frustrations with my resolution mechanic

[Michael]

First, sorry for the long post, but I have a lot to cover.

I've been working with a concept for a while now, and I'm having trouble to create task resolution mechanics that can do what I want them to do.

The Basics

In this game, PCs are essentially ordinary people who get swept up in extraordinary circumstances. Because of this, the mechanics need to be gritty and realistic, but at the same time, slightly heroic to give the PCs a fighting chance against various obstacles.

The System

For this system I'm having attributes and skills. I'm often asked if I need to have seperate attributes and skills, and the answer is yes. Everyone has a certain degree of intelligence, but not everyone can go into a forest and know which mushrooms are safe for eating, and which are not. Also, attributes are going to affect the skills. A person with lousy coordination is going to have a harder time hitting with a sword than someone who is extremely agile. I'd like the system to reflect this.

Attributes and skills are not the be-all-end-all for the system, but they are the core. There are various other elements that I'm intending to implement that will affect game play. For example, there is a seperate Willpower stat that is not an attribute or skill, but will be used in various situations. There are also Techniques, which have prerequisites based on skills or attributes and allow a character to use a skills for certain specific tasks (like disarms, library research, etc.) or would give bonuses to certain attribute tests (like a bonus to a climbing check, which is based on Strength, and is not a skill), as well as provide many other distinguishing traits. All other features I plan for the system are quite modular and can be modified to fit whatever resolution mechanic I end up with.

The Problem

I've tried designing using a roll-under, roll-over, Silhouette variant, D-D, and dice pool mechanics. So far, I haven't accomplished what I've set out to do. Just for example, let's say that attributes and skills both range from 1-10. Some elements I would like to accomplish are as follows:

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.

I've developed over a dozen conflict resolution mechanics for this system. Items (a) and (b) are very easy to design for, so there's no real problems there. Items (c), (d), and (e), are causing me the most problems, as none of the mechanics I've developed has satisfied all these elements.

Where I Am Now

Essentially, I'm at a dead end. I've been reading articles online for the past week about game design to see if I can find anything to get me over this hurdle. While I've found some good info online, I'm still not "there" yet. Technically, I don't have a working system, but what I have at this point is as follows:

Attributes range from 1-12, 6-7 ave. (13 with racial modifiers) and include Strength, Agility, Health, Intellect, Perception, and Bearing
Attribute modifiers range from 0-4, 2-3 ave. (5 with racial modifiers)...and I'm avoiding a 0-average range here
Skills range from 1-10, average 4-7 (or 14-15 with attribute modifiers)

For an uncontested task, resolution works by rolling 2d6 and attempting to roll under the attribute or skill + relevant attribute modifier, and aims for a MoS greater than the difficulty of the task. If a character rolls double 1s, that is considered a potential critical success and can add their current Willpower (likely ranging from 0-13, though being close to 7 on average) to their MoS if a successful Willpower check (2d6, roll under current Willpower) is made. This element makes "impossible" tests, possible. If a character rolls double 6s, that's a potential critical failure. The player then needs to make a Willpower check, to see if the character can avoid a fumble. If the roll otherwise would have been a success, a failed Willpower check makes it a regular failure. If the roll was a failure anyway, a failed Willpower check makes it a fumble.

The critical success element may become a Technique which needs to be "developed" (point-buy), depending on how the rest of the system works out.

If the character "ties" with the MoS necessary for the task (meaning effective MoS=0), then the character makes a check against their current Willpower. A failed check is a failure, and successful check is a success. This will essentially create an element of near misses and close calls.

For a contested task, both characters make the appropriate checks. The person with the greater MoS is the winner.

The reason this system doesn't work is for two reasons.

1) The mechanic doesn't satisfy part (c) from above. The average person has (basically) only a 50/50 shot at succeeding at an ability test. My original correction was to make difficulty modifiers range from -N to +N to give the average character a "boost" for easier tasks, but this ended up creating more problems.

2) The mechanic for an attribute vs. skill test just broken. One correction I had considered was to have a skill vs. attribute test be like an uncontested skill test where the character is required to attain a MoS greater than the targets attribute modifier. However, this ended up screwing over lower skilled characters more than I would have liked, as well as making things way too easy for higher skilled characters.

To What I'm Attached

Of course, I'm attached to parts (a) through (e) mentioned above.

I've grown rather attached to the not using a 0-average range for attribute modifiers for two reasons. I'm not fond of saying what is "average" in this setting, and as is, the system basically says that even a low attribute contributes to a skill test.

I've also grown attached to using dice as randomizers.

I'm not overly attached to the ranges I established for attributes and skills, though I feel that any less would make the differences between characters a little too blurry, and much more might be a little excessive. In the end, though, whatever works is important.

I'm also not overly attached to the 2d6 for the roll. I've actually been tempted to switch it to a 1d12. For one, the linear probability curve would mute the differences somewhat with contested checks, which would be a good thing. Also, it would make potential critical successes and failures a bit more common, which is not necessarily a bad thing. Of course, if the ranges for skills/attributes change, then I expect the randomizer would have to change to match.

In Conclusion

Help...please? :)

[Valamir]

Well, there are quite a few assumptions that I don't necessarily agree are necessary to achieve your goal of ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances...but I'm going to bite my tongue on those and try to help with what you've asked for.  If you want to hear the spiel on the rest, ask.

I will point out that even in a system like you're looking for I highly recommend scrapping b) from your list.  Not only is it completely unrealistic (there is a great deal of training involved in how to "notice" things properly) its also throwing a wrench in the whole works...I can hear the puzzled response now...yes, this seemingly innocuous requirement is largely responsible for your road block.  Happily it can be completely scrapped without any negative impact to your goals.

Why?  Because Attributes and Skills are always going to give you headaches as long as you have them trying to do the same thing.  Having such a thing as "natural" abilities which use only attributes rather than skills requires Attributes and Skills to effect the game in the same mechanical fashion and thus headache city.

There are numerous reasons why Attributes and Skills doing the same thing causes headaches.  You've probably encountered many of them over the course of your design attempts (even if you didn't recognize the source) so I'll save space by not including them here (plus there are numerous posts on that topic already you can search for).

