[I.N.I.] Skill system, seeks alternative approach?

[Autocrat]

.....OK, heres the background......

  I.N.I. is meant to be a flexible core set of rules and mechanics that permit the players to play in a variety of settings, either those in the market by other production agencies, those that I hope to release for the game system itself or those taken from literature.
 The rules themselves have no genre ties, yet will hopefully cover the generalties of most things.

  Characters are composed of character points, spent on Species, tweaking attributes, purchasing traits, resources and skills etc.
,(all campaign/setting linked.).

  Stats vary, yet an average human will have a score range of 15 to 25.
Skills are linked to a stat, the stat depends upon the type of skill.

  Resoloution is based on the following;
Related Stat + Skill + Difficulty Mod. = Target Number....roll = or less to succeed.
Skills increase at the rate of 10% per level, so level 1 in a skill = 10%, level 10 = 100%.  

....here's the current set up....

  Skills are seperated into three different types....Applied, Knowledge and aspect.
  Applied are those that involve action, movement or performance.
Knowledge are those that are intelectual, mental or thought based.
Aspect are specialised skills that aren't normally available and that tie to a certain aspect of the game, such as magic, mutation, psionics, cyberware etc.)

  Each of those groups is then split into the following types of categories;
Combat
Character
Clandestine
Vehcile
Social
Animal
Survival

  The categories are split into main groups;
Character -
---Mental
---Physical
---Spiritual
Vehicle -
---Aquatic
---Terran
---Avionic
---Space
Combat -
---Fighting Styles
---Warefare
Weapons -
---Melee
---Personal
---Firearms
---Projectile


  These main groups are further broken down into sub-groups,
Vehicle -
---Aquatic -
-------sail boats
-------row boats
-------submersables
-------steamboats
-------steam ships
---Terran -
-------Trucks
-------Cars
-------Motorbikes
Weapons -
---Melee -
-------Small Swords
-------Large Swords
-------Axes


  Within the sub-groups, you then get indivudal, specific skills;
Weapons -
---Melee -
-------Axes
-----------Hand Axe
-----------Battle Axe
-----------Great Axe
-----------Wood Axe
etc.


  All Skills have varying Costs, depending on the relativetity to the setting and time period, availability, difficulty etc.

  It is currently set so that you can purchase indivdual skills, or purchase and entire sub-group.

  Also, there are defaulting rules, so that if attempting a task that the character lacks the specific skill for, yet has a skill from the same sub-group, then they still have a fair chance, (Stat + Skill - Default + diff = TN).  Though not as good as having the correct skill, it means that you can cross relate or bodge it, (kinda like real life!).


  So, in short....

Type--------------APPLIED
Category---------Weapons
Main Group----------Melee
Sub-Group-------------Small Swords
Individual-----------------Short sword



  Now, the problem....................................
..........
..........

  A lot of people seem to dislike/despise this system, even though I really like it as does my gaming group.
What I want is a sensible alternative, one that permits flexibility between specific and general skill learning, defaulting of skill/stat and that makes listing/organising easy as well as finding the skill.

  Any suggestions or ideas?
Please no b~~~hin@, complaints or insults... if you dislike it, suggest a reasonable alternative!  
On the otherhand, for the few that might exist who do like it, please say so!

[BPetroff93]

Hey Autocrat,  what kind of game is this system for?

[Andrew Martin]

...I really like it as does my gaming group.

If you and your gaming group really like this tree system of skills, then why do you want this:

What I want is a sensible alternative, one that permits flexibility between specific and general skill learning, defaulting of skill/stat and that makes listing/organising easy as well as finding the skill.

?

One very simple way of obtaining this "sensible alternative" is to discard the skill system you've described and simply request players to name those skills and attributes that are important to the player's concept of the character, and have a rule that allows using a character's specific skill/attribute in a more general context, with perhaps a penalty if opposing a more specific skill/attribute in it's own context. This automatically produces all the results you've named above. :)

Perhaps there's another requirement that you haven't specified?

[Mike Holmes]

I like Brendan's question. I'll put it another way. What about the multiple layers of skill definition adds to the game in a way that supports its basic concept? See, this is the problem with generic games, you'll state that it's meant to cover all sorts of things. The problem is that in doing so, and in focusing on this sort of detail, will the game support any particular genre that it's applied to?

