frustrations with my resolution mechanic

[Michael]

Before you start work on your Task Resolution system, can I urge you to consider having only opposed rolls in the game.

That's certainly one way to look at it. I've heard suggestions like that before on other boards. I would never have thought for rolling a salmonella's Infectiousness skill, though.

However, with any mechanic, every check is an opposed check, the only difference is if the opposition is variable or a constant. A perfect example would be combat vs. climbing. Combat is extremely variable and prone to the Any Given Sunday effect. A lucky shot or an unlucky miss can make all the difference. That's why combat tends to involve multiple skill checks or target numbers that vary per situation. Climbing a wall, on the other hand, is essentially a constant. A wall that is 10ft. of brick and mortar will still be 10ft. of brick and mortar tomorrow, the day after that, and so on. If someone starts climbing the wall, the wall doesn't have any say in the matter, it just sits there and takes it.

Of course, a wall not "fighting back" is obvious, but it ties into the psychology of the mechanics. Most people don't see static obstacles as providing variable resistance. If the wall is easier to climb tomorrow, it's not because the wall is having a bad day, but because the climber is more prepared, better rested, etc.

Ralph

You had said something yesterday that hit me like a ton of bricks last night. When we discussed the fact that attributes and skills can't be seperate and do the same thing mechanically (which I completely agree with), it made me rethink the entire core of my system. I do appreciate all the advice and criticism thus far.

Where I'm at now

I'm starting from the ground up, but I believe I have a good idea of what I should be doing now. What I am aiming for is a system that recognizes:

a) Traits and characteristics that everyone posesses to some degree (carry weight, resistance to damage, intelligence, etc.).
b) Abilities that not everyone possesses, but need to be developed for maximum effectiveness (combat, woodworking, etc.).
c) The fact that while (a) and (b) are related, they have a different mechancal influence on the task at hand.
d) There is a possibility to make an ability check for an undeveloped ability (though obviously with reduced effectiveness).
e) Abilities must be reasonably comprehensive (without being overly specialized) and mutually exclusive.
f) Failure is always possible, but so is success.
g) Any task a character could possibly be faced with, where failure can have consequences to the adventure or campaign, can be resolved with the conflict resolution mechanic.

Side note: by (c), I mean that mechanics which involve XdY + skill + attribute would likely be incompatable. But something where attributes determine the pool or number of dice and skills determine the range of MoS would probably work better.

I don't think I'm going with attributes and skills for psychological reasons...not the players' psychology, but my own sanity. Instead, I'm leaning towards Natures, Abilities, and Techniques.

Natures are pretty vague, intentionally, and there's only two, Mind and Body. Everyone has some sort of mental presence (unless they are a vegetable), and everyone has some sort of physical presence (unless they are a poltergeist). Natures are basically an overall assessment of a character's Mental or Physical presence. A person with a high Mind Nature is generally intelligent, witty, insightful, and fun to have a conversation with at a schwiggidy-schwag party. A person with a high Body Nature is generally fit, healthy, has keen senses, and might have been the quarterback for his high school football team. Natures are going to have two effects on abilities. First, they determine the difficulty (point cost) for developing an ability. Second, they determine the ease at which a character can use an ability (most likely it will involve skewing the probability curve), and possibly the ease at which an ability can be used against a character (I'm thinking along the lines of a difficulty modifer for certain opposed tests). Natures reflect the core of someone's being, and therefore will be extremely difficult (high point cost) to develop.

Abilities are more specific, but general enough to be exhaustive without having an overwhelming listing. One way to do this is with Ability groups. Many Abilities will be part of a group where a character develops an ability, but is focused in a particular area. So a character with a Socialize (Information Gathering) ability is going to be able to make checks when gathering information. At the same time, a person who has a high skill in Information Gathering, probably knows a thing or two about bluffing, seduction, and the like. If the character develops the right Technique, he can use his Socialize (Information Gathering) to a degree with other Socialize ability checks. Abilities are split into two groups, Physical and Mental. This will affect the difficulty (point cost) in developing the ability. A person with a low Mind Nature is going to have trouble learning Astrophysics, and the person with a high Body Nature is going to have an easier time becoming a better Ultimate Frisbee player. Now, not all Abilities are entirely Mental or Physical. Medicine, for example, is primarily a Mental ability. A character can be a blind, quadrapalegic with asthma and still know everything about the human body. At the same time, that character doesn't have a whole lot of potential as a surgeon. When an Ability is used for a task that requires the other Nature, the other Nature will be used for the test. Abilities are the meat and potatoes of an individuals conscious potential so they will be moderately difficult (point cost) to develop.

Techniques are various elements that will expand a player's strategic or creative options. They will also help add specificity to the character. For example, two characters may have the same Melee (Swords) ability, but one is more of a finesse fighter, and the other is more of a smasher. Another example would be the character who knows a lot about Genetics from reading books on the subject and the character who went to college and got a degree in Genetics, but learned a little about other sciences along the way. Techniques are much more minute elements of characters than abilities, and therefore will be somewhat easier to develop (point cost). Furthermore, Techniques will always (or almost always) have prerequisites (most likely Ability levels).

Willpower (or Spirit) is it's own variable. Conceptually, it's the most similar to Nature in that everyone has it to some degree, but it functions different, mechanically. Maximum Willpower will probably be something like Body + Mind. Willpower will be a resource that can be spent (sometimes using certain Techniques) or regained (through rest and possibly magic). Though more variable than a Nature, it functions the same way, and various things will be more challenging for people with low Willpower. For example, a Willpower check might turn a critical failure to a normal failure, or make a Hail Mary play a little bit more possible. Regardless of the standard conflict resolution mechanic, the Willpower check will have its own mechanic designed to be effective and compatable with the rest of the system.

Lastly, there are the derived statistics (carry weight, action points, etc). Because derived statistics are constants and are not tested, just various measurements of the character, I feel that I have more freedom with their derivation. For something like carry weight and encumbrance levels, I would think that a combination of Body and Athletics (or some such ability) would be sufficient. This way even the person with a high Body Nature who has never "trained" much still can lug a good deal of stuff around. Toughness (or whatever variable I use for health/hps/whatever) is also a derivation of body, and probably some other ability like Endurance. Other necessary derived stats would be deterimined similarily.

The Mechanics

This is where things are getting a little tricky.

For the sake of example, Natures range from 1-5, while Skills range from 1-10. The maximum of the range obviously needs to be flexible to the mechanic, but I am attached to 1 being the minimum of the range. I actually like the idea of a Mind Nature 0 character being a comatose patient or automaton and a Body Nature 0 character being a ghost or otherwise dead/incapacitated. In terms of variability, I would have preferred a slightly larger range for the Natures, but because Natures are affecting dice pools, I had thought that rolling more than 5 dice would not only be to cumbersome, but also create too much of a skew.

The Roll-Under

With this new core concept, I am having trouble seeing how to make the roll-under work. With all the conceptual elements that I've listed, I would think that the best way to do it would be something like roll Nd12 (where N is the Nature being used) and roll under your skill (taking the lowest die rolled). The MoS is compared to the difficulty of the task (or MoS is compared to the opponent's MoS in a contested check) and success is determined. As the average person would have a nature of 3, rolling three dice would make lower rolls more probable, essentially inversing the skew of a Silhouette-like probability curve. Of course, I don't know the exact curve for a 3d12-take-lowest as I don't know the formula, and I can't see myself computing the 1728 possibilities by hand.

Also, having some sort of automatic/critical success/failure element seems a bit difficult. Is any failure where there are 12's in the pool a critical failure? Is a single 1 an automatic success, and if so, does that mean a character with a skill rank of 1 can only succeed when he makes a critical success?

I know it was mentioned before (probably by Ralph) that roll under mechanics don't work well with 1-N range variables. But I did want to make note that I explored the possibility.

The Roll Over

I could also "Silhouette" this one (as it seems to be the best method for skewing the curve with Natures). Now, the characters roll Nd10 (keeping the highest) + skill vs. opposed check or TN. If the highest is a 0, the character then rolls another d10 and adds it to the total. This would satisfy the critical/automatic success criteria. For critical failures it would probably be logical that any failures with 1s in the pool would be potential fumbles. Now you've probably noticed I switched from a d12 to a d10. The main reason for decreasing the variance is because (IMO) in a roll over, the chaos vs. constant element needs to be monitored more carefully compared to a roll under. With a roll under, it's mostly important that the rolls fit the range. With a roll over, the designer has to be aware of how much of a check is ability, and how much is chance.

The problem I see with this method is that even with d10s, using the Silhouette method would create too strong of a skew towards 10s and make critical successes too often and too critical. At the same time, using d12s would create more variance than I would like, while making additional 10's be merely +1s would make critical successes a little too weak.

The Dice Pool

Roll Ability-d8 and the threshold for a success is the Nature. Every success is one MoS. If there are no successes and some 8s, there's a possible critical failure. Critical success, who knows?

