of 6.5, which we round up to 7 since we are determining a Result Score. As pointed out in a Usage note.


Determine the Success Rating
================================
Now that we have our Success Resutl Score of 7, we can determine a Success Rating. A Success Rating is determined by comparing the Success Result Score against the Opposing Score, as summarized on the
Success Rating Chart, shown below.

Success Chart
Result Score   Success Rating (Abbreviation)
0+                   Marginal (Mgn.)
1+                   Moderate (Mod.)
½ (OS) +                   Considerable (Con.)
1x (OS) +                   Exceptional (Exc.)
2x (OS) +                   Incredible (Inc.)

Plugging our Opposing Score of 10 into the chart we calcualte that he needs a Success Result Score of 5+ for a Considerable Success and a Success Result Score of 10+ for an Exceptional Success. A Success Resutl Score of 7 falls in the middle of a Considerable Success, so he achieved a Considerable Success. The Rules Guide could provide him with a minor benefit, perhaps allwing him to complet the action is a shorter time, or notice something important about the door, etc.
[/list]

Now, that should properly illustrate the mechanic for you, and perhaps clear up any misconceptions you might be having. The only caveat I have is that it takes a hell of alot longer to read how to do it, than it does to do it. I can only suggest grabbing some D6 and giving it a try for yourself. A little practice makes it second nature (Of course, being that I am the designer, and that I have it amazingly well internalized, maybe I am just blowing crack smoke up my overly biased ass:) )

Also, having the Success/Failure along a second axis, allows me to pull some neat tricks with regards to increasing chance of Binary Success, while reducing level of Success Reslt (the Playing It Safe option), as well as reducing chance of Binary Success in exchange for greater Success Result. (Going For Broke option.) Not that you can't in single axis of success systems, but it requires double billing on the Success Result end to work then.

Double billing? You mean explaining what the results mean? Like your system does with its chart? I'm not following, again.

Double Billing was a poor choice of words. Since in a normal "Differential Success" mechanic (i.e. one you were take (Attribute + Skill + roll + mods) - Opposing Score = Result), if you add some number on one side, it directly adds to the Result on the other end. If you wanted to increase chance of success by 5 say, with a penalty of reducing Result by 5 (towards 0), you would have to subtract 10 on the other side, 5 to reduce the extra chance of success back to normal odds, and 5 more to actually reduce the normal Result Chances. That is, the loan for success would have to payed back double for Outcome purposes to keep it even.

I believe it models reality accurately. In that it enforces the following rules.
1. Skill Matters Most - Skill is the most important determiner of your chance of success, and the Magnitude of your Success.
2. Talent does more with less. Meaning, that the greater your talent, the greater the range of success you can achieve within a range of skill. and the easier you can succeed at a given task.

Yes, I get that. But have you read a study somewhere that says that this is how things really work? Why not reverse the roles? I could as easily argue that no matter how talented a painter that only skill can allow a painter to achieve great heights. If I'm not mistaken, right now, an unskilled character with a lot of talent can (unlikely though the result may be) make a painting with his best possible effort that is superior to that produced by a character who is highly skilled, but has less talent. Sounds fishy to me. Perhaps it should be skill that limits you, and talent that makes you consistent. I don't really believe one way or the other, but all this is moot.

As you will hopefully see from the example above, he can only succeed Marginally, or with a Success Result Score of 0, since Unskilled gives him a
Proficiency Score of 0, and an automatic Marginal Success (since Success is determined by multiplying Proficiency (the magnitude) by 1/10th the Success Total(the range), if he succeeds.

On the other hand, it makes it much more likely he will fail badly, due to lacking the padding of experience. However, if he has any Proficiency in Painting, say 1, versus an average competent painter of 5, he could achieve greater success than the moderate painter.

Now, the master painter, say 10, he could never beat, since even with his incredible talent (Human Max Trait Score of 20, giving 10 dice with max result of 5 each x 0.1 = 5.0x) he is limited to 5x his Profiency as his max result. Now it would take some Super being with a 40 or more Trait score, to have a chance to achieve 10x his Proficiency(40, giving 20 dice with max result of 5 each, times 0.1. = 10x.)

(This is because Failure Result Scores are calculated in a parallel way to Success Result Scores. Except that the Failure Dice Limit is equal to the Opposing Score. 1/2 the Opposing score is used as the Ability Factor (called Difficulty Factor), and the Failure Result Score is determined by comparing the Failure Result Score to the players Acting Score.)

As for reversing them, it is somewhat a matter of belief, if you remember my Silhoutte/Icon system comparison, they take the opposite stance on skill versus talent. I.e in Silhouette, Skill determines the number of pick highest D6 you roll, while Attributes add a +/- modifier to this. Thus increasing or decreasing average results.
The Icon system has attributes determine number of pick highest dice and Skill adds directly to it.