The solution...if you're wedded to having both Attributes and Skills in the game as seperate entities...is to make sure they do completely different things mechanically.

Some examples ideas:

1) Attributes set the speed (e.g. initiative order) that actions occur in.  Skill determines success
2) Attributes set the number of actions you get in a "round".  Skill determines success (so your chance to pick a lock would be determined by your lock pick skill, but the number of attempts you could make before having to give up would be determined by your Dexterity).
3) Similiar to #2 but a different spin, Attributes set the number of dice you roll while Skills set the target number for success (each did is essentially an "attempt" all rolled up into a single roll)
4) Attributes rolls determine success while Skill Levels determine the maximum possible degree of accomplishment (i.e. roll your observation attribute to notice someone sneaking.  A low skill guy "hears something".  A mid skill guy "sees something in the shadows off to the left".  A high skill guy "sees two thugs in dark clothes carrying .45s moving up on the left side" A really high skill guy "recognizes one of them as Jake Smith, and notices the other is favoring his left leg"
5) Attributes have no mechanical effect in the game at all but serve merely to set how much it costs to buy each level of skill.  It costs alot of character design points to buy a skill linked to a low attribute.  It requires fewer to buy a skill linked to a high attribute.  After that, everything is skill.


I (or others) could probably come up with a few more ideas, but I bet you could think of a few yourself.  I've built probably 100 different variations on Skill + Attribute systems over the years and one thing I've learned pretty conclusively is trying to have 2 different scores operating at two different scales perform the same role in the game mechanics (i.e. both contribute to chance of success for a task roll) is just asking for trouble.

Hopefully that helps.

[dindenver]

Hi!
  Well, I guess you really need to stop and define what the "typical" test vs a 8 represents? Then either modify the required MOS (maybe even consider allowing negative MOS for simpler tasks) or the die roll to reflect other more or less difficult tasks.
  And for the record, I agree that you should have a skill for notice. Just because you can;t take a college class in noticing things, doesn;t mean it is not a skill...
  It sounds like you have a well thought out system, and this is just a hiccup, good luck man!

[Arpie]

The Problem

I've tried designing using a roll-under, roll-over, Silhouette variant, D-D, and dice pool mechanics. So far, I haven't accomplished what I've set out to do. Just for example, let's say that attributes and skills both range from 1-10. Some elements I would like to accomplish are as follows:

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.

I'd sure like to help, but there's a few questions I'd like to dig into first (once answered, it may turn out I'm no help at all!)

But first, my guess is that your provlem doesn't really lie with the task resolution system. If you're attached to skills and attributes (something the guys in my group find very hard to give up, beleive you me!) Then let it stand. Rolling above/below/Silhouette/etc. are good enough. Call the dice representatives of chaos and leave it at that.

(Personally, I vote for tallying scores - roll 2d6 + attribute + appropriate skill. If you avoid negative mods you'll get a decent feeling out of the die rolls and keep players feeling like they're on an upswing. The breaks/difficulty numbers/targets/CRs for 2d6+a+i are, lessee: 10/13/18 or 20/25/33 and 42+ ...uh... ish. I mostly use those numbers because they stick in peoples' heads.)

Okay. That's fine. Leave it like that. Assume 2d6+0+0 is the worst you can do. Don't screw with the armor penalties or anything like that. It's all about giving the players some confidence, which they need for the next part:

You need to a side benefit system> Something that encourages your view of normalcy in player interactions and task resolution. Unknown Armies does a great job with "Passions" in this vein, as do the standards mentioned here (Dogs in the Vinyard and PrimeTime Adventures.) In fact, most of the games developed or bandied around this sight have great motivating mechanics.

Some suggestions I've seen include:
-- player controlled or themed failures - players get to "opt out" of rolls that are too high or that they've failed to make under special circumstances (corresponding to certain abilities/flaws or specialization skills, etc.) The player describes the failure in any way that they see fit (perhaps reaping some side benefits if the player is munchkin or clever) so long as the task itself fails.

-- emotion-linked benefits - lists of things that the character Really Really Cares About or Feels Strongly About which, when invoked, give special benefits (extra dice, free successes, etc.)

-- rechargeable failures - players have a certain attribute which works really well (automatic successes, free crits on any successful roll, something like that) once, but every time you use it, it needs to be recharged by a touch of normalcy (whatever that is) or some humanizing failure or revelation by the player on behalf of the character.

-- Responsibilities and problems as wonder charges - players list Personal Problems  from their characters' everyday lives and can "spend" those problems for bonuses, etc. during the course of play.

There are, of course, other options, but these are my favorites (and have turned out easiest to handle, in the games in which I've used them or seen them used.)

[talysman]

Ralph already addressed design requirement (b), so let me address requirement (c), the "typical tasks succeed most of the time" business. Now, I agree that many games take a rather bizarre approch to rolling for typical tasks; failure posp up way too frrequently, which not only seems unrealistic but also anticlimactic. It's an affront to reason and art.

But here's the question: if you want average characters to succeed at typical tasks most of the time, why are you rolling, then? Sure, you need to have a chance for an opponent to succeed even when facing a bad-ass, but that would be handled by a contested roll; in the cases where you have one character rolling against skill, you're going to get the troubles your having. Futzing around with the dice mechanic or the modifiers isn't going to help. Designers spend far too much time on this, but I will say to you what I have said before: dice mechanics are the least important part of game design.

I see two methods of elimiating the problem of whiffing rolls on typical tasks. One is well-known here: use conflict resolution instead of task resolution. Don't roll to see if you succeed in opening the lock or baking the cake, roll to see whether you or your opponent gets your way.

Now, if you want something more Simmy, here's the other approach I've been leaning towards (which can actually be combined with the first approach, but it can solve your problem on its own, too): don't roll to see if you succeed, roll to see how well or how quickly you completed your task. If you think about it, in the real world. most people can complete tasks they are capable of. especially typical tasks. The real question is how much time will it take them to complete those tasks, and how well did they complete it. So, make your roll determine whether they finished quickly or slowly, and allow other characters to block their task by completing their own tasks first.