Basically, this is Storyteller with d8s. I didn't explore this option too much because rolling up to 10d8 for an ability check can be a drag. Also, I couldn't figure out how to have a critical success mechanic. Furthermore, the reliable range of MoS (probably around 6, at max Ability) is a little too low to play with regarding difficulty modifiers (especially in combat, or using wound levels).

.
.
.

And so here I am. Any tips?

[Valamir]

Back in the day, I had a 2e D&D GM that was a total goit and would do stuff like that all the time. I already have a solution for that (and that's why weapons are split into Melee/Ranged categories). Basically, there is going to be a Technique that lets you use a portion of your best Melee skill for all melee weapons (and the same for ranged weapons).

Also, combat is going to be more on the tactical side (a grid map, miniatures, etc.), so differentiating between weapon categories is going to add more flavor and options.

Sure.  But here's a thought to mull over.  What does tactical combat with weapon categories have to do with "ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances"?  That question will probably only start to make sense after you've spent some more time at the Forge and read some of the articles.

That was a good idea, but not what I was looking for. I'm aiming for something a little less left to player/GM interpretation. The last thing I want is people arguing over rules and what a character should or should not be able to do in a given situation. Take D&D 3.5, for example. I played in a group a few years ago where people would argue over the rules somewhat often, which was actually kind of bizarre considering how comprehensive the system is.

You're absolutely right here. One of my hobbies is shooting sports. I'm great with a 1911, .357, and a Beretta 9mm, but I'm worthless with a Glock 17 (it's not a "comfortable" weapon, IMO). Actually, I'm more accurate with a Beretta .32 short barrel at 40 ft., (which is generally only good for self-defense and at ranges of less than 20ft.) than I am with the Glock at 20ft. (which has around three times the length between sights) Now most systems would just list pistols (or even firearms in general) as a skill. If I was going to be uber-realistic about it I'd have to have a skill for every type of firearm because "realistically" there is a difference. However, that would just be insane.

At the same time, I have to feel like what tasks the skill encompasses is are reasonable and related enough, while keeping the skill general enough to prevent from having an insanely long skill list. So if I was designing a contemporary setting, I'd probably have a skill for pistols, one for rifles, and maybe one for shotguns. Granted, I'm crap with a Glock, but if you put any pistol in my hand, I'm pretty sure I could handle it as well as the .357 or 9mm.

Unfortuneately that's one of those impossible Holy Grail goals.  No matter where you draw the line its open to player/GM interpretation.  Broad skills, narrow skills, where the "realistic" difference is.  There is no such thing as as not open to interpretation.  Do some searches on the Lumpley Principle to see what I mean. 

As an idea...instead of thinking as rules as some "authority" to refer to keep players and GMs from having to exercise judgement, consider writing rules designed to encourage and assist players and GMs to work these things out themselves...then you don't have to stress about writing rules to cover infinite possibilies and in the end have most people disagree with them anyway (as always happens with those sorts of rules).

Consider as an example a rule that has gives every skill 3 "background slots" (or 1 per level, or whatever).  Any time the player wants they can use a (broadly defined) skill to make a test that seemingly has nothing to do with that skill by defining (i.e. like with a flashback), this is then written into one of the slots and from that point forward, that character can use that skill for that sort of test.  No long lists, no arguements, tapping into the collective creativity of the group, and developing fun useable game material to boot.  Thus if a player wants to describe how he can use his Man-at-arms skill to Armwrestle, or Fighting to climb, or Garrison to evaluate ale its simple, within the rules, and doesn't involve any argueing.

Rules like this can even cover your own Glock example.  Pick something that would normally be included in the skill and exclude it as one of your backgrounds like "bad with a glock" and earn some in game benefit...like an extra background slot, or experience, or whatever.

Don't treat rules like a straight jacket to control and limit player actions...use them as guidance to encourage behaviors you want to see in your game (once you decide what those are...which is part of the questions of "what do players do" and "what is your game about".

As for my system, I want my system to be able to handle all (reasonably expected) conflict with a contest of mutually exclusive variables (be it skills, attributes, or whatever) in a non-ambiguous manner.

An excellent goal.  My biggest recommendation is that game mechanics for game mechanics sake isn't enough for a good game design.  Those game mechanics need to be put in the service of pursueing some design objective.  Those questions above are a good place to start.

Why do you think the two are tied together? What do you even mean by "gritty and realistic"?

I don't think the two are tied together at all.

Actually, I meant why do you think "ordinary people/extraordinary circumstances" is tied to "gritty/realistic"

I have to ask: I know I started this thread to winge on about my resolution mechanic, but after all we've discussed, is it even an issue anymore? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that at this point, it's more important that I define (or redefine) my resolution variables and have a clear method for their categorization.

If that's the case, I'm kind of back to square one, no?

Actually IMO that's actually square 2.  Square 1 is deciding what's important about your game, what you want to concentrate on, what's most important to you.  THEN define your resolution variables around accomplishing those goals.

[btrc]

I'm coming into this one a little late, but my 2c:

a) There are automatic successes and failures.
b) There are no skills to represent natural abilities (i.e. no "notice" skill. Everyone has eyes and knows how to use them), and so this is handled with attributes.
c) A character should be able to accomplish a typical task (meaning no difficulty modifiers) more often than not. This especially going for an "average" character making an attribute test.
d) Contested checks may involve attribute vs. attribute (Strength for arm wrestling), Skill vs. Skill (two characters at the market bartering), and skill vs. attribute (one character is using a stealth skill to evade another characters perception).
e) In contested checks, there is always a chance for the underdog to succeed. For example, one character has Barter 1, another has Barter 10, while the Barter 10 character is most likely to succed, the Barter 1 should have a chance, even if it's a long shot that requires a critical success.

At first look, none of this seems all that difficult. I'll look at it from the perspective of a multiple d6 system:
a) A matter of setting the appropriate difficulties or special case rules. In this case, you could look at the statistical distribution of rolls and say "you can always roll, or automatically take a 2 on each d6". This gives you a floor for automatic successes, and you set the difficulty for certain tasks accordingly. This is really just a tuning issue to get the relationships right. "Taking 2 on d6" gives different results than "taking 2 on d10".
b) Agree...and disagree. Yes, some of these things are Attribute-based and should have defaults, but unless you are using a dedicated Perception attribute, something like a perception roll will be based on Awareness, Intelligence or some multiple Attribute-based function (Intelligence, Health, Willpower). And this can be trained and improved independent of the attributes, i.e. skills. This would require a system where skills add to Attributes for determining total rolls. How you fractionate that is an entirely different can of worms.
c) Goes back to a). I agree with other posters in that you shouldn't make a roll you don't need to. So some of these "most of the time" rolls will be automatic successes, and if you throw in various modifiers that can apply in non-critical situations, then you eliminate more rolls, while still having the situation be skill-based. So, if I need a roll of 8+ and I have a 3d6+0 skill roll, I have about a 75% chance of success (I think). Or, I could "take 2" on each die, then take a "extra time" modifier worth +2 and just automatically succeed in that time interval.
d) Seems straightforward and reasonable. It will require proper scaling so that it is not unreasonable to acquire a level of Stealth that gives you an XX% chance of sneaking by someone with a perception roll of Y. Like a), this is a tuning issue rather than a fundamental problem.
e) This is really a dice mechanic question, and a matter of "how much chance" the underdog has. If I'm rolling 2d6 and the bad guy is rolling 3d6, that gives me a certain chance of success. If I'm rolling 3d6 to beat my skill and the bad guy is rolling 3d6 to beat his skill, that gives a different chance of success. In any dice mechanic, there will be tweaks that can affect these things. I use a fudging mechanic where players have a limited pool of extra dice they can use. Shadowrun did the same (called it Karma), and also had a "reroll 6's" rule, which extended the dice curve and allowed extremely lucky shots and such.

It seems to me that all of a) through e) is not only readily doable, but has already been done. Everything on the list can be done fairly well by GURPS or Hero or Shadowrun or d6. My personal (game designer) take on it is:

1) Skill roll = skill dice + relevant Attribute dice. Skill dice start at +0, which just allows you to offset the penalty in 2) below. Skill dice cannot exceed Attribute dice, giving a maximum skill roll in something of 2x the Attribute roll.
2) Unskilled task use (e.g. trying to drive a car without having ever done so) uses relevant Attribute minus 1d.
3) Difficulty is a roll-over amount for passively opposed tasks (like the difficulty of picking a lock), or the relevant Attribute or skill roll of an opponent for actively opposed tasks (like a chess match). Time and situtational modifiers can be used in passively opposed tasks to get automatic success.
4) You only keep the best 3 die results. This gives a cap to the total a player can get (not their roll, but the total). In my case, best 3d6 and a +2 gives a maximum total of 20.
5) Players have a limited pool of dice than can be spent no more than 1 at a time to add or subtract to any roll in a pinch.
6) I use multiple d6's and +1 and +2, based on the level involved divided by 3. So an Agility of 10 and a +3 skill (adds up to 13) would roll 4d6+1, keep the best 3 die results and add 1 to the total. An Agility of 10 trying to do a skilled task that a) can be done with no training and b) they have no training for, would roll 2d+1 (their base of 3d+1 for the Agility of 10, with a -1d untrained penalty).
7) Attributes can be + or - specialized. Your Awareness attribute could have a +1d for "keen eyesight", giving you a normal roll for IQ tasks and a better one for spotting stuff. Skills are fairly broad, but can be specialized, so you could have +3 in "firearms" and an additional "+3 in "pistols". The broad attributes and skills plus personal specializations allow characters to be as simple or in depth as you want to get.