I believe Skill is the major determiner of Magnitude of success, and chance of success. Talent affects how well you are able to apply that Success (which is why it multiplies the Proficiency, thus determining the range.)

Anyway, there is alot of complicated fine detailed modelling going in the mechanic, that, probably for the best, is not particularly apperant nor necessary to understand to use it. However, it will become evident in play in how effectively and reliablely a highly skilled character performs, the 20+ step skill range also further enforces this.

Actually, saying the Result produced is not based on these things is inaccurate, although it is understated in the rules at this point.(perhaps I should add a usage note.)

My point was that the outcome of the system was a single scalar value. That value itself cannot say anything about how it was generated. By usage note are you suggesting that the player or GM look to how much of the result seems to be from one or the other factor and describe the character's actions by it? I can see that, maybe.

It took me a bit of reading before I understood what you meant by the single scalar value. True it's a single scalar value just like you would get by Differential success system. It is not as evocative as say the "matrix" results produced by something like Godlikes die system Nresults of M high, or NxM. However, The process of the dice roll also provides information in a way that the traditional Differential Success method doesn't. I.e. The more dice he counted, the range of his success was dependant on his underlying talent, driving whatever level of Skill.

The system provides direct contextual clues to the actions success that aren't expressed in the result. However, because it works as a mulitplicative function, which is largely what I meant when I said success was determined along two axes. The first axis being the Success Total, determining the range, and the second being the Proficiency (which is static to a given Test, but varies along the range of the Proficiency Scores.)

Hmm, I hope that I can pitch it so that the players are interested in it. Part of the maxim for this game, is the option for great detail. Being that I am foolishly pursuing my own vision at whatever the cost, It pleases me first and last, and hey, I am like reasonably sure that besides me, Brian Gleichman will probably like it:)

Well, the question is will players care about this potential detail, and if so, will they agree with your definition of how these factors are modeled? By reducing the normal level of abstraction with these things, you are making claims about the reality of the game world. Perhaps you should make that manifest in your text if you haven't already (i.e, just say that this is how things work).

But even then, you're betting that this additional detail will be more of a benefit to play than the additional time and effort that it takes to do the calculations. I myself have systems just as complicated or moreso. But in the name of play-flow, I only use them on computers with spreadsheets programmed to run the simulations. Which is a slight hassle itself. I'd never consider running them manually. Because even with the most grognardy Simulationists around (a good number of my friends, for example; we playtest games like Europa), a game that drags too much just becomes work. It's a simple matter of the ratio of quality and quantity of feedback to work required to get it. I don't sugest simplicity for simplicity's sake, I like complexity when it actually produces a relatively high feedback output.

So, does all this work for one small detail really pay off? Mileage on this will, of course, vary by user, but...

Mike

Hmm, I personally believe the reality statement and it's impact on play is worthwhile. I think players will like the concrete feel produced by the Proficiency versus Talent modeling. And I know they will appreciate it when it comes to actually being able to do stuff with any degree of predictability. Good idea on pointing out the effect of all this number crunching and chart ouija action. As for it's complexity, it is expressly designed to be a hand use system. I have lots of D6 that I use to hand test it and use it.

(As commented by one of my friends, that's the biggest problem with D20 for normal tasks, they are too random in result, Combat is more random in my system by doing a double count to determine a Success Total for the attack, which then modifis the weapons Effect Total to determine damage, adding in more randomness.)

So as to your last question, yes I think the quality of detail and effect generated is worthwhile. And also, like 60% of the time, the die roll is flat,
the success/failure total is calculated from 2 dice, and the players will learn the CORE Table quickly. That is part of the reason I stress the use of the core table to figure out the Success Totals, to get people to use it, which is actually pretty easy. The actual multiplicaiton most of the time is simple 1/10th multiples time integers between 1 and 10, a little complex, but not too difficult for most people. indeed, most people could do the math quicker than use the table half the time. Of course in 1.x decimals, and over 2 digit integers, it becomes tough and use is gained from the table.

So, what I am saying. Yeah, I know the design is marginal in terms of ease of use. but I think all that is gained by the extra search and handling time is worthwhile, at least for people into detailed simulative mechanics and world building. Like I said, it gives me the warm fuzzies.

Anyway, really need to say thanks for your taking the time to read through these long posts and offer detailed constructive criticism:) Oh yeah, I overstated my not being willing to change the mechanics, if anyone can come up with a mechanic that produces the same depth and quality and modeling by an easier method I'll change it tonight:)