If you were to take Ralph's first suggestion about making attributes indicate speed and make a few modifications, you could come up with something like the following:

• HIgher attribute goes first;
• Instead of setting skill modifiers or target numbers, the difficulty of a task sets how many "hit points" a task has, with typical tasks getting 6 hit points;
• If your 2d6 roll is below or equal to your skill, you do "damage" to the task equal to your attribute, or no damage if the roll is above your skill;
• Special situations and equipment, magical bonuses, and unusual talents add damage;
• On a successful roll, if the roll is doubles, add the value of one die to damage;
• If you really want to keep fumbles as an option, make a failed doubles roll do Will damage equal to the value of one die; ehen the total Will damage is equal to the character's Will, something bad happens and Will damage resets to zero.

There can be tactical options that let you temporarily add two attributes, but at a temporary reduction to another attribute or a penalty to skill. Also, as a final note, this setup keeps attributes in the same range as you described, but you might want to set average skill as 7, so that a character with an average attribute will complete a typical task in one turn 50% of the time.

[talysman]

Oh, I better add an example, to make it clear:

Your character Artifex is a thief with Agility 6 and Lockpicking 7. The GM mentions there is a chest in the room with a typical quality lock (6 hit points of quality.)

On your first roll, you get 4+6 = 10. That's higher than your Lockpicking skill, so, it takes you longer than one turn to pick the lock. If there is a threat in the room and you have to finish pciking the lock quickly, this might be bad, but the point is, you didn't fail the task, you just failed to pick the lock in one turn.

(If your first roll had been double 5s, you would take five points of Will damage. If your Will was only 5, this might mean that in a tense moment, you accidentally bend your lockpicks out of shape.)

On your second turn, you roll 1+2 = 3: success! You do 6 points of damage to the lock, opening it on your second turn.

If the lock was more difficult, maybe a devilishly hard 20 hit point lock, you would still need to do 14 more points of lockpicking damage to the lock. If your third roll against this much harder lock was 3+3 = 6, this is a critical success; you do 6 points + 3 points for a total of 9 points of damage.

[Adam Dray]

Here's a resolution mechanism. Choose either an attribute or a skill that is relevant to the conflict. Or one of each if you want to allow that. Add the scores (not the attribute modifiers -- scrap those entirely) and that's your dice pool. Roll that many d6es. Count each 6 as a success.

The opposition -- and there's always opposition -- rolls its dice pool, too. Every 6 is a success. Most successes wins. Ties are just ties.

Typical task has an opposition of 1d6. Harder tasks can range up to 12d6 or more.


a) Automatic successes: Any task that the GM just feels is easy enough to warrant not rolling dice.  Automatic failures: Any roll with no 6's.

b) No natural ability skills: Fine, use attributes. A skill by any other name...

c) Whiff factor: Chance of 1 success on 1 die = 17%, 2=31%, 3=42%, 4=52%, 5=60%, 6=67%, 7=72%, 8=77%, 9=81%, 10=84%. Make sure an average character typically has 4+ dice to roll and they're guaranteed to roll at least one success.

d) Contested checks: Handled fine by this mechanism. Strength vs. Strength --> two dice pools. Barter vs. Barter --> two dice pools. Stealth vs. Perception --> two dice pools.

e) Underdog: Barter 1 vs. Barter 10. Barter 1 guy rolls 1d6 and gets a 6 (17% likely). Barter 10 guy rolls 10d6 and rolls no 6's (9% probable). Barter 1 guy beats Barter 10 guy 1.5% of the time. Possible, but very unlikely.

Does that solve everything for you?

[Michael]

Holy hell, this is longer than my initial post.

There's been a lot of good advice so far...more so than what I've found on the net in the past week or so. I'll attempt to respond to one person at a time.

Valamir

If you want to hear the spiel on the rest, ask.

Fire away. I've never been afraid of constructive criticism.

there is a great deal of training involved in how to "notice" things properly

I actually started thinking about this last night after I posted. More specifically, I had not initially intended to have any social skills in the game. I mean, everyone knows how to talk, right? I was going to make most social tests a simple Bearing check. But then I realized that was pretty retarded. In real life, all social skills are learned through socialization.

On the other hand, one of the main reasons I was scrapping a lot of these "fringe" skills (like notice, climb, barter, etc.) for a few reasons:

1) In many games I've played, I've noticed that most players ignore them anyway. I had thought that by designing a system where all these fringe skills become attribute tests, players could still use all these fringe skills without having to invest in them (more than they've invested in the corresponding attribute).

2) The climb skill actually got me started on this line of thinking. I have a friend who does rock climbing, and I never had. Some time ago, we decided to "race" up a wall. I totally kicked his ass, and pretty much consistently since. Why? Because even though he spends more time climbing walls than I do, I'm in better shape and generally more athletic. This got me thinking that a lot of skills I've seen in other systems really aren't learned abilities, but a reflection of natural abilities. Like if I was a character in D&D, I would have a 0 for a climb skill because I don't climb things, I don't know anything about the equipment, etc., but I do have the ability to pull my body weight up a wall using handholds and foot holds.

3) A lot of this fringe skills most often (though not always) rely on one attribute, whereas the rest of my skill set is somewhat more general and can be used with more than one attribute, depending on the situation. Being so niche, I can kind of understand why these fringe skills get ignored by other players.

Why?  Because Attributes and Skills are always going to give you headaches as long as you have them trying to do the same thing.

Like, seriously. I think I've already come to the conclusion that it's impossible. My regular job is as a Sociology instructor, which involves a fair bit of statistics. I've tried so many ways to manipulate the probability curvers for attributes and skill tests to do what I want, and for what I'm trying to do, the math is impossible. It's like trying to give a uni-modal bell curve two medians. It's not happening.

Some examples ideas...

I've actually used many of those so far. For example, Agility determines the number of actions in a combat round a character can take, and will also affect initiative. I used (3) for my Silhouette variant, and really liked how it worked, though my Silhouette variant had too many other problems. However, getting them to work for both attributes and skill tests has been impossible. The only one that wouldn't work is (5) as like I said earlier, many skills can be used with multiple attributes, depending on the situation. I have been toying with the idea of linking every skill to a primary attribute (as in, the attribute most often used), though that would probably only create more problems. For example, the stealth skill pretty much equally relies on two attributes. Sneaking around is agility, but hiding and tailing is perception.