To what extent is it superior than, say, the GURPS system which has prerequisites and defaults for all skills?

Do you find this "realisitic"? If so, why? Because if you ask any person trained in weapons, they'll tell you that you don't actually learn weapons, per se, but rather styles of using weapons. I'm not saying that your method isn't realistic, but what I'm looking for is why you think it's realistic (there simply isn't one single answer to this question).

The point is that, without knowing what the goals of your design are, it's hard to say what would be a better solution. There are an infinite number of "sensible alternatives" to your system. But we can't propose one until we know what it is that you think such a system should do.

If you say that a system should do what your current system does, then you're already satisfied with what you have, and really don't need any help, do you? The only way we can have any sensible input is if you give us the design goals of your game divorced from your current mechanics. Only then can we see if your current ones match, or if there's something better to be found.

Mike

[Autocrat]

Alright, this is the difficult part.....

... BPetroff93 & Mike Holmes...

  Yoiu ask about the style/type of play for the game, and the purpose of the skill system.  
  Fair enough questions, yet the answers are varied, and likely to be disliked.

Explanation
.................

  I've spent years playing a variety of different RPG's, CRPG's and CG's, inc. the more known ones like Gurps/Murps, AD&D, Alternacy, WoD, Shadowrun, Fallout, MAgic the Gathering....etc.

  Yet through all of those, I found things I liked and those I didn't.  Same as most people do.  Yet the biggest things I found was .....
1) either to much complexity, convuloution and awkward working outs,
2) a lack of flexibility, depth or variety, even a lack of foresight,
3) no options, alternatives or suggestions for the things that are so common in other RPG's,yet lacking in a particular one.

  So, the aim was to generate a set of rules that could act as a base line for playing a variety of games.... using existing media and setting mateials, yet using rules that were straight forward, simple, quick, efficient yet permitted different levels of detail, play and complexity, whilst also permitting choice and options for alternative approaches.


  Yet saying this, And doing it have resulted in several strange things.... by using places like here, I have found my views to be in the minority, (as you'll likely see with the next conversation with Andrew Martin! LOL).


Principals of I.N.I.
..........................

  The rules are meant to permit .....
1) a variety of different Character generation methods, ranging from Point based through to packaged and rigid options of A OR B, (going from Gurps, through Shadowrun to AD&D - make sense?).

2) a number of different ways of detailing Skills, ranging from the general and loose through to the detailed and specific, (such as Melee Weapons, through Swords, Axes, to Short Sword - make sense?).

3) an alternbative method of resoloution, for the sole reason that certain people have certain prefences, and the resoloution method is one of the major influences as to whether a system is liked or not.


Principals of the Skills.
................................

  Just to clarify, the skill system is not meant to be "REAL", it is meant to be "REALISTIC" in a simulationist sense... loose similar to how we do things.
  I personally detest any linking of RPG's to reality, they are not, cannot and will never be the same, nor work the same.  Arguements based on the idea of them not being real are pointless.  Further more, people always neglect to realise the reality is a matter and point of perception, what you see and what I see may be the same thing, but I gaurentee we will not see it the same!!!!!   (does that make sense enough?)

 So saying, the reason for the current skill setup is that iot loosely, generally, then specifically groups skills together in a fairly obvious method.... things to do with vehicles go under vehicles.  things to do with vehicles and terra goes under Vehicles/terra, whilst those of auatic nature go under Vehicles/aquatic.  I can't see anything wrong with that.  Furthermore, there are numerous title group, main and subgroup crossovers, particularly in things like Social Skills, as these are harder to quantify!  (unfortunately!).

  Skills work by being linked to a Character Statistic, or in some cases, the more obvious or generalised stat.  Thus social skills will be linked with Appeal, Magnetism or Presence.... where as most weapon skills would be based on Aim.

  Skills can be increased, level by level by purchasing them.  For every level opbtained this way, the skill score is increased by +10%.
The cost for Skills currently increases, and is worked as the Base Cost of Skill times the next level to be achieved...thus BCOS = 3, to get level 1 costs 3, to get to level two will then cost 6 etc.

All skills perform certain tasks or actions.  There are no ambiguities, nor special abilities gained from a skill when it increases, (as in the WOD system).  If you improve in a skill, then that is what happens.