Hope this was of some use.

Greg Porter
BTRC guy

[Michael]

Greg

Actually, those (a) through (e) criteria was for my "first incarnation" of the system. The discussion here has led me to rethink some core elements. My new core philosophy is outlined in (a) through (g) in Reply #15

Ralph

In writing this post, I realize that we are kind of discussing two seperate things which are almost one in the same. That is, system and setting. The reason why I think they are almost the same is because, in my perspective, the primary purpose of the system is to emulate the reality presented in the setting.

Also, the name of the system/setting is The Legacy of Rhei Dragoon (LRD).

What does tactical combat with weapon categories have to do with "ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances"?

In short, not really anything. Tactical combat is meant to reflect the nature of reality in LRD. You're not going to win a fight by flipping through the air, chopping off heads like ninjas who have real ultimate power...just because you decided you wanted to spend ability points developing your skills in Flipping, Chopping Heads, and Real Ultimate Power. The world just doesn't work that way.

There is no such thing as as not open to interpretation.  Do some searches on the Lumpley Principle to see what I mean.

You're right, and I'm familiar with the Lumpley Principle. The LP, and some bizarre gaming experiences I have had, are the main reasons why I'm concerned with the elements of interpretation and allowance.

Consider as an example a rule that has gives every skill 3 "background slots"...

I'm not shooting this idea down, but I see some potentially serious balance issues with this mechanic. Basically, a player can find a reason to tie any two abilities together:

"The guy who taught me how to use a sword used to be a linguist who liked to fence, that means I can use my Melee (Swords) ability to decipher scripts."

"The blacksmith who mentored me used to be a scout in the militia. So I'm going to use my Craft (Blacksmith) Ability to sneak into the manor."

etc.

A lesser problem would be PCs who develop backgrounds that are essentially useless outside the situation for which they were created.

Furthermore, this is a classless, leveless system. As is, players can create characters that can use two-handed swords, be stealthy, and speak five languages...if they spend the points to develop these abilities. If a player wants a character who knows about ale from working at a garrison, that's fine, but they have to spend some AP on Craft (Brewing), or something like that.

Maybe I'm a cynic, but using a flashback mechanic makes me think of game sessions where people are arguing over which ties are reasonable, and which are not. Besides, (as an example) one of the people who taught me how to shoot is an electrician, but I can't wire a house. In fact, just the other day, it took me a few minutes to figure out how to properly use a battery tester from Radio Shack.

Don't treat rules like a straight jacket to control and limit player actions...

That's not my intention for the rules at all. The rules are only meant to simulate the reality of the game world. It's the game world that's meant to be limiting to the players. In D&D, Exalted, WoD, and so many other systems/settings I've seen, the world/setting is merely the PCs' "oyster". Theoretically, in Forgotten Realms, by level 20 or so, it's actually possible to kill a god, become a god, destroy the world, and live to tell the tale. At a high enough level, a character can roshambo with the Terrasque, and win.

So, I'm not trying to control player actions, and whether I'm trying to limit them is debatable (though if I was accused of such, I wouldn't argue it).

With LRD, the PCs are not necessarily a pivotal element. Furthermore, while they have great potential, they don't have the potential to be the baddest MFs (I assume actually swearing is bad etiquette here) this side of the Bronx. In fact, if the PCs wanted, they could spend the entire campaign working at an inn, tanning leather, or making a living by other means, and the world will go on. Opportunities they pass up will be taken by others, and may be resolved differently because of this. LRD is very dynamic, with many entities which have their own agendas. The PCs are not children in a sandbox, but each are individual grains of sand.

The intended appeal of LRD is that instead of immersing the PCs in the world that's "theirs for the taking", they are becoming entities in an organic environment that is much bigger than themselves. They certainly have the potential for great things (technically more so than most characters in LRD as adventures are designed to give PCs opportunities), but they have to finesse their way through relationships that are varied and complex.

Actually, I meant why do you think "ordinary people/extraordinary circumstances" is tied to "gritty/realistic"

Well, the gritty/realistic is more attributed to the "ordinary people" part, and less the "extraordinary circumstances". In other words, I want the PCs, who are ordinary people, to be defined by gritty/realistic standards. "My father was a werewolf ninja, and my mother was a pirate who invented penicillin, so I can shapechange, chop off heads, sail a ship, and invent Viagra" would totally not fly.

I know I'm using some extreme examples, but I figure they help differentiate the elements that I'm trying to avoid from the elements from those for which I am designing.

General Questions

I'm wondering at this point if my resolution mechanic (described below) is compatible or contrary to the philosophies developed in this thread up to this point. The most important of these philosophies being that one can have seperate attributes and skills, but they cannot do the same thing mechanically.

So, using the core elements that I described above (Natures, Abilities, Techniques), and similar ranges (Natures are 1-6, Abilities are 0-13), I am considering a roll over mechanic where the players roll 2d6 + Ability + Nature compared to TN. Double 1's are a potential critical failure, and double 6's are a critical success allowing them to add another d6 (and another d6 if another 6 is rolled, etc.) Basically, this is much like CODA's core mechanic.

MoS will also function much like CODA's core mechanic. So for each increment of 5 (or whatever balances out right) over the TN, the character gains one MoS. The value of this is elaborated in Point 2.

Point 1

Now I've said before that an xDy + skill + attribute type mechanic would likely be imcompatable, and here I am using it. I'm not going back on what I've said, but I've thought deeper about the elements of Nature and Abilities and what they really mean. It would seem that Natures and Abilities are two seperate things in terms of concept and definition, but they may have more in common than not. Abilities are essentially various skill groups, and there's two types, mental and physical. Now, most Abilities are not entirely Mental or Physical, but are predominantly one or the other. Abilities are like skill groups (with focus areas) in this system. So you don't make an Athletics check, but an Athletics (Climb) check or an Athletics (Swim) check.

The reason why I think Natures have much in common with abilities is because, in a way, Natures are just a larger Ability group. An Ability is just a rating of a character's development with that ability, while a Nature is a rating of a character's development with that nature. So a character's Body rating is an overall assessment of the character's physical state (and their general ability to use their body for a given task). A character's Melee (Swords) Ability is an overall assessment of a character's ability to use their body in a way that allows them to swing a sword and hurt things.

Point 2

So let's say that Natures and Abilities are actually too different and should not be used the same, mechanically. Using the mechanic described above, it is easy to argue that they are not being used the same. Two points:

1) The randomizer is a 2d6 roll, creating a bell-curve probability distribution.
2) A MoS occurs every increment of 5 rolled over the TN.

So the range of Natures is 1-6. Adding Nature isn't going to increase the MoS, but nudge the probability curve to make a test a little easier. Of course, a Nature of 5 or 6 would automatically be a MoS.

On the other hand, adding to a skill doesn't increase the MoS either, but nudges the probability curve. The larger skill range just creates more nudging. I'm guessing that Point 2 is probably invalid, and definitely invalid if Point 1 is invalid.

.
.
.

Now the simple solution would be to just not use Natures in Ability checks, but I want to for a few reasons. First, it makes things a slight bit easier for a character to make an Ability check in an undeveloped ability especially when it comes to a contested check, as well as take into consideration that characters with Nature ratings are generally more competent with that Nature than a character with a lower Nature rating. Second, it really fits in well with the supernatural portion of the game, as it's going to tie into certain spell effects and so forth. Lastly, Natures represent this all-encompasing rating of a core element of a character. If all they did was determine point costs for ability development, it really takes the steam out of their grandiousity. I really want them to have a more active role in the game.

So I guess my questions are:

1) Based on how I've defined them, are Natures and Abilities really that different?
2) If so, are they really doing the same thing mechanically?
3) If (1) and (2) are true, what can I do with natures instead so they can take a more active role in the game?

[Valamir]

Ralph

In writing this post, I realize that we are kind of discussing two seperate things which are almost one in the same. That is, system and setting. The reason why I think they are almost the same is because, in my perspective, the primary purpose of the system is to emulate the reality presented in the setting.

As food for thought consider that it is up to the players (GM included) to emulate the setting through their choice of narration and that the primary purpose of the system is to help the players (GM included) come to an agreement on what just happened in the game as a result of that narration.

What does tactical combat with weapon categories have to do with "ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances"?