Dindenver

Well, I guess you really need to stop and define what the "typical" test vs a 8 represents?

Well, there's an extremely long answer to that where I could go off into a discourse on every possible skill use and situation where the skill is used and further define what is "typical" for every skill and situation.

Or...

I can say that in terms of the laws of life, the universe, and everything (props to HHGTHG), this setting follows pretty much the same rules as our own world, barring influence from the setting's supernatural elements.

Arpie

There are a lot of good suggestions there. Many of them I've already intended to cover through either the use of Willpower, Techniques, or some combination of the two.

The problem I believe I'm having is establishing a really strong "core" for task resolution. Once that is taken care of, I can flush it out even further with the wide assortment of Techniques I'm planning. I'm thinking that Techniques might not be the best term, because it would also include various character-based elements.

Talysman

Now, I agree that many games take a rather bizarre approch to rolling for typical tasks; failure posp up way too frrequently, which not only seems unrealistic but also anticlimactic. It's an affront to reason and art.

My thoughts exactly.

But here's the question: if you want average characters to succeed at typical tasks most of the time, why are you rolling, then?

Well, there are many tasks that the characters will never need to roll for. When a character is rolling for a task, it's not just because there's a possibility of failure, but also a consequence. So the players never have to roll to tie their shoes. Why? Because even if they screw up, they can just do it again, no big deal. On the other hand. You could have the most pro-style stealthy character in the most optimal of conditions trip over his own two feet. And when that happens, there's consequences.

I don't want to just throw a bunch of obstacles at the characters that they just have to overcome. Failure is a part of life, and a part of this game. So when a PC does fail, I want to PC to have options of what to do next. And when the pro-style stealth ninja trips over his own to feet, he better have a plan B.

I see two methods of elimiating the problem of whiffing rolls on typical tasks. One is well-known here: use conflict resolution instead of task resolution. Don't roll to see if you succeed in opening the lock or baking the cake, roll to see whether you or your opponent gets your way.

What if there is no opponent? Like with baking a cake. It's not likely that I'd have some rival on the other side of the kitchen pelting me with eggs trying to mess me up. Sometimes it's just the character and the task at hand. You know, man vs. self.

I do intend to have an element of this in adventure design though (as there's almost always conflict in adventure), in that how the characters overcome the conflict will reflect in the rewards. Though, there's really nothing revolutionary there. I'm sure most designers use that approach to some extent.

If there is a threat in the room and you have to finish pciking the lock quickly, this might be bad, but the point is, you didn't fail the task, you just failed to pick the lock in one turn.

Oh, I'm definitely using an element like this. Some skills will have extended tests. Characters need to attain a certain MoS, and avoid a certain MoF in order to succeed at a task. I won't be using it all the time (as it would really bog down play), but used in certain situations, it can add tension to the game.

Adam Dray

Long story short, this system doesn't work so well with part (d), as with a skill vs. attribute test the person with the average attribute is still favored.

Where I am now

I appreciate all the help so far. I feel like I'm much closer to the solution.

Ok, so there's no attribute vs. skill tests. In fact, there's probably no attribute tests at all. There has to be a skill for everything. Like Dindenver said, just because you can't take a class in it...

But this creates a new concern. Before, by having the attribute tests that work like skill tests, it was possible to cover everything a player might think to do. If a character wants to arm wrestle a guy in the bar. There's no arm wrestling skill, but it's ok because the character can just do a strength test. Problem 1 Now I have to do that with skills, which makes things a bit more difficult to be all inclusive.

Also, I still want to keep skills general enough to cover the etc. that can happen (like, "I want to use my Melee (Swords) skill to evaluate the quality of the blade"). For the climb skill, no problem. It's now Athletics and can cover climbing, jumping, swimming, arm wrestling, and running along a tightrope while getting pelted with eggs. Of course there's a problem there. Problem 2 You have one character with max strength and no Athletics skill arm wrestling a guy with average strength and maxed athletics skill. Now, it's arm wrestling, not rugby, yet with this system, the average joe is most likely to win.

And, for the notice skill, I can make it work. Obviously is not just for noticing rogues skulking in the bushes, but anything odd or out of place in one's environment. No problems.

So I have the following skill set:

Melee (Long Blades)
Melee (Short Blades)
Melee (Impact Weapons)
Melee (Staff Weapons)
Melee (Simple)
Ranged (Bows)
Ranged (Crossbows)
Ranged (Thrown)
Barter
Socialize (includes Bluffing and Intimidation)
Diplomacy
Craft (type) - various marketable professional skills
Lore (type) - various academic knowledges
Healing
Performance (type) - acting, singing, dancing, instruments, etc.
Sleight-of-Hand (will include pickpocketing)
Ride
Sail
Survival (Region)
Stealth
Notice
Athletics

Back to problem 1, I can already think of a few situations that are not covered. Drinking games, Trap Finding/Disarming, Lockpicking, and Disguise. Can anyone think of any others?

Side note: I should probably mention my damage system. Basically, I have wound levels. Uninjured, Wounded, Injured, Help-I've-fallen-and-I-can't-get-up, etc. When a character takes damage, s/he has to make a toughness check to see if s/he takes a wound from the damage (otherwise it becomes a superficial injury and is just shrugged off). The more damaging the blow, the more difficult the check is. If the test suceeds, then no damage is taken, otherwise, the character takes a wound. There's a few more elements to it, but this is the important nitty-gritty. Now, the toughness check before was just a health check, but obviously that's not going to work because I'm not doing attribute tests, I need another method. What I was thinking of doing was putting attributes and skills on the same scale. So let's say they are both 1-12. Now, the Toughness test is a Health + Strength mod, check. Putting it on the same scale as a regular skill check makes using the skill check mechanic a viable method. Am I wrong?

Also, I know this damage system is more heroic than realistic. But this is what I mean by aiming for stradling the line between a hero and an average Joe.

So Drinking Games (and any poisoning or environmental hazards, for that matter), I figure I can cover with this Toughness check assuming that I didn't just screw up again and it works. Though I should mention, there's also a Fatigue element, and this kind of damage would do Fatigue damage before physical damage.

