Ygg mechanics

[Christoffer Lernö]

Conspiracy-X sounds very like the type of skill resolution I played around with. Although it's more consistent than mine.

(Mine was a 5-6 steps of skill with a roll modifying the actual level of perfomance up and down. Although chances rolling more than two levels up and down were small, they existed nonetheless which made for a gap between soliloquy and game theory mode)

L5R does seem a little abstract pretty closely tied to the world in a way which seems to make it a little difficult to transplant into other systems. Or am I reading it wrong here?

[Christoffer Lernö]

We've been trying it out on new gamers and blind novice gamers. They seem to like it and understand Swift very easily, as they're back again next week. Also Swift works well with munchkin players as well.

Reading through the Swift rules I still remain unconvinced that they would for a good basis for my system. It still seems to rely a little too much on meta-gaming principles. That is only my opinion though.
And as I have stated before, I don't put this as a general principle but rather as one specific for the (sub-)genre.

I'd like to think that you could eventually take my game and use the rules to make a boardgame out of them, or on the other side of the spectrum use the same to play a game where conflict is non-existent. And neither would be bad.

I don't quite see a boardgame like Advanced Heroquest based on the Swift rules. But maybe I'm wrong?

Although there is benefits to be reaped from more abstract style of rules it should be noted that such games are initially hard to learn.

Only if they're written badly or are designed in opposition to people's natural way of thinking and acting. See Tao Te Ching for more on this last principle.

Oh, gee we could really take this off topic by arguing Dao De Jing :) But I'll resist the temptation for now. :)

[Andrew Martin]

I don't quite see a boardgame like Advanced Heroquest based on the Swift rules. But maybe I'm wrong?

Actually, my S RPG combat system rules were developed from a skirmish table top battle rule set, plus input from several friends. That's because we though that table top boardgames from Games Workshop, weren't interesting enough. I'll be taking the principles of detailed combat in S and putting them into Accord, which is itself a developement of Zero System. Both will be a tabletop wargame and a boardgame set of rules for purely combat, and for roleplaying as well, as well as GM-less roleplaying, design in play mechanics and so on.
Not boasting, just stating facts.

[contracycle]

Heres another cool example of how Con-X works - combat manouvers accumulate difficulty.  You could have a block-punch-kick manouver with an accumulated difficulty of 1+1+2=4, which may even be an automatic success if you are highly skilled.  Or, double tap with a  pistol at short range, diff 2+2=4, which again could even be automatic.

Yes, L5R's mechanics are embedded in the specific world but this is a Good Thing.  The world determines a lot of your verbal description content - being able to call upon the world for resolution has its uses.  I think a primary failing in many sim games is making mechanics divorced from the world - which makes the game more Physics-like and undercuts the immersion.

[Christoffer Lernö]

Sounds like a fun combat system (Con-X's that is), but not entirely appropriate for my game.

As soon as you actually start counting maneuvres and stuff you're making it harder for complete newbies to learn. Not that it can't be great, but it requires some thinking and some idea of "how you want to attack" to utilize fully.

For my game, I'm actually thinking that you could pick it up and play it the way you could do with ol' D&D and similar old generation games. I remember D&D basic set had "10 years and up" printed on it.
I feel that few games today could print the same thing on their boxes. I'm not saying that more advanced games are a bad thing, I'm just pointing out they require a whole lot more from the players than the older rpgs usually did.

So aside from the magic and making cool scenes and seamless transitions, I want it simple enough to be played by kids who're trying out their first game.

Ideally I'd have rules looking something like this from the player's point of view:

"Roll 5+ on a D6 to jump small cliffs. 3+ to build a fire. 6+ to identify monsters"

I'm thinking about the simple and clear cut rolls here. Simple and no need to learn anything about it.

Swift has some admittedly some of this but I feel the rules are a little too advanced for the game I have in mind.

It would be neat to have some kind of mechanism for the GM so he/she could put in the stat in some kind of table and be able to crank out 1D6 chances for the players to succeed. I'm not quite sure it's gonna be flexible enough though.