 Yet due to the major amount of responses saying that this system is faulty, likely to fail, won't work, doesn't work, is realistic.... I want people to suggest alternatives that provide the same benefits!

So, can people do this?

Match these benefits......

* Blatant location system
* Clear and fairly simplistic level system
* General Grouping  (Combat, Vehicle, Social etc.)
* Associated grouping  (Swords, Aero-vehicles, Public Interaction)
* Related Grouping  (Small Swords, VTOL's, Public Speaking)
* Specific Skills  (Short Sword, Harrier, Oratory)
* Default to Related Skill   (one in the same group)
* Default to Associated Skill   (one in a group similar to the current)
* Default to Linked Stat   (straight to the linked stat!)
* The ability to play Skills as either General , (using the Sub-group - Small * Swords), or Specific (using the spefic skill - Short Sword).  It is even possible to play using the main groups, thus having a skill in Swords or Public interaction.

So, can people suggest a system that can do these that differs from what I have, and state why it's better - WITHOUT SAYING "LET THEM CHOOSE"! or some other half baked, system less suggestion that wouldn't fit with what I have just typed up! ? !

If so, please let me know!
I'm begging you!



... Andrew Martin ...

SO, after reading what I've just posted, I hope the reasons for asking and the reasons why freeform aren't possible become clear.

I having nothing against freeform play, yet what you or I view as a single skill, another may view as a general skill, and tyhus think it could do more, should cost more or worse, we shouldn't have it, and then spend 10 minutes arguing about it.

Freeform works best with likeminded people, and I don't know to many of them, how about you?

So, can you think of something else for me?

[Walt Freitag]

Now, the problem...

A lot of people seem to dislike/despise this system, even though I really like it as does my gaming group.

If you and everyone in your gaming group like it, then there is in fact no problem.

What I want is a sensible alternative, one that permits flexibility between specific and general skill learning, defaulting of skill/stat and that makes listing/organising easy as well as finding the skill.

So, can people do this?

Match these benefits...

No, no one can do this. A modified game design cannot solve a problem that doesn't exist.

- Walt

[Mike Holmes]

Autocrat, your threads always seem to degenerate in the following fashion:

1. You ask for help with some idea.
2. People propose alternate viewpoints, and ask why it is that you have yours, intending to determine your goals so that they can actually help.
3. You get defensive, assuming that anyone who questions your assumptions is insulting you. You say that the idea is what you want, and we shouldn't question that.
4. At this point you start getting insulting yourself, and calling our assumptions things like "half-baked."

This makes it hard to help you. All that people here are trying to do is to determine the underlying reasons for what you are doing so that we can actually help. Hard as that is to believe. To many of the readers here, you seem to have a persecution complex, and there is no reason why you should.

Now, you've given us a really good long post that tells us a lot about your design goals. It seems that you want to make a game that is all things to everyone. One that has alternate systems for character generation, for skill enumeration, and for resolution. So, I'd like to question this goal, because I think that it's problematic itself. But I don't think that you want to hear my questions, so I'll move right on to the original question.

What I want is a sensible alternative, one that permits flexibility between specific and general skill learning, defaulting of skill/stat and that makes listing/organising easy as well as finding the skill.

Like Walt is implying, I think, you have the only system that fits your goals. That is, you've said quite clearly that you want XYZ, and will not take ZYA. So I don't have any idea how one could invent a better system to meet your goals. That is, basically, you're goals are so specific that there can only be one possible outcome. I'm afraid that you're going to be stuck with a single system for skills for your game, unless you can discover the more general underlying principles that form your goals. If you could generalize a little (skills default to other skills and abilities, instead of specifically mentioning levels of skills), then we might be able to find an alternative. But, as it stands, I don't think it's possible.

Mike

[ethan_greer]

I don't see a particular problem with the skill system you've outlined.  It achieves all of your goals and is a good fit for you and your group.  I say stick with what you have for now.  There are always going to be people who don't like your game, but you're not designing the game for those people, are you?

[Mike Holmes]

Ethan, I think you and others have missed the point. Or maybe I have. It seems to me that he wants to have two systems available for use in his game. He's not looking for validation (or are you?) so much as looking for that second system.