Lockpicking, Traps, and Disguise I mention only because a lot of games have these skills and it may seem odd that I don't with a fantasy/medieval setting. I have plans for these. I was considering making Disguise a Technique that a character can develop and use the Perform (acting) skill for skill tests. Lockpicking was also going to be a Technique, though I can't think of a skill to tie it to other than Craft (Locksmithing), though it's really not necessary to know how to make a lock in order to pick one, so I think I need a better answer for this. As for traps, this isn't D&D. The world isn't freckled with ancient ruins and dungeons waiting for ambitious adventurers to stumble into their pit traps and the like. In fact, characters in this world will never find themselves in a traditional dungeon-crawl per se.

So I think I can see the finish line. Any ideas on these last two problems so I can cross it?

Thanks again to everyone for their help so far. It's like monoliths have been reduced to just hurdles...and midget hurdles at that. :)

[dindenver]

Hi!
  That was a rather glib answer to a serious question.
  What I mean is what is your definition of "typical"
  Aparently it is something that the average person with average training can only do about half of the time. Riding for instance, would that be galloping long distances? Show jumping? Certainly that would not be a test for trotting into town. So, what is the Mod for the trotting? Is it negative MOS required, die mod or no roll?
  Defining what is typical puts the needs of your system in perspective.

[Valamir]

Some examples ideas...

I've actually used many of those so far. For example, Agility determines the number of actions in a combat round a character can take, and will also affect initiative. I used (3) for my Silhouette variant, and really liked how it worked, though my Silhouette variant had too many other problems. However, getting them to work for both attributes and skill tests has been impossible. The only one that wouldn't work is (5) as like I said earlier, many skills can be used with multiple attributes, depending on the situation. I have been toying with the idea of linking every skill to a primary attribute (as in, the attribute most often used), though that would probably only create more problems. For example, the stealth skill pretty much equally relies on two attributes. Sneaking around is agility, but hiding and tailing is perception.

When you say "getting them to work for both attributes and skill tests"...I'm not sure you understand me fully. 

My strong recommendation is to scrap the idea of doing both.  Having both attributes and skills in your game can work.  Having the ability to make tests that use both (either combining into a single test or testing them seperately) is fraught with obstacles and headaches.

Abilities do one thing...Skills do something else.  That is the most effective way of getting a system to work.

Meaning...if you decide to test vs. skill then you never ever ever test vs. Abilities...ever.  Abilities should do something completely unrelated to the odds of success on the test roll.  They could indicate the number of times you can try the test roll.  They could determine how quickly you make a test roll.  They could determine how expensive buying levels of skill is.  They could determine any number of things that contribute to the overall ability of one character kicking another character's butt at the given task.  But they have to come at it from a different angle.

Or, if you choose to test vs. abilities then reverse the above.

But if you try to design a system where you can test both or where both contribute to a test, you're going to have problems.  Aside from the fact that there are a ton of systems that try to do that already (and the last thing the gaming world needs is another one) they are all fraught with any of a variety of problems (often directly related to the ingame currency and reward mechanics).

[Adam Dray]

IagainstI said:

Ok, so there's no attribute vs. skill tests. In fact, there's probably no attribute tests at all. There has to be a skill for everything. Like Dindenver said, just because you can't take a class in it...

If you're abandoning these types of tests, how does my recommended mechanic fail to meet your requirements?

Even if you keep attribute vs. skill tests, don't you want to favor a guy with an average attribute over a guy with an average skill? Inherent ability trumps skill? If so, it works. If not, change the scale of your attributes to match that of your skills.

You might consider a trait "box" system. Say you have Strength 7 and Dwarven Strength 2 (a racial modifer of sorts) and Axes 5. You can use these traits any time you want, but each d6 you roll (temporarily) reduces each trait you use by 1. It's as if you have Strength 7d6, Dwarven Strength 2d6, and Axes 5d6. If you fight and decide to use 3d6 of your Strength plus all 2d6 of your Dwarven Strength plus 1d6 of your Axes, then you get to roll 3+2+1 = 6d6 for that task. You can bring in more dice the next round if you want. When you use up all of the dice in a trait, it's done until it resets, usually at the end of the session or via some reward mechanism.

This way, you don't have to worry about

• whether a trait is a skill or an attribute or a modifier (or even a personality mechanic trait like "Evil 2d6" or "Destined to Lead 5d6")
• if a trait is "too narrow" or "too broad" -- if it's broad, then it will get used often, but there are only so many points in it to use
• if a particular trait applies exactly to the task at hand -- the player thinks so and is willing to spend the trait to do it

No set of attributes was ever going to serve as the safety net for resolving every possible task. In fact, the more specific you make your attributes, the more likely certain problems would fall through the net. If you had, say, five attributes (Physical, Mental, Emotional, Social, Spiritual) then you might cover most situations. Once you get more specific, you have to wonder if you'll know which attribute governs figuring out how quickly a character can recover from a traumatic scare, for example.

What if there is no opponent? Like with baking a cake. It's not likely that I'd have some rival on the other side of the kitchen pelting me with eggs trying to mess me up. Sometimes it's just the character and the task at hand. You know, man vs. self.

I'm baking a cake. I use Knowledge 2d6 + Baking 4d6. The cake is a routine but not trivial task so it gets 4d6. Opposed rolls.

The "opposed task vs. unopposed task" dichotomy is an illusion.


By the way, in case no one else has said it, welcome to the Forge!  We tend to use our real names around here.  What should we call you?

[Michael]

Dindenver

That was a rather glib answer to a serious question.

I apologize, I didn't intend to be glib.

What is "typical" really depends on the skill. But I would like a character to be able to accomplish a task of low difficulty more than half the time. Also, "typical" (and the necessity of the check) is going to depend on the situation the skill is being performed and the consequences for failure.

For example, the ride check you mentioned. Just riding around doesn't require a check. In most cases, getting an animal to gallop wouldn't require a check, but that would depend on the situation. If the character is just cruising around on a horse, there would be no check. If there were a check, a character who fails the first time can just keep trying until s/he succeeds, no big deal. However, if the character is being chased down by some enemies, a ride check might be required as each failure is a gain for the enemies.

There are a lot of low level difficulty checks that would not be rolled, and would just be automatic successes. These would be checks when failure has no significant consequences. Obviously, it would be absurd to have players roll ride checks even when just cruising around just to see if they fumble and are thrown from their horse. Such a thing would not be fun for players, and not be very dramatic.