Finally, about L5R's tight rule integration, I agree it's not a BAD THING (tm) to do so, in fact it's desirable. Incidentally, even if the system IS divorced from the world like you put it, that has fundamental effects on the game anyway.
I think in general people often fail to understand how fundamentally game mechanics can affect the game world. Just look at the AD&D and BRP magic systems. Memorization and such explanations aside, they are still fundamentally different in feel.

Anyway, just for the record I do am designing my system with my world in mind.

[Le Joueur]

Now I've seen this done (recapping some stuff from the lost mail here) very well. Enough for me to not stop and think about what mode we were playing in (soliloquy or game theory).

I'm convinced this happens when the practice of role-playing gaming has been internalized by the players.  Players reach a point of sophistication where everyone present expects, is sensitive to, and participates in 'seamless transition.'

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Are you suggesting that once enough experience has been accumulated, players will have internalized the rules and that in turn leads to 'seamless transition'?

Yes, in both 'old fashioned' systems where the rules for transition are implicit and new systems, like I'm proposing, where transition rules are explicit.  In the 'old days,' when there was a transition (amongst veteran players in a familiar group) everyone 'just knew' to take out their dice and character sheets.  That's what happens when the practice of transition is internalized, it becomes invisible.

I think some of your misapprehension stems from the idea that metagame rules (in this case rules that affect the application of other rules) will never get internalized.  I find that exactly the opposite of what happens.  Provided that such metagame rules are 'smooth' enough that their use isn't a constant distraction (and since you favor simple, fluid systems, that shouldn't be a problem), that they don't 'get in the way' of play, they will quickly become internalized.  (The main reason for making them explicit is that everyone 'has a bad day' once in awhile and can then fall back on the explicit use instead of the usual 'casual' or internalized usage.)

This is why I went out of my way to write this unwritten rule.  You seem exceptionally sensitive to the need for it, yet you keep missing this opportunity.  Do you think it needs not be written?

It does feel a little... weird, but it seems that you are right. I can't really figure out were to start though.

That's easy enough.  Think about how you do it now.  What is your 'best practices' for 'seamless transition' when it works?  Using what works, the 'unwritten rule,' is always a grand starting point.

I think another problem you might not realize you're having is that no matter how 'game theory' your combat gets, it still functions to some degree in soliloquy mode.  (In order to be totally 'game theory,' it'd have to be something like, "Roll your glort!"  "I got a five, move your fniggle down two.  Now I gizorgenplatz.")  I have never seen a combat system that wasn't in some way meant as an emulation of something that happens in soliloquy mode, usually dripping with soliloquy terminology.  (One of the few exceptions is Hit Points, a truly abstract idea.)

When we conceived of the transition between General play and Specific play in Scattershot, we realized a need to address those times when something that was happening in 'pure soliloquy play' needed die resolution.  We differentiated between those two because sometimes dice just need to 'stick their head in and say hi.'  Another thing we realized was that this was not always a result of combat.  Lockpicking is a classic example; in most circumstances, you aren't worrying about whose turn is next after the lock is picked, play immediately goes back to 'pure soliloquy' or General play.  (We suggest keeping it in Specific play out of deference to the likelihood that dicing will occur again soon.)

Scattershot also differentiates between Specific play and Mechanical play because of a sensitivity to the need for impartiality, not just for the sake of the 'unwritten rules' we're discussing here.  The most notable thing about the timing of this transition is how it doesn't match the halcyon 'roll for initiative' that heralded this transition 'in the old days.'  As far as I have been able to glean through various interviews over the years, initiative rolls function primarily to collapse all the initial buildup to combat into on die roll that awards 'first hit' advantage (even though in more recent systems, 'first hit' isn't much of an advantage) to the 'winner.'

In Scattershot, largely for the reasons you site with the 'knee to the groin' example, we decided to not forgo all the 'juicy role-playing' that could precede actually coming to blows.  Those tense scenes of circling and feinting, the taunting, the 'diving for cover,' these are all collapsed by the 'initiative roll.'  We tossed initiative rolls in favor of a mechanic expressing who has the advantage in combat.  One thing we did find in early playtest was that, thus empowered, players would actively initiate Mechanical play, timing it so that, according to 'soliloquy-based' details, they could seize advantage.  At first this seemed kinda weird, but when we looked at it we realized that this is much like how it happens in the real world.  When the desperado first steps into the saloon is when he initiates Mechanical play, not when guns are drawn.  This is because whoever is playing the desperado will be 'on guard' twitching an 'itchy trigger finger' with a 'quickdraw' waiting for the first person who steps outta line.  (Clearly Mechanical play, if not 'come to blows' combat, to us.)