Mike

[Autocrat]

All right..... this is going to e difficult... so I'll start with the hardest parts........


... Apologies ...
  If it appears I get defensive, or start being offensive to others, I'm sorry, that is not my intention.
  The simple fact is that I have a system that I like, tht I am trying hard to develope and am considering as comercial..... yet the amount of negative replies, insults and statements that I'm wrong really do rankle, especially when it originates on a personal prefence point tand the poster refuses to see it as that, then attacks me when I point it out.

  So again, if I have annoyed, vexed, irritated or just simply made people think "Child", then I apologise.



... Walt Freitag ...

  The difficult part of this is it is not just intended for my RPG group.... I have several friends who play with other groups, and they are semi-interested in new systems all of the time.
  I would like to make it a commercial venture.  Not for profit per se, (as apparently that is likely, unfortunate, huh!), but for the simple fact that if  I and my group found so many things we thought lacking in other systems, then obviously there is a good chance of others having the same thoughts.... and I would like a system that is flexible and mutable enough to cover a majority of wants.
  I think 7 feel it's doable..... yet the majority of peoples on forums such as this seem to view it otherwise.
Don't figure!

  Yet saying that, thanks for the post, it was nice to see someone put something like that down, made me feel good!
LOL


... Mike Holmes ...

  Thank you for pointing out how I come across... I hope the apology is acceptable!

  Ok, I don't have a problem with questions... it's when people make sttements that are negative, without backing them up that rankles.  Thats it, so please, do ask questions, and I'll do my best to keep my dander down and answer the question rather than attack the asker.... sound fair?

  Why do you want to question the idea of a flexible system that permits differing methods?
  I know alot of things come down to perception and prefence.... yet when you look at a lot of the systems out there, there are few differences.  You will always get a set percentage that differ wildly from each other, yet you will also get a perentage of those that seem cross related.
  When you step back and look at this, you realise, (or I did any way!), that the differences are more often than not aesthetic, more to do with the descriptive text than the math or method.
  As Fudge proved, it is possible to alter game mechanics from one system to another, and with effort, you can do it almost seemlessly.
  So why not a system that offers the appearances and feel that people like, without all of the difficult differences.  Why not have a system that can let you play AD&D, then play Shadowrun, or at least, a very close emulation of these, without having to change the die, the mechanics and re-write character sheets?
  I suppose you can sum up my perspective as seeing little difference in most things, and trying to lay out a foundation system of rules and mechanics that will permit people to play what they want to play, without learning additional things.
  Is that wrong?

  As for looking for an alternative/secondary system, or a replacement one .... I would say I want both.  If there is a better systematic method of layout, obtaining, improving and refering to skills, then I would like to see it, (probably steal it and copyright it! LOL).
  It's just that so many people seem to have a problem with that sysytem of skills, yet I can't see whats mechanically wrong with it!
 I'l admit it may not be the best looking, nor the most simplistic, yet it functions, does what is intended and seems easy enough to use..... yet people always suggest things tht won't fit, or even come close.  It's upsetting to be told you horse is useless, and you ought to get a car.... yet plowing a field with a car isn't likely to work.... if only I could figure out what a tractor could be.... does that make sense?

  As for validation.... YES!  I'd love some.... but only if it is warranted.  wouldn't we all!



... ethan_greer ...

[Mike Holmes]

... Apologies ...
  If it appears I get defensive, or start being offensive to others, I'm sorry, that is not my intention.

Note that this is most likely a problem of the medium of communicaiton that we're using. So, really, no apollogies neccessary.

The simple fact is that I have a system that I like, tht I am trying hard to develope and am considering as comercial..... yet the amount of negative replies, insults and statements that I'm wrong really do rankle, especially when it originates on a personal prefence point tand the poster refuses to see it as that, then attacks me when I point it out.

Try to take this the right way - I'm not seeing you getting insulted at all. At least I haven't seen it until you start it. Consider that you may be reading in things that aren't in the text of what's been written. Further, I have seen people give you good arguments about why your system might not be optimal. Which you sometimes respond to with, "It's my preference." Which is true, but not something that's going to lead to greater understanding. I'd ask that we all work together on this to apply a bit more critical thinking.