Valamir

When you say "getting them to work for both attributes and skill tests"...I'm not sure you understand me fully. 

My strong recommendation is to scrap the idea of doing both.

Oh, I understood you the first time. All I was saying was that I did try those ideas when I was trying to get the ability vs. skill element to work. I've already scrapped the ability vs. skill element, but I'm still going to use those ideas. It wasn't like I was shooting down your ideas because they didn't work with my broken element, I was just acknowledging your ideas and saying that they all would work, except (5), of course. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Also, didn't you mention some spiel about some assumptions I was making. I would like to hear it, it can only help.

Meaning...if you decide to test vs. skill then you never ever ever test vs. Abilities...ever.  Abilities should do something completely unrelated to the odds of success on the test roll.

Exactly. Though I feel that if I can't use attributes to affect the ease of developing a skill (like my example above with stealth, agility, and perception), having them provide a modifier depending on how the skill is used seems almost necessary. Well, maybe not necessary, but logical and realistic. Otherwise, my "arm wrestling" problem I described is only further worsened.

At this point, the "arm wrestling" dilemma is my biggest concern. Furthermore, I'm starting to get concerned with the symbiotic relationship that may occur between skills. For example, if a character focuses on weapon skills, but not other physical skills, it would seem kind of odd. I can't imagine a character that can rock out with swords and axes and such, but can't climb a wall or jump across a 10' gap. However, as is, the system apparently allows this.

I did consider skill groups at one point, I'll have to toy with this idea more. However, I don't think it would necessarily solve this problem.

Adam Dray

If you're abandoning these types of tests, how does my recommended mechanic fail to meet your requirements?

I'm just abandoning dice pools because it's easier to monitor the probabilities using other mechanics, therefore making it easier for me to insure that things are happening as often as I want them to happen. Dice pools involve multiple probability curves, up the the maximum number of dice possible in a pool. I may know statistics, but it's social statistics. R-squares, path analysis, ANOVA, no problem. Complex linear algebra and overlapping probability curves, definitely a problem.

No set of attributes was ever going to serve as the safety net for resolving every possible task.

Quite likely, and I bet the same goes for skills. But this creates the problem of having a system that can't handle player actions. Let's say, for example, that my system had no stealth skill. It would be quite an oversight, but it's just an example. The players are playing a game, and one decides he wants his character to sneak past some guards. What is he supposed to do?

The main reason (and probably the only reason), that I wanted to implement attribute tests before was so that I had a "catch-all" for any unexpected player actions. Now that I've scrapped that, I really have to make sure my bases are covered.

By the way, in case no one else has said it, welcome to the Forge!  We tend to use our real names around here.  What should we call you?

Thanks. I wasn't aware of the using real names bit. Mine is Michael. I should put a sig together.

[Valamir]

Dindenver

Oh, I understood you the first time. All I was saying was that I did try those ideas when I was trying to get the ability vs. skill element to work. I've already scrapped the ability vs. skill element, but I'm still going to use those ideas.

Ahh, I obviously didn't follow your response correctly.

Exactly. Though I feel that if I can't use attributes to affect the ease of developing a skill (like my example above with stealth, agility, and perception), having them provide a modifier depending on how the skill is used seems almost necessary. Well, maybe not necessary, but logical and realistic. Otherwise, my "arm wrestling" problem I described is only further worsened. At this point, the "arm wrestling" dilemma is my biggest concern.

Ahh...the classic armwrestling example...I'll make two points to this...the first is related to that spiel you've asked about.

1) Have you ever had a game experience where an armwrestling match was crucial to your enjoyment of the game...I mean really?  Not just that there was a funny interlude where the big barbarian challenged the dwarf over too much ale for a couple of coins while waiting in the tavern for the NPC show up...but an honest to god...Holy Cow...that was one of the most satisfying roleplaying experiences I've ever had moment...No?  Then why in the world would you even care...let alone care enough to make such situations your biggest concern?  Yes, I know armwrestling is just one example of the type of rolls you're talking about.  But seriously, step back a minute and think really hard about exactly why those types of rolls are even valuable.  Chances are you're exerting alot of effort for something that almost never makes a difference anyway.

2) Mechanically any of the above options I gave would work just fine even for this situation (and btw #5 can absolutely be made to work with calling on different attributes on the fly in game).  One example, I have a Strength of 5 you have a Strength of 3.  You have superior Armwrestling skill.  We each roll vs. Skill only...no modifiers from Attributes at all to the roll.  But you have to beat me 5 times and I only have to beat you 3. 

Furthermore, I'm starting to get concerned with the symbiotic relationship that may occur between skills. For example, if a character focuses on weapon skills, but not other physical skills, it would seem kind of odd. I can't imagine a character that can rock out with swords and axes and such, but can't climb a wall or jump across a 10' gap. However, as is, the system apparently allows this.

That's an artifact of thinking in terms of skills as discrete narrow entities.  Most gamers start off thinking this is a good way to do skills because it allows for things like "I'm good with a sword, but oh no, the GM took my sword away and all I have is this axe and I'm not so good with that"  They're right in thinking that this can be a potentially dramatic situation worth portraying in a game...but doing it by splitting sword and axe skill is really awkward in game (and especially for character creation) leads to all kinds of goofy things (like GURPS characters who are Doctors but don't know basic arithmatic) and ultimately isn't very realistic anyway.

Better is to think in terms of cultural and professional background.  Consider yourself.  Whatever it is you do for a living I guarentee you could list out 20-30 "skills" that are part of your job that you do pretty well.  If you were to make yourself as a character in an RPG...would you really want to list all 20-30 things on your character sheet...and then throw in dozens more for hobbys, background, things you learned at grandpa's knee, etc...?  I wouldn't.  But I bet if I asked you "hey Michael, what do you do for a living" you could tell me in 1 sentence or less...and from that sentence, we could get a pretty good idea of many of the skills you possess.