The player could call Mechanical play intentionally and then announce the 'knee to the groin,' resolving that action just the same as Specific play, except now in the terms of Mechanical play and turn-sequencing.  Except for the 'click' of the switch, the transition is quite 'seamless.'

Furthermore, with explicit 'seamless transition' rules as a part of your overall design, you can easily see what needs to be a part of both soliloquy rules and game theory rules to support it.  Leaving it implicit means you always have to guess whether the 'transition' will be 'seamless' or not with people who you've never met.

That sounds good. What I'm afraid of is that something like that implies a very abstract system. Or at least a system with a lot of mechanics not directly related to actual in game events, but kind of a sub-system to facilitate a certain type of play.

Now you're really having terminology problems here.  What is combat (game theory play), but abstracted soliloquy play?  Sure having a metagame rule that makes explicit the transition is abstract, but so is combat.  Honestly, for as complicated as General play, Specific play, and Mechanical play sound, the terminology almost never comes up in play.  (Well, the 'groin-kicker' would probably hold up a finger to get everyone's attention and say, "Combat:..."  Since play would probably already be in Specific play, there isn't that awkward 'where is everyone' phase as combat 'settles in.')

Totally new gamers, or people used to old style systems is very likely to initially be put off by the abstractions.

And here I'm a little retro. In a way I really, really appreciate many of the really old RPGs because of their very well defined and clear systems. Even though they had multitudes of flaws the mechanics were clear and not abstract.

Although there are benefits to be reaped from more abstract style of rules it should be noted that such games are initially hard to learn.

Whoa!  This is really all over the map in terms of terminology.  Those "old style systems" were "very well defined and clear" precisely because they were abstract.  I mean one minute turns?  'To hit' rolls?  Hit points?  What could be more abstract?  Real people don't look at a situation going, "Well, I have about a 65% chance of succeeding so I'll go for it."  In fact, this is what lead us to create the 'take your chances' versus 'take your time' mechanics in Scattershot.  If you have the time, you don't even consider your chances, you always succeed.

Frankly, if your 'learners' are going to take to the combat system, what we use in Scattershot for 'seamless transition' is an almost invisible stretch.  Most of the time (with 'old style gamers') we get a lot of "I never thought of it that way," and "I guess that would be Solo play."  When they hear about how to handle initiative 'desperado style,' we tend to get an "Oh cool!"  I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

As I discussed above, by making 'seamless transition' rules explicit, you could actually make a game that requires no 'tweaking.'  Ease of use is always a good selling point.  And needing to tweak is not as easy as not needing to.

Having a tight, integrated game is, in my opinion, a great way to make a game that is more likely to get internalized.  While games that 'take tweaking well' (being somewhat 'open-source' compatible - FUDGE made this a design strength), they also wind up being 'high maintenance' in the end (or so I have seen).  Having a 'tightly integrated' system that uses explicit 'seamless transition' rules seems like the best of both worlds.  The more easily internalized a game system is, the more 'seamless' the 'transitions' would become.

I don't know if I can say that the tightly integrated SR rules made them easy to internalize. If SR had had a simple basic mechanic to deal with all kind of situations, it wouldn't have been a problem. But SR is rule-patch after rule-patch.

[Snip "anti-SR rant."]

In general I actually feel that tight integration is a dangerous thing because it almost certainly guarantees a lot of sacrifices have been made to maintain that integration.

You're making the mistake where I say, "a tightly integrated game is a great way to make something easily internalized" and you think I'm saying, "all tightly integrated games are easily internalize;" anything can be done badly.  Besides, my definition of a 'tightly integrated game' is "a simple basic mechanic to deal with all kind of situations."  That's what Scattershot's MIB system is explicitly.

Worse, you seem to be 'shooting yourself in the foot' when you say, "a lot of sacrifices have been made" is a "dangerous thing."  This practically shouts that any abstraction, especially as you describe for your combat rules, is bad.