In short, not really anything. Tactical combat is meant to reflect the nature of reality in LRD. You're not going to win a fight by flipping through the air, chopping off heads like ninjas who have real ultimate power...just because you decided you wanted to spend ability points developing your skills in Flipping, Chopping Heads, and Real Ultimate Power. The world just doesn't work that way.

What I mean is...why are ordinary people fighting at all?  Ordinary people farm, keep shop, go fishing.  You want to take these ordinary people and put them in extraordinary circumstances...Ok...that sounds interesting.  Take a random selection of ordinary people from your setting.  Under what conditions would they suddenly be thrust into extraordinary circumstances?  What are those extraordinary circumstances and why do those circumstances involve fighting (gritty or otherwise)?

That's where I'd focus a good bit of effort.  1) who are these ordinary people, 2) why have they been thrust into extraordinary circumstances, 3) why are these circumstances interesting to players.

For instance 1) characters are villagers of a given culture, 2) the village is being overrun by an enemy and now they have to fight for their homes, 3) Important to the game are concepts of loyalty to family, duty to king and country, opportunity for personal gain. 

In such a game those concepts may well be of as much interest (and thus as worthy of game mechanics) as tactical combat rules. 

I'm not shooting this idea down, but I see some potentially serious balance issues with this mechanic. Basically, a player can find a reason to tie any two abilities together:

"The guy who taught me how to use a sword used to be a linguist who liked to fence, that means I can use my Melee (Swords) ability to decipher scripts."

"The blacksmith who mentored me used to be a scout in the militia. So I'm going to use my Craft (Blacksmith) Ability to sneak into the manor."

Problem?  Or extraordinary opportunity to get your players to buy in and contribute?  Neither of those examples would cause me to bat an eye...in fact...they'd get me really excited.  Again...rules aren't there to protect the GM from player abuse...no rule set can do that.  Rules are there to help players and GMs come to an understanding about what just happened.

Furthermore, this is a classless, leveless system. As is, players can create characters that can use two-handed swords, be stealthy, and speak five languages...if they spend the points to develop these abilities. If a player wants a character who knows about ale from working at a garrison, that's fine, but they have to spend some AP on Craft (Brewing), or something like that.

Why?  There's no game design law from on high that says that.  They may be an assumption you've been operating under...and maybe its a good one...I'm not trying to design your game for you...but maybe its just one more sacred cow to be shot and left by the wayside on your way to finishing your game.

So one player gains some brewing ability for free...so what...every player has that opportunity to grab different abilities so where's the harm?

Maybe I'm a cynic, but using a flashback mechanic makes me think of game sessions where people are arguing over which ties are reasonable, and which are not. Besides, (as an example) one of the people who taught me how to shoot is an electrician, but I can't wire a house. In fact, just the other day, it took me a few minutes to figure out how to properly use a battery tester from Radio Shack.

My advice.  First, worry less about argueing players.  Second, write rules that describe the PROCESS for how decisions are made.  Players follow that process...decision gets made...no arguement.

Here's a REALLY simple example:

"Any player can at any time on their turn select any skill to add as a background slot to any existing skill on their character sheet as long as that skill has an available background slot to use.  The player must narrate details from their background that demonstrate how, in the course of learning the existing skill, the character also picked up knowledge of the new background slot skill as well."

See. simple.  No room for arguement.  Any player can do this period. If you want to allow other players to object to something they find unenjoyable...simply write the rules for how that PROCESS might look.  e.g. "any other player may, upon hearing the narration, veto this action by giving one of their own Drama Points (or a Drama Point in the case of Veto by the GM) to the narrating player."

Boom.  See.  Argueing at the table occurs for two primary reasons, both the artifact of the way games have been historically designed.  Historically RPGs provide little to no rules for process and to compound the problem generally include stupid language like "feel free to change any rules you don't like" and what not.  This is pure Lumpley Principle in action.  In the absence of rules telling you how to arrive at an agreement as to what happens, and in the presence of rules telling you to feel free to ignore what rules there are, groups are left with nothing but pure social interaction to decide.  In the absence of process, pure social interaction generally winds up in arguement where ego, charisma, and social bullying prevail.  Instead of realizing the problem and fixing it by writing better rules, the historical defense to this is more stupid language like "the GM is God" in an effort to empower one person to simply steam roller over all of the argueing. 

Point being, write rules that describe the process, make it clear that the rules are meant to be followed, and 90% of all argueing disappears.  The other 10% of argueing is just due to stupid gits who aren't worth playing with anyway.  Note that's not to say disagreement disappears.  Disagreement is fine (its creatively necessary).  Rules are there to resolve disagreement without devolving to argueing...not prevent disagreement from happening.

That's not my intention for the rules at all. The rules are only meant to simulate the reality of the game world. It's the game world that's meant to be limiting to the players. In D&D, Exalted, WoD, and so many other systems/settings I've seen, the world/setting is merely the PCs' "oyster". Theoretically, in Forgotten Realms, by level 20 or so, it's actually possible to kill a god, become a god, destroy the world, and live to tell the tale. At a high enough level, a character can roshambo with the Terrasque, and win.

With LRD, the PCs are not necessarily a pivotal element. Furthermore, while they have great potential, they don't have the potential to be the baddest MFs (I assume actually swearing is bad etiquette here) this side of the Bronx. In fact, if the PCs wanted, they could spend the entire campaign working at an inn, tanning leather, or making a living by other means, and the world will go on. Opportunities they pass up will be taken by others, and may be resolved differently because of this. LRD is very dynamic, with many entities which have their own agendas. The PCs are not children in a sandbox, but each are individual grains of sand.

The intended appeal of LRD is that instead of immersing the PCs in the world that's "theirs for the taking", they are becoming entities in an organic environment that is much bigger than themselves. They certainly have the potential for great things (technically more so than most characters in LRD as adventures are designed to give PCs opportunities), but they have to finesse their way through relationships that are varied and complex.

This is a great paragraph outlining your goals.  I would make the following 2 observations. 

First you can absolutely accomplish this without needing alot of limiting rules to do so.  Some of this is mechanical in nature...making sure that characters don't routinely have a high chance of beating odds defined and "nearly impossible" and that's the math part you've been hammering through.  But a big part of this is color.  How player's narrate their character's actions, what is an acceptable narration what isn't, etc.  This has less to do with die mechanics and more to do with how the rules and setting are presented and the process of how what players narrate gets accepted into the shared imaginary space.

Second, I interpret what you're saying (correct me if I'm wrong) to mean that you want players characters to be the center of their own stories...but you don't want those stories to be the central stories of the world.  The great armies of the evil empire that overruns the village is a story of the world.  The PC's can do much about that.  But they can protect the lives of the village children and save them, some of them at least, from being sold into slavery.

If that's accurate than consider this.  One way to accomplish that is to simply tell the GM to design scenarios where the big bad is way too powerful for the PCs to take and provide smaller goals that are better suited to their abilities.  However, that's been done to death.  How can your game get those kinds of stories told without simply telling the GM to go run the game like that.  What can you provide in terms of system, dice mechanics, metagame mechanics, game structure, interplayer power structures, etc that will make it all but inevitable that any reasonable group of players will wind up with a story of that nature simply by following the rules.

[btrc]

Sigh. I had a nice long reply ready to go and then my browser crashed. Anyway, to succinctly recap what I was trying to write:

1) How about having mind, body and spirit, and a derived ability from each pair (like hit points as a function of body + spirit).
2) If you have levels in mind, body and spirit, and then have the player define what and who the character is in those terms, this covers in "nature" a lot of rolls or resolutions, leaving a smaller number of abilities to be dealt with. Example:

Body: I'm a soldier
Mind: I'm fascinated by ancient history
Spirit: Outgoing, but morally conservative

My potential leadership ability (mind + body) is high, but I could buy an ability to make it higher. Or, I could have level X in body because I'm a "soldier", but I could be hell on wheels with a sword, and have +Y in swordsmanship. All the stuff that is neither a nature or ability is an unskilled use, and takes a penalty on the nature.

On the resolution system, take an average person, an average PC, and an expert PC, and set them easy, moderate and hard tasks. See if it works. Can an average person who has never picked up a gun (but has seen them in the movies) hit the broad side of a barn at ten paces? Can an average hunter do a called shot on a deer at 200 meters with a scoped rifle? Can a pistol expert like Jelly Bryce drop a coin from shoulder height, draw a holstered pistol and shoot the coin out of the air before it passes his hip? Then reverse it. How likely is Jelly Bryce to miss that broad side of a barn, and how likely is Grandma Moses to make that trick shot? (if you want a system where the expert can always blow it and the novice always has a chance of success). If your resolution system works at the extremes, there's a better chance it will work in the middle.

Greg Porter
BTRC

[Michael]

Ralph

Once again, I appreciate you keeping up with this thread. You've been a great help in getting me closer to my goal. With how long my posts are, I'm surprised that anyone would still follow it.

As food for thought consider that it is up to the players (GM included) to emulate the setting through their choice of narration...