The difficult part of this is it is not just intended for my RPG group.... I have several friends who play with other groups, and they are semi-interested in new systems all of the time.
  I would like to make it a commercial venture.  Not for profit per se, (as apparently that is likely, unfortunate, huh!), but for the simple fact that if  I and my group found so many things we thought lacking in other systems, then obviously there is a good chance of others having the same thoughts.... and I would like a system that is flexible and mutable enough to cover a majority of wants.
  I think 7 feel it's doable..... yet the majority of peoples on forums such as this seem to view it otherwise.
Don't figure!

Would you like to discuss the idea of "universal" applicability or not? That is, are you interested in why it is that many here feel that the approach you're taking doesn't tend to work very well? There is a lot of theory behind why, if you're interested.

Why do you want to question the idea of a flexible system that permits differing methods?

You mean, "why is it a problem to make a system that permits differing methods?" Because I never questioned it. I think it's an interesting idea.

Do you see now how you're percieving negativity where there is none? What you're doing is projecting onto us motives that we don't have. We're not here to trash your game, or your goals. This is just analysis.

What I did say is that what you've said sounds like the following.

I want ABC, and any of D, E, and F. So ABCE would be acceptable, ABCF, etc. The problem is that ABC are so stringent, that really only D is applicable. The other combinations aren't any good. You've already got the one that works. So, if you want an alternate system, you're going to have to allow A or B or C to change, or none will be forthcoming.

When you step back and look at this, you realise, (or I did any way!), that the differences are more often than not aesthetic, more to do with the descriptive text than the math or method.
  As Fudge proved, it is possible to alter game mechanics from one system to another, and with effort, you can do it almost seemlessly.
  So why not a system that offers the appearances and feel that people like, without all of the difficult differences.  Why not have a system that can let you play AD&D, then play Shadowrun, or at least, a very close emulation of these, without having to change the die, the mechanics and re-write character sheets?
  I suppose you can sum up my perspective as seeing little difference in most things, and trying to lay out a foundation system of rules and mechanics that will permit people to play what they want to play, without learning additional things.
  Is that wrong?

Well, the majority of the theory here would say that this is wrong. Have you read the System Does Matter, essay (found in the articles link above)? This is the basis for why most here would disagree with most of the quoted material above. Basically, no, there is no one system that plays any two games better than individual systems designed for each. Best tool for the job at hand.

As for looking for an alternative/secondary system, or a replacement one .... I would say I want both.  If there is a better systematic method of layout, obtaining, improving and refering to skills, then I would like to see it, (probably steal it and copyright it! LOL).

Again, with the restrictions you put on it, there is no better system.

But let me tell you how it sounds from our POV with an analogy. It seems like you've said, "I want an alternative to a hot fudge sundae. It has to have vanilla ice-cream, hot-fudge, and a cherry on top of it." You're basically asking us to provide an alternative to what you want that can't be any different from what you have. Practically speaking, this means that you already must have precisely what you want.

Also, to explain out defensiveness, it seems like an impossible task. You're challeging us to explain how you're wrong without letting us question any of your assumptions. Since they point to only one outcome, we can't debate it with you - you win. Note that this is considered very bad form in forensics.

It's just that so many people seem to have a problem with that sysytem of skills, yet I can't see whats mechanically wrong with it!

There's nothing "mechanically" wrong with it. Nothing "wrong" with it at all. It's just that, if you were to change any of your assumptions by even a little, there might turn out to be some better ways to do this.

Given that you want the game to be played by people other than yourself, the question becomes why it is that you assume that everyone has the same preferences as you do? Interestingly, I think that making a game should actually pertain to the individual's personal preferences - so you're going in the right direction as far as that goes. It's just that what we'd worry about is that you've already come to your concclusions from your principles. That is, you're goals are actually at some level lower than what you've stated them to be, and what you're showing us isn't so much your goals, but the conclusions that you've drawn from them.

For example, if A+B = C, and C=D, then A+B = D. If my goals are A+B, but I present C as the goal, then I can only conclude that I want C. If, instead, I present A and B, then D can be discovered.

It's upsetting to be told you horse is useless, and you ought to get a car.... yet plowing a field with a car isn't likely to work.... if only I could figure out what a tractor could be.... does that make sense?