I feel that very clear and simple rules, joined together loosely by 'common sense decisions' by the GM is the way to go.

In D&D (not AD&D) and BRP both represent that type of system (loosely integrated one).

If "common sense decisions" were that intuitive, we wouldn't be having this discussion.  It's the 'looseness' of the gamemaster's "common sense decisions" that flies in the face of a player who is in "game-winning mode."  Again, that's why I'm suggesting explicit 'seamless transition' rules.  Then there's no 'looseness' when everyone is in "game-winning mode."

'Jarring transition' most often happens when play shifts into a "focus point" and not everyone is on the 'same page.'  Where I disagree with your approach is how you seem intent on keeping 'seamless transition' as an unwritten rule.

There's also the problem of when the GM tries to bridge holes in the game mechanic during a game theory scene using soliloquy. In some games, it is easier because such things (what I call on the fly tweaks) aren't likely to yield "fair game" breaking stuff.

In other games it's more problematic.

Another reason for rules that 'keep your chocolate out of my peanut butter.'  An integrated combat mechanic ("a simple basic mechanic to deal with all kind of situations") will work better if players in "game-winning mode" know that the gamemaster won't be 'bridging holes' because the explicit 'seamless transition' rules require that he does not during combat.

Now this is a big difficulty because hitting the Cyclops would yield an enormous advantage. Because RM is "conflict XP"-based there's a strong "fair game" conflict here. If the GM allows the hit easily, then the players unfairly is undeservedly handed the win. On the other hand if the player is forced to roll a normal contest, the GM is making unreasonable concessions for game theory. Either way it's a loss.

But all this is, is an example of how Rolemaster isn't "a simple basic mechanic to deal with all kinds of situations," not a failure of 'seamless transition.'

Anyway, I'll try to think about it some more.

I can't think of better advice.  Really, I'm not trying to be as harsh as I'm sounding.  Herein I am trying to help you separate your thinking about explicit 'seamless transition' rules and how they work with, but are apart from, "a simple basic mechanic to deal with all kinds of situations."  I really want you to do all the thinking yourself.

[list=1][*]Yes. Explicit rules are desirable, but only if they can be made very concrete and not to rely on a separate mechanism which has no real life basis.

[*]I don't really know how to go about it.

[*]I'll do some more thinking ;)[/list:o]

[list=1][*]How about this for a real world basis: that instant when you 'give in' to the fight-or-flight response and commit to action equals your 'seamless transition' point.
[*]If it's an unwritten rule, I think you do know, you just never noticed.
[*]Excellent; couldn't ask for more![/list:o]

I'd like to think that you could eventually take my game and use the rules to make a boardgame out of them, or on the other side of the spectrum use the same to play a game where conflict is non-existent. And neither would be bad.

The funny thing is, Scattershot's Mechanical play material never really came together until I began writing it as a collectible card game!  (We still intend on vending such as a modular replacement for using Scattershot in melee combat situations.)

Fang Langford

[Andrew Martin]

So aside from the magic and making cool scenes and seamless transitions, I want it simple enough to be played by kids who're trying out their first game.

Then you really should check out Zac's
Shadows - Harlekin-Maus April Game
on these very forums. Works for kids for their first game. And I feel that it's sophisticated enough for adults to play as well.

[Christoffer Lernö]

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Are you suggesting that once enough experience has been accumulated, players will have internalized the rules and that in turn leads to 'seamless transition'?

Yes, in both 'old fashioned' systems where the rules for transition are implicit and new systems, like I'm proposing, where transition rules are explicit.  In the 'old days,' when there was a transition (amongst veteran players in a familiar group) everyone 'just knew' to take out their dice and character sheets.  That's what happens when the practice of transition is internalized, it becomes invisible.

I have never experienced seamless transition in some games no matter how much I played them whereas in others it worked immediately, so I can't really agree with what you're saying. In general, it's more likely to happen once people have more experience, but I find that the particular game system weighs in much heavier.

I think some of your misapprehension stems from the idea that metagame rules (in this case rules that affect the application of other rules) will never get internalized.