Is that part of that whole GNS debate? I tried to read the article, but it was a little muddy. From the little I got out of it, I believe I'd fall into the category of Simulationist (more so with combat, but to an extent with other dramatic elements). Then again, I could be wrong, the article wasn't too clear. What I can say is this, I'm soooo not into free form, LARP, or games where players can do what they want, just because they want to.

Narration is a pretty loose term, and probably needs a more concrete definition. Narration can mean, "Joe the Fighter sidesteps around the goblin to flank him, and then brings his axe down for a crushing blow." But then movement points are used, dice are rolled for the attack, and success is determined. Narration can also mean, "Joe the Fighter rushes across the battlefield to help the peasant, drawing his sword along the way, and skewering the goblin." And because Joe has invested in skills in Sword and Running, he's successful, regardless of the distance or the difficulty of the attack.

The system is merely a quantitative framework using qualitative elements. I'm having a hard time understanding the interaction between how a player describes his character's actions, and how the system resolves intended actions.

What I mean is...why are ordinary people fighting at all?

That's easy:

A wolf has been attacking a farmer's cows, the party needs to hunt it down.
Travelling merchants are being harassed by highwaymen.
There's a war brewing.
Monsters are terrorizing a village.

That last one was pretty generic and lame. However, to go into all the details of why there are various "monsters" in this game, where they came from, what they are doing, etc. would essentially involve dumping 30+ pages of setting materials into this post. Frankly, I think my posts are too long as it is.

Combat isn't going to be the only conflict that needs resolution, and it's not the only extraordinary circumstances that the PCs will be in. A party is probably going to have a decent face-man. There will be treaties and trade contracts that need negotiating. Roguish types will have to not only infiltrate organizations and the like, but also do so without getting caught.

Like I said, it's a very complex world with many different organic and interrelated elements.

1) who are these ordinary people, 2) why have they been thrust into extraordinary circumstances, 3) why are these circumstances interesting to players.

1) These ordinary people happen to be the PCs.
2) The PCs happen to live in a region that's a hotzone for social, political, and supernatural problems (once again, there's much more to it than that, but 30+ pages of setting materials...)
3) Because in exploring these extraordinary circumstances, and taking advantage of various opportunities, the PCs will learn much more about the world around them, why things are they way they are (including the source of magic, which is a big element in this system in terms of social interest), and possibly influence some major sociopolitical changes (depending on their associations).

LRD isn't Faerun, or WoD. It's more like our own world in the middle ages, but with a supernatural element (which has it's own element of mystery and social importance). We really didn't know squat back then. The world was flat, and the universe revolved around it. It was through exploration and investigation that we began to learn the truth about the world we live in, and why things are they way they are.

Problem?  Or extraordinary opportunity to get your players to buy in and contribute?

To me, it's a problem. I see it turning into Calvinball.

Why?  There's no game design law from on high that says that.

Oh, no, let me be clear. IMO, there's no game design law period. Calvinball is a good example. I don't have a problem with Calvinball, I even played it myself when I was a kid, but there will be some games where a Calvinball element doesn't fit into the concept.

So one player gains some brewing ability for free...so what...every player has that opportunity to grab different abilities so where's the harm?

This is like my third attempt at answering this, because the other two could easily offend some people. This one is still probably a little offensive, but...

Here's one take at an answer. So the players create a party. The party goes out, faces some challenges, and in the end are rewarded with AP (basically experience points) to develop their abilities. The reason why they get AP is because they were challenged. And in being challenged they are made stronger. Having higher abilities isn't a right, it's something you have to work for, and they are more rewarding when you do.

The flashback mechanic (IMO) seems to me that it merely gives the players an easy out from a challenge, and doesn't really do anything for the characters. In that sense, it's a little too meta-gamish for my liking.

Also, the flashback gets in the way of having mutually exclusive variables. Call me old fashioned, but using a Swordfighting ability to appraise ale is just lunacy, IMO, and doesn't fit with what I'm going for in this setting.

side note: APs are an actual metaphysical entity in the setting, though the PCs won't be made aware of this until they learn more about the source of the setting's supernatural element.

e.g. "any other player may, upon hearing the narration, veto this action by giving one of their own Drama Points (or a Drama Point in the case of Veto by the GM) to the narrating player."

Whoa...

Simply put, that is so not happening. That is the exact opposite of what I intend for LRD. Designing elements with the express intent to support metagaming is out of the question. I actually have even designed an element that would reduce the rewards for players who metagame. This Drama Point mechanic emphasizes exactly what I'm trying to avoid. Using a mechanic like this creates an adversarial relationship not just between player and GM, but also between player and player.

The best way to describe it is that in LRD, there is no player, and no GM. There are characters, there is the world. Every single element of the system represents a natural, supernatural, or universal law in the setting. People in this world don't say, "You're a big bad guy, and I'm going to spend a drama point to stop you, because I can". LRD mechanics are about having an abstract representation of in-game elements, not a real representation of abstract elements. In a way, one thing I'm designing for is to meta-metagame. Players (and GMs for that matter) cannot have an affect on LRD, but characters can.

In the absence of rules telling you how to arrive at an agreement as to what happens, and in the presence of rules telling you to feel free to ignore what rules there are, groups are left with nothing but pure social interaction to decide.

I've been gaming for quite a while. I've played Earthdawn, d20, various Silhouette games, Exalted, and a few other that I can't think of off hand. The only time I've had this happen is with Exalted, and that's only because the system is so fast and loose that so much is left to personal interpretation.

I mean, what part of the "happening" is not agreed upon? What's going on around them? The GM tells the players that. How to make a skill check? It's in the rules. Every arguement that I've had in a group isn't because the players can't agree on how an in game issue should be resolved (mechanically), it's been because people are either exploiting weaknesses in the system, dominating the game, or just being an ass in general.

I have a feeling that there's elements of the LP that I just haven't been exposed to personally, so I might not be understanding something properly.

How player's narrate their character's actions, what is an acceptable narration what isn't, etc.

Is it a problem to assume that pretty much anything is acceptable? I mean, I'm not going to have anything perverse going on in LRD, but the rest of it is pretty much fair game. I've played with people who are elaborate RPers, who even narrate actions that are of no consequence. Then there have been players that stick to the meat and potatoes of RPing and don't use a whole lot of "flavor". Either one is fine with me.

The great armies of the evil empire that overruns the village is a story of the world.  The PC's can do much about that.
.
.
.
One way to accomplish that is to simply tell the GM to design scenarios where the big bad is way too powerful for the PCs to take and provide smaller goals that are better suited to their abilities.  However, that's been done to death.

That's not happening at all, and you already explained why. I fully expect that that PCs would rise up against the great army (if that becomes a concern of theirs), but they aren't doing it alone. That's what is important. The PCs are perfectly capable of becoming powerful warlords/generals themselves, pulling together a great army, and facing off against the BBEG (I do intend an element of mass/unit combat, btw). But they aren't going to be able to do it just because they are the PCs and they're cool beans. Raising the army, and being given that level of military power will require that they make the right friends and associations that will give the support necessary for such a huge effort.

As we say in Sociology, "One person has never made a difference, it just sometimes looks that way."

And this is part of the complexity for which I'm designing. Developing their contacts is not only a challenge in itself, but it was also provide them with challenges in order to maintain the relationships. Not only that, but which contacts they make are going to affect opportunities and the resources they can tap into. In LRD, the game makes the players as much as the players make the game.

Greg

1) How about having mind, body and spirit, and a derived ability from each pair (like hit points as a function of body + spirit).

OMG, I had a total flashback when you mentioned that. One of the first systems I attempted to design (a couple years ago), had a similar element. It was a pain to work. Not that there's anything wrong with the mechanical concept, but it didn't work for what I was going for.

If you have levels in mind, body and spirit, and then have the player define what and who the character is in those terms, this covers in "nature" a lot of rolls or resolutions, leaving a smaller number of abilities to be dealt with.

It's definitely too free-form for what I'm going for.

My potential leadership ability (mind + body) is high, but I could buy an ability to make it higher. Or, I could have level X in body because I'm a "soldier", but I could be hell on wheels with a sword, and have +Y in swordsmanship. All the stuff that is neither a nature or ability is an unskilled use, and takes a penalty on the nature.

In a sense, with LRD, that is already how Natures and Abilities work with each other, somewhat.

On the resolution system, take an average person, an average PC, and an expert PC, and set them easy, moderate and hard tasks. See if it works.

Testing the stats isn't an issue at this point. When I get to that, I can handle it, no problem. What I'm more concerned with at this point is that how I'm resolving conflict properly uses the elements involved in its resolution.

For example (this isn't about my system, just an example):
I could say that Attributes are inherent abilities, while Skills are learned abilities, both have a range of 1-20. According to the laws of the universe in system X, both contribute equally when attempting a task. Therefore, I'm going to have an ability test be Attribute + Skills x 2 + 3d10.