Sure, but, again, it seems to us that you're just reiterating that you want the horse. What you really should be telling us is that you want to plow the field. But you haven't done that. For example, I could guess from your methods that one of the things that you want at this lower level is "realism." Yes, your method provides that. But so do many others.

So, what you'll find is us, again and again, looking for your underlying goals. Without those, we can't possibly help you. If you don't want to give them to us, or you feel that you've already achieved them, then you don't need us to tell you otherwise, do you? So, what I'm begging you is to please try to look for that level below that which you've already presented to us.

As for validation.... YES!  I'd love some.... but only if it is warranted.  wouldn't we all!

Depends on what you mean. If you mean confirmation that your system will likely do what you want it to do, haven't we done that already? If you mean agreement with you just to agree, then you'll find very little of that here.

Mike

[Autocrat]

OK... thank you for the post..... and yes, when I look back, I do get defensive and probably, (though in some cases I believe it is real!), do react to things that aren't how they were intended.

Right, Goals........
Though I thought this was laid out, and fairly obvious, I'm willing to accept that I may have thought it, and not done it...so.....


Goals

...Generally...

Wants:-
  A game that is able to fulfill a large number of wants/needs/prefences in a major percentage of players and RPG gamers.
  A set of rules that people can look at quickly, grasp and enjoy with little time envolved in absorbing details and irrelevant text that some products seem rife with.
  A system that people will want to play, use for alot of different styles of play and for a variety of settings...be it those I create, or those from other sources, past, present and future.

Reasons:-
  Why not?
  I'm greedy!
  I'd like to see it done, and beable to say..."hey, I did that!"
  Haven't seen anything else quite like it yet, and think there is a potential market for such a system.


...Game/System...

Wants:-
  A game/set of rules that permit players to playout a variety of genres, time periods, settings and other such diverse aspects of RPG's without having to alter the rules, utilise different rules, buy additional rules suppliments, or any of the other, really annoying things we, as RPG'rs have to suffer to play our games.
  A game that can be flexible, alterable and permit the players to decide on the level of depth and detail the rules cover; whether they have only 3 character stats, or 27 stats, whether they have broad skills, or those that only cover single application or specific use, equipment that is general or highly specified and described etc.

Reasons:-
  Player preference, mood, limitations of time, style of play and generally user friendliness would be nice to have in a game.  To have a set of rules that you can choose what and how it is applied.
  Further, if it was possible to transfer or correlate between options, without loss of detail, loosing aspects of the character created, or the game being played.  Imagaine playing several 3 or 4 hour sessions once a week, then being able to spend an entire saturday playing... so you can add that little more detail to the game, reasoning that the extra bit of time would lend a lot more detail for the big scenario finish....wouldn't it be nice......


...Mechanics/Resoloution...

Wants:-
 At least two seperate set of mechanics/resoloution systems, that will be independant of each other.  Players can decide on whether they want M/R1 OR TO USE M/R2.  If the only difference between the two methods is the aesthetics...i.e the probabilities are the same, or very close, then that doesn't bother me, so long as they appear different, it should be enought to cover the preference of players.
 I want the Mechanics/Resoloution method to be fairly simple, easy to understand what does wht and how it applies, as well as being user friendly, so if the modifications could be kept to + and -, rather than * or /, then great.
 I want the Mechanic to be universally applicable throught the game... meaning ALL checks use the same method.

Reasons:-
 People have set preferences, and rate things on how close they are to those preferences... by providing 2 methods of resoloution, I should be able to provide to two groups rather than one.
 By keeping the mechanc simple and straight forward, as well as using the same method throught the game, it makes life very easy for the players... they only have to figure out ONE method of doing things, and thats it, no matter the situation, all they have to do is ABC=Result!


...Character Creation/Advancement...

Wants:-
 I want several different ways to generate characters; ranging from the free range pick and mix of"these are your points, pick what you want", through to the pre-defined and in selected "these are your options, pick a type, and this is what you will get", and hopefully include things like guide lists, small packages that can be purchased and even a priority based system and random generater for fun.
 I want several ways of advancing and altering the Cahracters during and after play; ranging from free and easy "here are your points, go forth and choose you path(s) of improvement", through to the hard and fast "hey, you got this many points, so you go up XXX Levels, which means AAA, BBB, DDD and FFF go up by 2 tiers", and hopefully will include a method or two imbetween these.