For instance take your arm wrestling skill.  You have a character with "Man-at-arms level 4" and "Garrisoned at Wycliff Keep" Level 3 written on the character sheet.  You want to do an armwrestling contest.  Is it reasonable for a soldier on garrison duty to armwrestle people...I'd wager that's a pretty common pass time...so you don't have an armwrestling skill in the game?  So what...just assume that knowledge comes with the territory of being a Man-at-arms and go with it.  Later on when the character is overseas and you want him to appraise the value of a barrell of ale he's being bribed with the player notes that Wycliff Keep was renowned for its fine ale and so any soldier stationed there probably has a good sense of the beverage...fine...instead of saying "you don't have the Appraise Ale skill you simply roll with "Garrisoned at Wycliff Keep" and move on.

Do you think someone trained with swords and axes should be able to climb a wall?  Then simply let them use their "Fighting" skill to make the roll and be done with it. 

If that's too loosey goosey for you...simply have 3 default skills that every character has...one for physical stuff, one for mental stuff, and one for social stuff.  Call em whatever generic phrase sounds good (like "Athletics").  Then there's always a skill to default to if nothing else applies.  Think being Athletic would help in a fight?  Fine then let the character make an Athletic test with success modifiying their Fighting test.  How many Tests can a character link together in this way...how about a number equal to their Agility...  So you mean I can charge in on my horse (riding check) out of the sun so my opponent is blinded (perception or tactics check), leap from the saddle (athletics check) and then attack my opponent (fighting check)...yup...if you have an Agility of 4 you can.  And every check I succeed on makes my fighting check better so I can basically customize my own special maneuvers without needing lists of feats and techniques and stuff...yup...works like a charm too.

That's just one option...but point being there are MANY valid workable alternatives to the long skill list. 

You asked about my Spiel...you can probably see the edges of it coming through above, but I'll get a bit more specific.  If you haven't done so already I recommend reading a bunch of the articles and stickies here (Mike's Standard Rants are especially useful for your purposes) and then start a new thread to discuss further.

In this game, PCs are essentially ordinary people who get swept up in extraordinary circumstances.

This is what you've said your game is about...fantastic.  Knowing what your game is about is the first step of a good design.  Problem is...absolutely nothing I've seen in the rest of the thread has anything to do with this.  How does your game portray ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances better than GURPS...or Hero...of Fuzion...or any of a dozen other systems out there that look alot like this (or heck systems that don't look alot like this like Fudge)?  If it doesn't...then why are you designing it?  Are you sure that's really what you're game is about?  Note...that's not an insult...just food for thought, and a standard opening for the Spiel.

Because of this, the mechanics need to be gritty and realistic, but at the same time, slightly heroic to give the PCs a fighting chance against various obstacles.

Do they really?  I can think of many games that do ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances REALLY WELL that don't even bother to blink in the direction of gritty and realistic.  Why do you think the two are tied together?  What do you even mean by "gritty and realistic" (two more vague game design terms are hard to find).

Part two of the Spiel usually moves into asking about what other games you've played alot of...and then into the really hard questions like "what do the PLAYERS do while sitting around the table".  and "what do you envision a typical game session to look like"   

[Michael]

Have you ever had a game experience where an armwrestling match was crucial to your enjoyment of the game...I mean really?

Never at all. I would debate the issue, but:

One example, I have a Strength of 5 you have a Strength of 3.  You have superior Armwrestling skill.  We each roll vs. Skill only...no modifiers from Attributes at all to the roll.  But you have to beat me 5 times and I only have to beat you 3. 

solves the problem and counters any argument I could make.

"I'm good with a sword, but oh no, the GM took my sword away and all I have is this axe and I'm not so good with that"

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.

Do you think someone trained with swords and axes should be able to climb a wall?  Then simply let them use their "Fighting" skill to make the roll and be done with it.

If that's too loosey goosey for you...

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.

If you were to make yourself as a character in an RPG...would you really want to list all 20-30 things on your character sheet...and then throw in dozens more for hobbys, background, things you learned at grandpa's knee, etc...?

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.

How does your game portray ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances better than GURPS...?

Well, right now it doesn't. It's pretty broken and unfinished at that. :)

I don't know enough about HERO or Fuzion to critique it, but I do know some other systems to know why they don't work for me.

But before I come off like I'm railing GURPS, I want to say that I like GURPS. It was the first game that I ever played. It's what got me into gaming, and I have nothing but respect for the system.

And as for railing these other systems. For the most part, they are fine for the settings they are used for, just not for what I'm working towards. I don't think I'm "better" than any of these designers, or anything of the sort. Also, I tend to use d20 for comparison a lot, not because I think that's what all games should be judged by, but because I've had the most experience with that system.

GURPS mechanic has too strong of a central tendency (as would occur with any 3dX mechanic) which provide dimishing returns above the mean, and makes success rather improbable below the mean. GURPS also ties every skill to a single stat, which isn't very realistic in many cases. I also don't exactly agree with many of the ties.

With Silhouette's system, there's not much of a point to get a skill higher than 3. Also, I think the mechanic is a little backwards. Attributes should add dice, while skill levels should add to the roll. Adding dice pretty much only makes it easier to get a higher MoS, while adding to the roll expands the range of the MoS. Also, Silhouette ties every skill to a single attribute (though with the way the system works, it would be easy to work around that.

D20? I don't know where to begin. In short, when you get right down to it, D20 (especially D&D) is great for dungeon crawls and hack-and-slash, but not so great for other types of adventures. The reward system is pretty much built around killing stuff, and while it is possible for a GM to houserule and tweak the system to work around it, it's a burden that no GM should have to deal with.

I liked Storyteller at first because it was pretty fast and loose. Unlike D&D where there's loads of modifiers for everything, ST has a much simpler approach, and that part of it works pretty well. What I wasn't a fan of was the skill system, which while being so general that two completely unrelated tasks could be accomplished by the same skill check, it still wasn't really all inclusive or mutually exclusive.

CODA is ok at it's core (2d6 + skill + attribute modifier), but doesn't really work well with it's other elements (particularly difficulty modifiers, the damage system, etc.). My system originally started out as a super-tweaked version of CODA, and had evolved/degraded from there.

I can't remember the name of this other system, but I believe the game was called Dreamworks Mechanus or something like that. Basically, it used this step-die mechanic that was pretty complex. Overall it was the kind of system where the players would have to spend quite a lot of time memorizing rules or looking up tables.