If I state that Attributes and Skills have an equal affect on success, why am I doubling the Skills value? This is an obvious example as to how I am defining the elements doesn't match how I'm using the elements.

That is what I am working with now, and why I was wrestling with Attributes and Skills in the first incarnation. With this new incarnation, I am hoping that:

1) Natures are balanced with each other so that one is not necessarily stronger than the other.
2) Abilities are balanced in their scope, so that none are necessarily more useful (generally) than the others.
3) Natures and Abilities accurately affect the laws of the universe in LRD.
4) The mechanic for resolving conflict properly utilizes the elements of Natures and Abilities.
5) There is a way to compute the various derived statistics (carry weight, action points, Willpower hps or equivalent, etc.) using Natures and Abilities in a logical manner.

I know I haven't really put together an ability list at this point (what I posted before was only a sample for example), but at this point, their interaction with the rest of the system is more important than the specific list.

There's definitely much more that I'm trying to do, but I'm starting with this. Once I have the core put together, I can build upon it the other important elements of LRD.

[btrc]

Hmmm...

1) Natures are balanced with each other so that one is not necessarily stronger than the other.
2) Abilities are balanced in their scope, so that none are necessarily more useful (generally) than the others.

Both of these are really a matter of definition in terms of your intent as the designer, and also out of your control the instant a GM other than yourself gets hold of the game. Unless the plot and genre is so narrowly defined that GM's and players are railroaded down the track, there is always the possibility that a GM might stress combat more than exploration more than puzzle solving more than character development. The best you can hope for is a universe that starts with the abilities and natures in balance. Or at least weighted according to their usefulness (does four years of training get me the same level in cooking as it does in swordplay?).

3) Natures and Abilities accurately affect the laws of the universe in LRD.

This goes back to:
Quote

On the resolution system, take an average person, an average PC, and an expert PC, and set them easy, moderate and hard tasks. See if it works.

Testing the stats isn't an issue at this point. When I get to that, I can handle it, no problem. What I'm more concerned with at this point is that how I'm resolving conflict properly uses the elements involved in its resolution.

And I have to disagree with you on conceptual grounds. The dice mechanic and testing of stats represents how the laws of the universe in LRD work. A munchkin-esqe example: If the laws of nature (game mechanics) are such that even schmucks can succeed on occasion against a vastly superior foe, no general would ever show his face on the battlefield. Why? Because the enemy commander would have everyone aim for his eyeballs. Someone is going to get a lucky roll and put an arrow through the slit in the general's visor. In general, a "you can always get lucky" mechanic means that quantity always trumps quality. So, does this mean that only PC's always have a chance to get lucky? Or, what about foes of the PC's? Do they always have a chance to get lucky, but only against PC's?

Your resolution mechanic defines the way reality works, and to some extent how it is perceived within the gameworld. Just think of how we would perceive this world if once every dozen years or so, some 80-year old man won the Boston Marathon, or an unknown ancient language got deciphered by a learning-disabled 9-year old, or every thousandth time you dropped something it fell up. We would not be rolling dice, but we would live our lives differently if the laws of nature and probability had daily results far different than what we are used to.

The way you want reality in LRD to work is a design principle. The way it actually works won't be known until you get a resolution mechanic and crunch the numbers. "Properly using the elements involved in its resolution" is the way to go, but you've got to get your hands dirty and try out different resolution systems to see how they "feel", both from a statistical and a game/GM/player interaction standpoint.

4) The mechanic for resolving conflict properly utilizes the elements of Natures and Abilities.

Perfectly sensible.

5) There is a way to compute the various derived statistics (carry weight, action points, Willpower hps or equivalent, etc.) using Natures and Abilities in a logical manner.

This seems at first glance to involve combinations or permuations of the Natures and/or Abilities, which I thought you said you tried and didn't like.

Looking over what I just wrote, sorry if I seem a little critical. If I'm going to get labeled, I'm a "simulationist", which is probably not the best type of person to critique a system catering to a specific genre. But I will stand by the statement that the rules of any game define the reality of that gameworld. So, generating stat and resolution mechanics, even if they are bad ones that you discard (repeatedly) will at least point the way to an ideal that by its very nature tends to steer players into courses of action that are genre- and world-appropriate, even when they are not used.

Think of your rules as "gravity". Gravity colors all your actions, but you seldom consciously think about it. The best game rules affect the players (and thus the characters) in the same way. Ever-present, but not consciously intrusive.

Greg Porter
BTRC guy

[Michael]

Greg

Well, before I start:

Looking over what I just wrote, sorry if I seem a little critical. If I'm going to get labeled, I'm a "simulationist", which is probably not the best type of person to critique a system catering to a specific genre.

Don't be sorry, you're targeting the elements that I'm trying to "fix", and I appreciate the help. And like I said before, I'm probably more of a simulationist, too (assuming I was able to understand that article), so we're probably more on the same page than you think.

Also, I intend to span LRD across genres (or at least time periods). The world is going to evolve, and so is the supernatural element. A later incarnation will take place in a contemporary setting, with a completely different supernatural element coming from a different source. It will still be the same world, and the changes will make perfect sense once the players get to that point.

Unless the plot and genre is so narrowly defined that GM's and players are railroaded down the track, there is always the possibility that a GM might stress combat more than exploration more than puzzle solving more than character development.

In a way, I've designed for that. There's a lot going on in the world at the time. In the region where the PCs will be from, there is a civil war brewing, not to mention strained relations with neighboring sovereignties. Also, much is still not understood about the supernatural element of this world. In LRD, people don't really know the origins and purpose of the "monster" element.

There are many directions that a GM can take the party, whatever angles that are not explored will evolve on their own through the campaign and become background information for the PCs. So if they follow the monster element, they might later discover (by word of mouth, or a similar current events information network) that a civil war has erupted in their empire. If they follow the political element, they might hear that the "monsters" are starting to become more organized.

And if the GM stresses combat, the PCs can develop those abilities just as easy if the GM were to stress politics and the PCs wanted to develop those abilities.

Most of this probably ties into the ability listing, which still needs to be worked on.

And I have to disagree with you on conceptual grounds. The dice mechanic and testing of stats represents how the laws of the universe in LRD work. A munchkin-esqe example: If the laws of nature (game mechanics) are such that even schmucks can succeed on occasion against a vastly superior foe, no general would ever show his face on the battlefield.

Exactly!

These are the concepts I'm working on now. Side note, your example would be handled with unit combat, but I know where you're going, so I'll roll with it. First, it's important to seperate combat and confict in LRD. Combat is life and death directly, and if a character "fails", they are probably dead. Conflict is more dramatic, and if the character "fails", they are quite likely to live and "fight" another day.

One way to handle the grievous nature of combat is the way that most systems do, and that is make combat an extended test. A single roll isn't going to decide who lives and who dies. It's multiple rolls, multiple levels of damage, etc. Therefore, using a bell-shaped probability curve ensures that the "rank 0" swordfighter is not going to have an easy time taking down the "rank 12" swordfighter...at least not without some help. Actually, the same is true with a linear curve, but to a greater extent with a bell curve.

As for what is "rank 0" and what is "rank 12", that's relative, though I realize that it's greatly affected by not only the randomizer used, but also how Natures are used. A "rank 0" is meant to be an amateur, not someone who is necessarily good, but who has weeded the "bad habits" out of his system. For example, in martial arts, most people come to their first class not even knowing the proper way to make a fist. So, a "rank 0" martial artist has basically learned how to make a fist.

The first 2-3 ranks or so in a skill are no indication of mastery. For many skills, most people likely have a few ranks. Athletics is a good example. Most people are not professional athletes, but many people work out to stay healthy, or enjoy playing a sport for recreation. When you get to rank 6ish, this person is a dedicated to the discipline, but not really pro-style. They are more of an enthused hobbyist, and the ability is at least a small part of their identity. By rank 12, you have the pro-style masters. These are the people by which all others are judged.

To put this in perspective, using the LRD system, a "real-world" scale of martial artists would be:

0- the guy who has taken his first few classes.
3- Actors in action movies, who have to learn a few moves for the stunts; a martial artist who has gained a couple belts.
6- Many amateur competitive martial artists (possible "local" champions)
9- Many professional competitive martial artists, Jet Li
12- Bruce Lee

As you can imagine, most people, if they have any rank, would fall between 0 and 3. The "value" of higher ranks will be represented by an increasing cost (probably exponentially) for developing an ability further.

At this point, I don't have to go into detail as to how the dice mechanics affect the probability curve, you obviously know all that. What I realize is that for the rank 0 guy to have a chance at all (no matter how small) against the rank 12 guy in a contested check, the range of the randomizer has to be equal to or larger than the range of the variables being tested.

So, if I'm using a 2d6 mechanic (R=2-12) without the "double 6s allowing a character to add another d6", skills would have to range from 0-9. This way, if the 0 rolls a 12, and the 9 rolls a 2, the 0 can win. Of course, the probability of this happening in any given situation is 0.0007, or less than one in a thousand. Still, the Any Given Sunday Effect exists in this mechanic.