Let's make it clear what we mean by meta-game rules here. I'm think about rules in general which does not relate to an immediate in-game effect, but only affects situations only indirectly, and it's direct effect on any given situation cannot be satisfactorily determined from in-game results.

But maybe I'm simply biased against them by habit.

This is why I went out of my way to write this unwritten rule.  You seem exceptionally sensitive to the need for it, yet you keep missing this opportunity.  Do you think it needs not be written?

It does feel a little... weird, but it seems that you are right. I can't really figure out were to start though.

That's easy enough.  Think about how you do it now.  What is your 'best practices' for 'seamless transition' when it works?  Using what works, the 'unwritten rule,' is always a grand starting point.

I took this part over to the thread on Ygg combat mechanics.

You give some detail on how Shattershot handles it and it looks good. Let's use Shattershot's names and descriptions of game modes, because they ought to coincide with mine.

As far as I have been able to glean through various interviews over the years, initiative rolls function primarily to collapse all the initial buildup to combat into on die roll that awards 'first hit' advantage (even though in more recent systems, 'first hit' isn't much of an advantage) to the 'winner.'

I have to mention that I don't view the initiative in Ygg as collapsing "those tense scenes of circling and feinting, the taunting, the 'diving for cover'". Instead it is determining who will have the first chance to determine who is the first to have the chance to determine if they had an opening and used it to successfully hit.

It's a little different. It doesn't mean one person was first, it mean you test if one person had a chance to hit before you test for the secnond person.

Just for the record.

We tossed initiative rolls in favor of a mechanic expressing who has the advantage in combat.  One thing we did find in early playtest was that, thus empowered, players would actively initiate Mechanical play, timing it so that, according to 'soliloquy-based' details, they could seize advantage.

Yes this is quite realistic, and I think I mention I want this effect in the other thread as well? I'm thinking of it as a "lead in" to combat. My first idea was to consider the first attack (the first punch landed or whatever) as a prelude to the general combat which followed.
After the prelude, people enter general combat which is more abstract. Anyway, you should be able to seize the advantage in a similar way.

Totally new gamers, or people used to old style systems is very likely to initially be put off by the abstractions.

And here I'm a little retro. In a way I really, really appreciate many of the really old RPGs because of their very well defined and clear systems. Even though they had multitudes of flaws the mechanics were clear and not abstract.

Although there are benefits to be reaped from more abstract style of rules it should be noted that such games are initially hard to learn.

Whoa!  This is really all over the map in terms of terminology.  Those "old style systems" were "very well defined and clear" precisely because they were abstract.  I mean one minute turns?  'To hit' rolls?  Hit points?  What could be more abstract?  Real people don't look at a situation going, "Well, I have about a 65% chance of succeeding so I'll go for it."

What I mean with the mechanics being clear is that the ACTUAL dice rolled and how modifiers were added were quite straightforward. Compare to SR where difficulty numbers and successes come together in a very difficult-to-evaluate way.

So although they sucked in many ways, their mechanic was fairly simple and straightforward. And then I mean what die you rolled and how you decided how much damage you dealt.

Of course they were filled with abstract constructs, but I'm talking about the game mechanic in itself.

Worse, you seem to be 'shooting yourself in the foot' when you say, "a lot of sacrifices have been made" is a "dangerous thing."  This practically shouts that any abstraction, especially as you describe for your combat rules, is bad.

I'm thinking of sacrificing playability and reasonable results to keep a "clever mechanic" (which then actually really isn't all that clever)

As for the rest, I think I already dealt with much of it in the other thread. If I haven't then don't be shy to tell me so :)

[Le Joueur]

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Are you suggesting that once enough experience has been accumulated, players will have internalized the rules and that in turn leads to 'seamless transition'?

Yes, in both 'old fashioned' systems where the rules for transition are implicit and new systems, like I'm proposing, where transition rules are explicit.  In the 'old days,' when there was a transition (amongst veteran players in a familiar group) everyone 'just knew' to take out their dice and character sheets.  That's what happens when the practice of transition is internalized, it becomes invisible.

I have never experienced seamless transition in some games no matter how much I played them whereas in others it worked immediately, so I can't really agree with what you're saying. In general, it's more likely to happen once people have more experience, but I find that the particular game system weighs in much heavier.