Reasons:-
 Again, Preferences are a main factor, as well as speed and effiency.  Not only do some people prefer more control, there are the isssues of spending a large amount of time on character creation when people would rather be playing, people attempting to min/max and waste other peoples time, and spending a period of time yet getting virtually no where further than, "hey, thats those sorted, only 140 more options to figure out"


...Character Statistics/Attributes/Scores...

Wants:-
  To permit players the choice of how detailed/how many statistics their characters are comprised of...whether they want the general Mind/Body/Spirit setup, or to go wholehog and have stats up to the ceiling detailing every possible thing you can think of.
  To make it possible that these different levels of detail are transferable and transformable....able to take the set of 3 stats and transfer them to a game where characters are comprised of 29 stats... and not to miss anything out... to still have the same character, just more detailed...and no re-rolling or recreating involved...just simple math.

Reasons:-
  Player prefence,   (again! I know...but still...isn't nice to know there are people who tink of others? LOL),   the ability to choose the stat setup you and your group prefers.
  Time is sometimes a factor in game play, we don't always have huge amounts of play-time, so the option for reducing stats down and speeding things up is handy.
  Simply having the ability to choose stats that you feel would suit the genre/setting/style of play is a big bonus... no more "hey, this isn't really relevant!" situations.
  The big... "does this really cover this sort of thing?" arguement often occurs when playing a new game.... yet the ability to expand the stats and see why XXX covers ZZZ may become clearer when you see the Stat XXX consists of XX1 XX2 XX3 and TT45454D.F... (seldomly happens  in some groups...yet happened alot in one of my old game groups..and this ability would be nice to solve it!)
 

...Skills/Abilities & Equipment/Resources...

Wants:-
  A system for skills that permits differening levels of detail/scope/coverage.  I want it so that Players can choose whether skills should be all-encompassing, "hey, I'll use my revolver, so I'll use my Gun SKill", or very specific, "hey, I'll use my revolver, so I'll use my HandGun-Revolver-Smith & Wesson XXX".
  Rules that permit Players the ability to use multiple levels of detail if they so wish... so that they can have Characters that have broad scopes of skill in certain areas, yet very specific skills in other areas... i.e. having skill in Swords enables a character to use any type of sort without penalty, yet having skill in Hand axe means that the Cahracter can only use a Hand axe effectively, and suffers a penalty for any other type of axe usage.
  The ability to key in on relevant skill groups, and cut back on irrelevant skill groups.  For instance, if playing in a medievil fantasy world, and playing a sort of epic might campaign...skill groups like Magic and Combat are of importance, so those are keyed in on and kept in full...where as the skill groups for Academics, Animals and Social Interaction have less import in the game, and so can be used as general skills instead... (make sense?).
  The same sort of thing applies to equipment...some people want/will want a lot of detail and depth...stats to the ceiling regarding range, accuracy, weight, colour, origin, recoil, durability etc....others want to know the damage, the reach and the weight...thats it!  So it would be nice to be able to include everything and permit the players to choose the level of detail.
  For Skills, the ability to default, the option that if you aren't able to do XXX specifically, yet are able to do something SIMILAR, RELATED or just think you CAN doit it, then you can try, yet at reduced effectiveness.

Reasons:-
  Different games require different things... different settings use different things... whats relevant for one isn't necessary for the other... and then add players to the mix, and you have the potential for thigns like... "hey, the rules were great, yet why was it I could only have a SWORD, when I wanted a SCIMITAR...like, no difference between anything, even the hammer did they same damage!"  
  Preference, (LOL tired of that word yet?  I am! :) ), of players and setting creators.  I can't see why, even if the books say XXX, that if the players want, they can't use YYY or WWWW is they wish too!



If you've read all of that, it should give you a deep insight to the wants and reasons, basically, my entire motive for this RPG System.

Then again, if you've read all that, and still think I've missed the point as to "why", I'll kick my self, and beg you to give me some examples of what you mean.

Further, NO, I don't think I have the perfect system, nor all the answers, that's why I'm asking for alternatives.... I want to provide as many options as possible without cluttering the system up... I think it's possible... I can't see why you can't have tiers of detail for different aspects of the system, nor can I see why it isn't possible to permit different methods to stats/skills/resoloution, so long as they all generate equal, (or approximately balanced) outcomes.