Now, because I have the "double 6s = +1d6 until no 6s are rolled" mechanic (or double 6s lets you add your current Willpower/Spirit value, the point is there will be something), this allows me to extend the range of the skills. Actually, I should mention that I'm leaning towards double 6s allowing you to add your current Willpower/Spirit value, as it's a better fit with the metaphysics of the game.

Ok, so taking into consideration the two criteria stated before:

1) Combat is more simulationist, affected by many situational factors, requiring multiple ability checks.
2) Conflict is more dramatic, usually resolved with a single ability check.

Using the system elements described above, a combat situation has a fair bit less of the Any Given Sunday Effect as the superior opponent has to consistently bottom out his rolls and the inferior opponent has to consistently max out his rolls in order for the inferior opponent to win. This makes sense. If you're trying to kill Bruce Lee, you're not going to send a single ninja and hope he gets lucky, you're going to send 100 ninjas with swords to attack him in his sleep. On the other hand, with conflict using a single check, characters have more of a chance to get that lucky "zing" in on a superior. So, in diplomatic relations (for example), the underdog has a chance to get lucky and come out ahead.

Your resolution mechanic defines the way reality works, and to some extent how it is perceived within the gameworld.

I totally agree.

This seems at first glance to involve combinations or permuations of the Natures and/or Abilities, which I thought you said you tried and didn't like.

Yes to the first part, no to the second. I may have misunderstood your post. I thought you were referring to a more free-form character model where the characters had a few stats and the players defined what they meant. I'm aiming to make a character more objectively defined than that.

Let's take carry weight, for example. Pretty much everyone in the world has a certain degree of physical strength, even if they don't develop it by working out or such. The guy who just sits around on his duff, drinking beer and playing video games is likely still able to lift a full garbage can. Say there is a Body nature, and an Athletics ability. Well beer-drinking-xbox-boy doesn't have any athletic ability, but he can still carry some stuff around. So let's say that every point of body is 10lbs. of unencumbered carry weight (which would probably be 30-40lbs. average, with the scale I used), and every point of Athletics is another 5lbs. for this example. Now, the "average" un-athletic person can lug around 30-40lbs. no problem, while an athletic person can extend this range to 35-100ish.

In this particular case, does this unbalance the Athletics ability, as it not only is used for ability checks, but has this "added" benefit? In general, does giving "added benefits" to some Abilities and not others unbalance Abilities?

All In All

It seems like I should be presenting an Ability listing here, but I know I'm too early in the game for the actual ability list to matter...at this point. In essence, I'm trying to take into consideration elements that every person has which crossover with elements that some people choose to develop, and balance the interaction.

[btrc]

Sounds like you're on the (or a) right track. One thing to remember:

At this point, I don't have to go into detail as to how the dice mechanics affect the probability curve, you obviously know all that. What I realize is that for the rank 0 guy to have a chance at all (no matter how small) against the rank 12 guy in a contested check, the range of the randomizer has to be equal to or larger than the range of the variables being tested.

To maintain the "lucky hit" effect, this spread also has to cover the lower end person having the maximum possible negative situational modifiers, and the higher end having the maximum bonuses. It's not just skill ranks, it's skill ranks, whether or not they add to attributes (or natures) in any way, and situational modifiers that only affect one of the people in the conflict.

Otherwise you have a range where the lucky hit is there most of the time, but there is a threshold after which it becomes impossible. You send a hundred ninjas after Bruce Lee, but he puts on his "mystical ki sash +1" and suddenly the 1% chance each ninja has drops to 0% and Bruce fearlessly wades through them. That is, just as you can have automatic success thresholds, you should have automatic failure ones.

Making the lucky hit possible without fudging over the total modifier range (not just skill ranks) is going to be hard. And, depending on your level of realism, remember that while conflict may be several rounds, combat can be "bang! you're dead", so one lucky hit is all you need...

Practically speaking you can usually fudge this with a special case rule like "for a skill use with no voluntary negative modifiers (like called shots or movement), a roll of (insert best possible roll) is always a basic success, regardless of any other penalties or situational modifiers." This gives you the lucky shot effect, but doesn't let players say "since I need a lucky shot anyway, I'll do it while standing on my head with my eyes closed and aim for his left eyeball." Okay, that's munchkin-esqe again, but you see what I'm saying.

As a slight tangent, you might try to set up a mechanic that scales properly across the entire skill range. This is difficult to do in anything approaching an elegant fashion. What I'm saying is that a modifier that drops your chance to hit by 50% should drop a 100% chance to 50%, and a 50% chance to 25% (not 0%). That would be the ideal, but anything that approaches it is good. This eliminates the problems of "I have a 200% chance to hit, so I can take a -100% modifier and still automatically hit", while all those people who have merely a 100% chance to hit are totally screwed.

Greg Porter
BTRC guy

[Michael]

Greg

To maintain the "lucky hit" effect, this spread also has to cover the lower end person having the maximum possible negative situational modifiers, and the higher end having the maximum bonuses.

Good point, and easy for me to design for conflict, more difficult for combat.

I want characters to always be striving to gain advantage. It will make combat a bit more interesting and dynamic if opponents are always competing for "higher ground", rather than an I-attack-him-he-attacks-me scenario.

In that sense, there are -so- many environmental and strategic factors to deal with like concealment, higher ground, flanking, feints, etc. If I were to design with all that in mind, I would probably drive myself insane.

But your comments give me a good idea. If the number of environmental/strategic factors that a character could take advantage of were limited by a character's Mind Nature in some way, this may be one attempt at pulling in the reins, and therefore limiting the range of modifiers.

That is, just as you can have automatic success thresholds, you should have automatic failure ones.

Definitely, that's why I was intending to have double 1s be a potential automatic failure (possibly determined by a Willpower check or something like that).

Making the lucky hit possible without fudging over the total modifier range (not just skill ranks) is going to be hard. And, depending on your level of realism, remember that while conflict may be several rounds, combat can be "bang! you're dead", so one lucky hit is all you need...

With what I intend for a damage system, I don't see a "bang! you're dead" scenario being all that possible. Characters take wounds, and after several wounds they fall unconscious and start dying.

"for a skill use with no voluntary negative modifiers (like called shots or movement), a roll of (insert best possible roll) is always a basic success, regardless of any other penalties or situational modifiers."

Very good point, I didn't even think of that. I don't forsee having too many voluntary negative modifiers though. The types of voluntary actions that could produce the modifiers would have to be purchased as Techniques, though some will involve negative modifiers in their use. However, I will have to keep aware of your advice when I'm designing these elements.

What I'm saying is that a modifier that drops your chance to hit by 50% should drop a 100% chance to 50%, and a 50% chance to 25% (not 0%).

I agree with what you're saying, but that has to be somewhat difficult to design for. On the other hand, I would think that by using a randomizer with a bell curve probability distribution, that problem pretty much solves itself. For example, you have three tasks of different difficulties. One is easy, one is moderate, one is hard. Difficulty modifiers are going to have less of an statistical effect on easy tasks, which makes sense, as with an easy task, the difficulty modifiers are less of a distraction (i.e. I can tie my shoes in the dark). With a moderate task, difficulty modifers have more of an impact to the task at hand, as the task is challenging enough where distractions have more of an effect (i.e. I could try making scrambled eggs with peppers and onions and not burning anything, in the dark, but the dark would pose a significant problem). WIth a difficult task, your odds are small enough anyway that more distractions aren't going to be as much of a problem (i.e. if I were to attempt to suture a wound in the dark, I'd most likely fail, darkness or not).

I know it sounds like a "cheap and easy" solution, but is there a better way to handle the issue without bogging down the players or GM?

[btrc]

I know it sounds like a "cheap and easy" solution, but is there a better way to handle the issue without bogging down the players or GM?

The problem I've seen is that with linear modifiers in a bell-curve (i.e. XdN) system, small modifiers have no real effect at the high end, and a disproportionate effect at the low end. If I'm rolling 3d6 and trying to roll at or under my skill of 8, a +3 to my roll is absolutely devastating, while to a person with a skill of 18, they can ignore it. Instead of it affecting reach person in a proportionate fashion, the skill 18 guy (100% chance) takes a 5% penalty (100% down to 95%), while the skill 8 guy (25% chance) takes an 80% penalty (25% down to 5%).

In EABA, I tried to minimize this by using a multiple d6 system and "keep the best 3". This puts a cap on maximum rolls, and reduces the effect of extremely high levels of skill. So, if you're rolling 3d6 and trying to hit a 17, it's hard. But even if you have 6d6 and you only keep the "best 3", it's still hard to get that 17 (I think it is an 18% chance for a 17+ on "6d6 best 3"). If you simply kept all 6d6, you'd have well over a 50% chance of 17+. I've actually got a chart for "nd6 best 3" resolution at:

http://www.btrc.net/html/eaba/EABA%20dice.pdf

Like I said, it's not easy to implement an elegant "proportional modifier" mechanic, and you may not need it depending on your resolution method. But the potential pitfalls of disproportionate modifier effects are something that might sneak up on you. I believe ALBEDO addresses it by using multiple die types. If you normally roll 2d8 and you have a bonus, you might roll 2d10 instead, or if there is a penalty, you roll 2d6 or 2d4. So, even if you are god's gift to marksmanship and roll 2d12 normally, a three die type penalty drops you to 2d6. Your roll is still a bell curve, just one with a lower maximum value.

