My Mechanics (LONG!!!) (and Editted with new stuff)

[JMendes]

Hey, :)

I much prefer to make "opposed" tasks that little bit more random.

Er... less random, you mean. Remember, once you go the opposed route, the overall result tends to be a more balanced, center-heavy distribution (there's a name for this... anyway, it's the 4th order momentum of the distribution). What it comes down to is that this means that opposed rolls are actually less random than unopposed ones. Some might consider this counterintuitive. I consider it highly intuitive.

I don't like players sitting there thinking "O.K.  I need to roll a 4 or lower to beat this guy."  

All too many times in RPG sessions I have had players get way too cocky about how skilled their characters are.  The calculate exactly how high the roll is that they need to succeed at a given task, and they base what they do on that.  What I'm trying to do here is encourage a little more "strategic though" on the part of the player.  Instead of about thier probability for success determining thier actions, I'm trying to force them to think about ways to improve thier chances for success.

Far from me to agree with Mike ;), but I can't see why, if this is important for you when fighting someone, it wouldn't be important when climbing a cliff or jumping a... lava river. (I'm tired of the same old chasm, plus I don't like the way it's pronounced.) What I'm driving at is, I don't see the strength of your argument against having all the rolls opposed. Basically, I'd like to point out that, in general, this particular design goal, as stated, is antagonic to "I'd like to keep the dice rolling to a minimum."

Cheers,

J.

[kevin671]

The reason I don't want to have all rolls opposes is that I don't believe that "the task itself" can oppose someone doing it.  This is where the difficulty modifiers come in.  I don't want some poor GM sitting there trying to set a "stat" for the task to roll under...some people are good at this type of thing, others are not.  Bottom line:  I'm going for a measure of simplicity, not so much simplicity as to drastically alter my vision.  I do see the point of having one task resolution system, but in this case I feel that it would actually end up further complicating my system.

BTW:  I'm removing the Extended and Cooperative Task resolution systems, because I just realized that they are not necessary.

[JMendes]

Hi, :)

Hmm... Well, before I start, I would like to make perfectly clear that my opinions are just that: opinions. They shouldn't even have the strength of suggestions. They are opinions. Nothing else. That said...

This is where the difficulty modifiers come in.  I don't want some poor GM sitting there trying to set a "stat" for the task to roll under...

Explain to me how coming up with a 'task stat' is harder than coming up with a 'difficulty modifier'. And if it's a matter of guidelines, guidelines can also be given just as easily for both.

BTW:  I'm removing the Extended and Cooperative Task resolution systems, because I just realized that they are not necessary.

Can you expand on this?

Cheers,

J.

[kevin671]

Explain to me how coming up with a 'task stat' is harder than coming up with a 'difficulty modifier'. And if it's a matter of guidelines, guidelines can also be given just as easily for both.

This one's easy.  The "difficulty system" will be such that the GM can decide exactly what penalties to apply based on a whim (if he so desires).  When shooting at someone with cover, for example, the GM decides that th target has decent cover, and sets a penalty of -3.  This is easier (in my opinion) and quicker (in my opinion) than setting a difficulty level.

BTW: I'm removing the Extended and Cooperative Task resolution systems, because I just realized that they are not necessary.


Can you expand on this?

What would you like me to expand on?  Do you want to know what the systems were going to look like?  Or are you looking for something else?

[JMendes]

Hi, :)

Ok, I understood your point about how coming up with modifiers might be easier (and thus faster) than coming up with the 'stat', which presumably would have to encompass the whole difficulty of the task.

BTW: I'm removing the Extended and Cooperative Task resolution systems, because I just realized that they are not necessary.

Can you expand on this?

What would you like me to expand on?  Do you want to know what the systems were going to look like?

I was aiming to know what the systems were going to look like and why you realized they aren't necessary. Just so maybe I could comment on it. :)

Cheers,

J.

[kevin671]

I'm not sure what the systems were going to look like.  They were "in development" when I decided I didn't need them.  I just realized that my initial concept for cooperative tests offered little benefit for individuals attempting to perform them.

I realized that such systems were largely over-complicated, so I have done away with them.  If a GM must, he can break larger tasks down into smaller components, assign them to different characters, and call for rolls from each player.  Seems simpler that way, rather than doing a buch of meaningless calculations.

[kevin671]

Just to let everyone know:  I haven't forgotton about the forge.  I've been busy.  Between work, and designing my game, I've been really busy.  I hope to be posting something soon.

[kevin671]

So I editted some new stuff into the initial post.  Take a look.

[Ron Edwards]

Ouch. Actually, Kev, please don't edit standing posts ever again, except for (say) spelling or something like that. It renders all the subsequent posts meaningless, and the Forge is very much dedicated to preserving the dialogues and counter-arguments as they occur.

In the future, just post the new stuff or revised text (all of it, even) at the end of the thread, or start a new one.

Thanks,
Ron

P.S. No blood no foul, you're not being spanked or anything. But them's the rules, from now on.

[kevin671]

Sorry, Ron.....Didn't realize that.  I'll do that in the future.

[Christoffer Lernö]

Kevin, you should maybe consider writing a new posting about it. I feel reluctant to go and comment anything since I don't know what comment belongs to what version.

[kevin671]

Ya....I'm gonna be starting a new thread.

[kevin671]

How can I link to the new thread?

[Christoffer Lernö]

If you're thinking about writing links that link to an article, you simply copy the url and paste it into the bbcode link tag.

It would look something like this in the editor:
here is goes the text you want to put a link on

If you wanted to make a link that displayed your old thread if someone clicked on it. The whole "http..." is simply copied from the article url.

[kevin671]

O.K.  The new thread is here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3897