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.

Note...that's not an insult...

I'm not taking any of this as hostility. Having my ideas and intentions challenged is a good thing and will only make my game stronger in the end.

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. You can have a gritty game that's quite unrealistic, or you can have a realistic game that's not gritty at all. But I'm aiming for both in my game. I realize though that gritty and realistic are actually more elements of setting and adventure design, not system design. You're right, everyone has their own definition of gritty and realistic.

If I had to apply those descriptors to system...

Gritty, to me, means that failure is always a possibility, and has consequences, but isn't the be-all-end-all in conflict resolution. Gritty doesn't really help define skills, attributes, and the like, but more what you do with them. Also, gritty has a certain feel that when the players are rolling the dice, it means something more than cold, hard math. I mean, if I wanted to make it easy on myself, as a designer, I would just make a d% system. Then I could choose the exact % for everything. However, for the players, a d12 system has a different psychological effect, IMO. A MoS of 1 on a d12 provides a little more tension than a MoS of 8 on a d%, even though they mean the same thing. Then again, that's just my take on the psychology of it.

Realistic, to me, means that the variables used for conflict resolution are what one would logically expect based on the laws of the universe in the game. Storyteller is a good example of an unrealistic system to me. A character who pumps their Science skill up is equivalent to someone with a Ph.D. in Nuclear Physics, Organic Chemistry, Marine Biology, Materials Science, Genetics, Ecology, Geology, and so forth. I know plenty of people with Ph.D.s, but it's usually in just one or two of those disciplines.

Is it necessary to have a system where you differentiate between Marine Biology and Nuclear Physics? Well, no, nothing's really necessary. But if one is simulating a world where the universe and its inhabitants are very similar to our own it would make sense that the Nuclear Physicist can't identify the strange sea creature that's washed ashore.

I know this is going to make me sound like a flip-flopper, but I do understand why Storyteller lumps together all sciences into one skill. For a setting like Vampire or Werewolf, characters are not going to spend a whole lot of time hunched over beakers and bunsen burners in labs so it's not exactly a crucial element of the system. Even for my own contemporary setting (which is the next stage in my project), science is not going to be a crucial element. At the same time, I don't see myself being as broad as Storyteller. I would probably work it like weapon categories and make Science a category where a character woould have to pick a discipline and can develop the Technique that lets him use a portion of the skill for other sciences.

"what do the PLAYERS do while sitting around the table". "what do you envision a typical game session to look like" 

I'm not entirely sure what you're going for with these questions, but I'll assumed that they are related and answer the best I can. I think the answer to this depends more on the setting (or at least adventure) than the system. I don't want the players to be bogged down with game mechanics outside of combat. I want to design the system in a way so that a character that wants to climb a wall doesn't have to look up modifiers for the wall's smoothness, slope, etc. That's one of the reasons I was working with a 1d12 roll-under and a non-zero-average difficulty system. With that range for a randomizer, a reasonable range for difficulties would probably be 1-5. Enough to differentiate between climbing a sheer mountain cliff, or climbing over a 10ft. cobblestone wall. Combat is going to be a little more complicated. Whereas other conflict is going to require more creativity, combat is going to require more analysis and assessment. I still don't want characters to have to spend most of combat pouring over tables and charts, but the fact that a mace is more effective than a sword against chain mail is good knowledge to have.

For any task, most of the burden of knowing the modifiers will be the GMs. For the players, it would be good for them to know that it's better to be stealthy at night, or that weapons are more accurate at shorter ranges, but they don't need to know the numbers. They just need to roll, report their MoS, and the GM deals with it accordingly.

Also going with such a small range randomizer is for the GMs benefit as well. If I went with a d% roll-under system, it would be a nightmare for the players and the GM. The players would have to deal with double digit subtraction for every skill check, not to mention the cumbersome math the GM would have to deal with for multiple difficulty modifiers. 3 - 2 + 1 is a hell of a lot easier to deal with than 47 + 23 - 12.

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?

[Warren]

Hello,

Before you start work on your Task Resolution system, can I urge you to consider having only opposed rolls in the game. I know you have already addressed this, but please let me put my point of view to you.

You have noted:

Well, there are many tasks that the characters will never need to roll for. When a character is rolling for a task, it's not just because there's a possibility of failure, but also a consequence. So the players never have to roll to tie their shoes. Why? Because even if they screw up, they can just do it again, no big deal. On the other hand. You could have the most pro-style stealthy character in the most optimal of conditions trip over his own two feet. And when that happens, there's consequences.

If you want consequences to failed actions - which is great, by the way, and I think you should focus on this aspect more - then surely there is an agency which will enact those consequences upon the character. In the stealth example, it might be a guard, in combat it's your opponent, and so on. Even enviromental factors could be considered to have 'agency' in this case; those tall cliffs above some jagged rocks would could cause consequences if your character failed to climb it.

I see two methods of elimiating the problem of whiffing rolls on typical tasks. One is well-known here: use conflict resolution instead of task resolution. Don't roll to see if you succeed in opening the lock or baking the cake, roll to see whether you or your opponent gets your way.

What if there is no opponent? Like with baking a cake. It's not likely that I'd have some rival on the other side of the kitchen pelting me with eggs trying to mess me up. Sometimes it's just the character and the task at hand. You know, man vs. self.

I never think that there would be a rival pelting eggs, but, if there are to be meaningful consequences to character actions, then why roll for "man vs. self" tasks? If it's "I'm trying to bake a cake filled with poison that will get fed to the King", then you've got an agent of opposition (the King, or his tasters) and  they certainly have the agency to enact consequences upon your character if your Cooking roll fails.

If it's just "cooking trail food for camp tonight" - why roll? If it's "cooking something for camp tonight as we lost all our equipment and supplies", the you've got an agent of opposition (the virulent bacteria in the rotting meat you scavenged or the muddy utensils you've fashioned, etc.) and that agent can deliever consequences (cramps, damage, or worse) if it wins.

In recent years, I have come to believe that all unopposed rolls can be dropped from a game because they are simply uninmportant in play. If the roll were important, then you should be able to find some agency to oppose it, so I have grown to be very wary of any game with an unopposed resolution system.

Warren