Not sure it is something you want to get bogged down in at the moment. Once you have a resolution system you're sort of happy with, then you test it to destruction and learn what you can from the mangled wreckage.

Greg Porter
BTRC guy

[Michael]

Not sure it is something you want to get bogged down in at the moment.

Actually, I think this is exactly where I'm at right now. I'm forseeing development going in this order:

1) Define variables.
2) Choose a conceptually compatable mechanic to utilize the variables.
3) Define the influence each variable has on the mechanic.

I believe (1) has already been taken care of, which puts me at step (2).

The problem I've seen is that with linear modifiers in a bell-curve (i.e. XdN) system, small modifiers have no real effect at the high end, and a disproportionate effect at the low end.

In a roll-under system, yes. In a roll-over system, it has the same effect on either end. That's one of the few reasons I'm leaning towards a roll-over.

If I'm rolling 3d6 and trying to roll at or under my skill of 8, a +3 to my roll is absolutely devastating, while to a person with a skill of 18, they can ignore it.

I see why this would happen for one major reason. It's a 3d6 mechanic. The more dice you roll, the steeper the curve and the stronger the central tendency. That's why I'm sticking with a 2dN mechanic. It creates a more subtle curve, where modifiers have a more significant effect around the mean, but not overwhelmingly so.

Also, with 1-N ranged variables in a roll-under system, implementing difficulty modifiers that hinder the high end without totally botching the low end can be extremely difficult or even impossible.

I tried to minimize this by using a multiple d6 system and "keep the best 3".

Silhouette does this and it has some problems. Basically, there's no point in improving a skill past the halfway point. It seems that the numbers work out better in your system though, as you're "keeping" more dice. In Silhouette only one dice was "kept", which makes it pretty easy to get a six on a 5d6 (0.598), and not that hard on a 3d6 (0.421). By keeping three in your system, it makes having more dice more useful. (I just want to clarify that I'm not criticizing your system)

I suppose I could do that with the 2d6 mechanic, Roll 2d6 + 1d6 per Nature point, and keep the best two. However, I do see some complications with the mechanic in terms of critical success/failure. Logically, it would make sense that all 1's would be a critical failure, but on a 5d6 (which would be "average" for this system), the chances of that would be 0.0001. Also, it would make critical successes much more common (0.192 on a 5d6).

If you normally roll 2d8 and you have a bonus, you might roll 2d10 instead, or if there is a penalty, you roll 2d6 or 2d4. So, even if you are god's gift to marksmanship and roll 2d12 normally, a three die type penalty drops you to 2d6.

Step-die mechanics kind of scare me. For a system like what I've got going so far for LRD, scaling the range of the Abilities for a 2d6 randomizer is a delicate enough process. Attempting to scale Abilities for a 2d4, 2d6, 2d8, 2d10, and 2d12 randomizer is probably impossible for all the other system elements I'm trying to include.

Side note: Do you have any opinions on limiting environmental factors using Nature? I do see this as being potentially unbalancing as it would have much more of an effect on combat than conflict, though I'm not entirely certain myself.

[btrc]

Side note: Do you have any opinions on limiting environmental factors using Nature? I do see this as being potentially unbalancing as it would have much more of an effect on combat than conflict, though I'm not entirely certain myself.

If by "environmental factors" you mean "things the character can do to give themselves an edge", I'm not sure. A limit based on Mind or other abilities makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. The good characters get even more potential to increase the modifier spread.

And there are all kinds of environmental modifiers that are unrelated to abilities. I don't need a special ability to fire a weapon from a moving horse. An ability would help, but it is still a hell of an environmental penalty. And if it is a moonlit night, or foggy, or whatever, you can rack up modifiers of far more than the normal skill spread.

Have you considered the merits of a threshold system like Shadowrun? NdX, but each dX is counted separately and compared to a target number. The number of successes gives how well the task was performed, and rolls of the maximum for a die type reroll and add.

Example: I have a target number of 5 and roll 4d6. Each 5 or 6 rolled is "a success". More than one success increases the quality. If I had a target number of 8, I would roll 4d6, then reroll and 6's and add them to the "6" result, thus allowing me to get a result of up to 12.

The only statistical drawback is the flat spot in the curve at X+1 (if I reroll a 6, I'm guaranteed a result of at least 7, so 6 and 7 are effectively the same number).

This gives people the ability to get extraordinarily lucky, and also has other benefits.

Greg Porter
BTRC guy

[Michael]

You know, I really wish I played Shadowrun back in the day. That's one system I feel like I missed out on by not playing. Is there an OGL for the Shadowrun mechanic? I would like to learn more about how that works.

Side note: Being that Natures have such a small range, I'm almost tempted to make them static. As in, the players can't improve them though play. What they are "born" with, is what they get, in other words. That approach might even support certain metaphysical elements of the setting...

A limit based on Mind or other abilities makes the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Yeah, I had an element in mind when I was thinking of that. I was thinking that characters who build big, strong, dumb, brutish types of fighters who can really deal damage would have less of a tactical advantage than the "witty" finesse fighters. In a sense, there would be a David and Goliath effect. But I can see how that might unbalance things.

Have you considered the merits of a threshold system like Shadowrun? NdX, but each dX is counted separately and compared to a target number.

It seems like it would involve a lot of math, but as soon as you mentioned that, a mechanic did pop in mind (assuming I read your suggestion correctly). This would involve keeping the same range for Natures (1-6) and changing the range of Abilities to (1-10). Players rolls Nd8 where N is the Ability rank. They have to roll under their Nature for success, and then add up the total that they rolled under.

Example:

Player A has a Firearms Ability of 6 and a Body Nature of 4. He rolls 6d8, and adds up all that he rolls under 4. So, he rolls a 6, 2, 1, 8, 4, and 1. The 6, 8, and 4 are discarded leaving the 2, 1, and 1. The 2 is 2 under, and both 1s are 3 under. Adding it together (2 + 3 + 3 ) nets the character an MoS of 8.

I do see problems with this mechanic though, which is the same for any dice pool mechanic I can think of. Critical successes become much more common, and critical failures are too rare to consider (or more common if it works like Storyteller's botch mechanic). With this particular mechanic, it can also be a little math heavy at higher skill levels. However, if I use a mechanic where each die can only provide a single success, I have the problem of not having a large enough MoS range to tweak with the various modifiers possible in combat.

And if it is a moonlit night, or foggy, or whatever, you can rack up modifiers of far more than the normal skill spread.

That is definitely a problem. I mean, a lot of environmental penalties may be lessened or eliminated with Techniques, but I can see it possible that situational penalties rack up to the point of negating any skill. However, I'm wondering if this is a bad thing. After all, put Bruce Lee in a pitch black room with a greasy floor that is shaking around because of an earthquake, and see how well he can perform the 24-form simplified Yang style. Know what I mean?

The range of skills is getting to me for another reason. From a statistical perspective, I think they're too small. Let's take the mechanic I described above: 2d6 + Nature + Ability.

More often than not, on a 2d6, you are going to roll between a 4 and a 10 (SD of 2d6 is 2.4). Now, Bruce Lee was built, and generally pretty healthy, except for that whole dying at 33 business. Overall, let's say he would have a 5 Body (on a 1-6 scale).

So, most of the time when he lays the smack down on some ninjas, he's doing so at a quality of 21-27, and only 44-57% of that is because of ability, the rest is a combination of nature, or just chance. This could be eliminated by not using Nature for the checks, increasing his ability contribution to 55-75%, but I definitely forsee a problem with that. There is a crossover with some abilities in that abilities which are predominantly physical are going to have mental uses, and abilities that are predominantly mental are going to have some physical uses. If someone is using a Socialize (Intimidate) ability (where Socialize is predominantly Mental) to "muscle" information out of a target, it requires that you actually have "muscle" (or at least a means to enforce it). Also, the difficulty of many physical abilities can be assessed with a check using the Mental Nature. Having the option to switch the Nature modifiers depending on the situation is necessary, I believe.

I could increase the skill range, but then I'd have to increase the randomizer range, but that will really only nerf Natures and increase chance. It wouldn't help out Abilities too much.

Of course, another way to look at it is that his Body Nature contributed to his high Ability (which is philosophically congruent with the system). In that case, his total ability actually contributes to 63-81% of his success, which isn't that bad at all.

Oi...

You know, don't get me wrong. I love math, and I love stats. It's a big reason why I'm in the line of work that I'm in. Still, sometimes abstract mathematics can suck a big, fat...

-Michael