So, is that more helpful, or was that an hours typing for nought?

[Autocrat]

aw... comon, after all that typing... no posts!
Shame you!
PLEASE... I do worry that I miss other peoples points more often than not... at least let me know if I got the answers right!
LOL

[Mike Holmes]

I don't post on weekends, so I wasn't ignoring you. That said, there's no reason somebody else couldn't have replied to you...

First, most of the "reasons" are completely unneccessary. We agree with you that "because it's my preference" is as much explanation as one needs when it comes to goals, and you really don't need to mention that. Nobody will attack your preference, the only think they'll question is whether or not your methods selected meet your goals. This is the general design process:

1. State goals. Your goals are your own, and nobody can question them.
2. Design methods to goals. Some methods are better than others, and the analysis we do here is to try to determine the best methods.


Your general goals and system goals are very clear, and very much at the goal level. Mechanics/Resolution, Character creation and advancement, are pretty much goals as well - you refrain from mentioning the mechanics that you want to see specifically, just what kind of outcome you want. In Character Stats, Attributes and Scores, you start to mention actual mechanics, and actually your reasons start looking a bit more like goals in some ways.

For example, you say in that section that you want a certain set of attributes, and have them be modifiable. But then your reason for this is that you want to have this so that people can speed up play if they so like (amongst other things). This is the goal you have. The method that you state is just one way to do it.

By the time you get down to the skill system again, you've reverted to giving us the methods you want. You skip number one, and go right to number two. And your reasons in that case don't give us much goal, other than to go back to the overall goals of flexibility.


So, basically we're right where we were before. I know that you want a certain kind of skill system, but not why you want it. We stilll don't know what goals you have for the system in this regard.

I'm going to ask some questions, which are going to sound like they're challenging your assumptions. These are not challenges to your preferences, they are intended to discover your goal. Try to answer them in the spirit in which they are intended. To that end, I've given a sample suitable answer (though they're likely to not be the same as your answers).

1.Why is it that it's important that players be able to use defaults when attempting something that they don't have the specific skill for?
{Sample Answer} Because it's not realistic to have certain skills, and not have that mean that a character wouldn't have some residual effectiveness in terms of other similar abilities.

2. Why does the system have to support fine detailing of equipment? Why can't a scimitar be exactly the same as a sword in all cases?
a. Because without allowing that level of differentiation, players loose a sense that the imagined world has potentially infinite depth.

3. Why is it neccessary to enumerate character effectiveness on several differing levels of "broadness"?
a. Because it means that you have as much detail as you like without going to enumerating all abilities in the narrow fashion, and the broad categories serve as gruopings that indicate where defaulting occurs.

Your answers will be indicative of the goals that you're trying to satisfy with the system that you're using. In fact, ask similar questions of the answers you give to be sure that you're getting down to the root goals.

Now, if we get these goals using this method, that would allow us to proceed. OTOH, there's another method, which is to allow us to proceed from the more general goals. If you're not willing to do that, or if you feel that your notes on the skill system are actually goals, then, like I've said, I doubt that we're going to be able to come up with an alternate method to the one that you have now that will still meet your goals, and be any fun to play at all.


Lastly, you bring up a lot of interesting information in the more general goal sections. Would you be interested in discussing some of those goals in a different thread? For example, you say that you want to make the game flexible in order to appeal to more players. That last part is the goal. It's your assumption that a flexible game will do that. Would you be interested at all in debating that assumption? There have been a number of interesting threads on that very topic. In any case, we ought to start a new thread if we want to discuss any of your other assumptions related to your goals, and stick to the topic at hand here.

Mike

[Andrew Norris]

Autocrat,

I'll stay away from the big questions, and touch on some details.

Have you looked at GURPS? It's a system which focuses on detailed simulation, supports almost any genre, and has an extensive skill system which deals a lot with defaults and using more general skills in replacement for specific ones and vice versa.

GURPS also has the ability to be shifted from low-detail to high-detail, although the character sheets don't usually change. (Most of the dials & knobs that can be tweaked involve adding complexity to the combat or task resolution system, for instance.)