You know, this attitude you have of lumping all bad examples in with good ones is purely argumentative.  Drop it.  It was clear the point I was making was that 'old fashioned' systems have no 'seamless transition' rules, and yet, (in some) it happens.  (It doesn't matter whether it happens in every possible example, all that matters is that you have experienced it.)  The point I was emphasizing was that without explicit transition rules, this happens only by accident, not by design.

You have got to address whether you consider the implicit 'seamless transition' rules in those 'old fashioned' systems (where it did work) was a function of their design concretely or if it simply grew out of how you played.  My argument is founded on the idea that you cannot guarantee 'seamless transition' without words to back it up.

You seem very interested in making it happen, but consistently avoid and refuse to discuss how.  Honestly?  If you can't bring yourself to discuss 'seamless transition' directly and whether or not rules can do it or could be created for it and instead resort to these 'not in every game' responses, I'm going to have to drop this discussion.  Right now, it isn't going anywhere.

I think some of your misapprehension stems from the idea that meta-game rules (in this case rules that affect the application of other rules) will never get internalized.

Let's make it clear what we mean by meta-game rules here. I'm think about rules in general which does not relate to an immediate in-game effect, but only affects situations only indirectly, and it's direct effect on any given situation cannot be satisfactorily determined from in-game results.

But maybe I'm simply biased against them by habit.

No, you just need to have the scales removed from your eyes.  You are so comfortable with some instances of meta-game rules that, internalized, they are invisible to you; take for example character generation!

Your tired example of putting '70% into offense, and 30% into defense' is so totally meta-game, I can't see how you can have any consistent bias about meta-game rules as a generalization.  You want to talk about meta-game mechanical bias?  Tell me what in Scattershot's differentiation between General, Specific, and Mechanical play is so counter-intuitive that it's 'indirect affect on play' is so distracting as to be antithetical (or at least compared to the '70%/30%' thing, a meta-game application which I find distracting).

As far as I have been able to glean through various interviews over the years, initiative rolls function primarily to collapse all the initial buildup to combat into on die roll that awards 'first hit' advantage (even though in more recent systems, 'first hit' isn't much of an advantage) to the 'winner.'

I have to mention that I don't view the initiative in Ygg as collapsing "those tense scenes of circling and feinting, the taunting, the 'diving for cover'". Instead it is determining who will have the first chance to determine who is the first to have the chance to determine if they had an opening and used it to successfully hit.

It's a little different. It doesn't mean one person was first, it mean you test if one person had a chance to hit before you test for the second person.

Just for the record.

Just for the record; 1) that is erasing all the little soliloquy details that make combat more than a mechanical exercise (id est; collapsing these details into a die roll instead of letting the players create them) and 2) it doesn't get any more meta-game than that!

Abstracting the whole "who will have the first chance" into a single initiative die roll is exactly the same as 'collapsing all the initial build up.'  The whole thing about "determining if they had an opening" is precisely the soliloquy you're utterly annihilating with an initiative die roll.

Worse, 'testing if one person had a chance to hit' is not a rule involving 'direct actions,' it's as meta-game as they get.  To create a non-meta-game rule here, have the player perform an action, like 'circle left and feint' and roll to see if their opponent goes for it.  That's not an initiative roll, that's a skill roll.  (If successful, the character can roll for an actual strike, possibly with a bonus for how much their opponent 'went for it.')

This is what I mean, have actions like guard, fend, and feint; they're not actual hits but they give combat that 'soliloquy feeling' and they don't use anything as meta-game as initiative rolls.  In Scattershot (I really need to put up an example of combat), using these kinds of actions one could gain the advantage by forcing their opponent to retreat into a corner, up the stairs, or any such; there are simply no initiative rolls.

We tossed initiative rolls in favor of a mechanic expressing who has the advantage in combat.  One thing we did find in early playtest was that, thus empowered, players would actively initiate Mechanical play, timing it so that, according to 'soliloquy-based' details, they could seize advantage.

Yes, this is quite realistic, and I think I mention I want this effect in the other thread as well? I'm thinking of it as a 'lead in' to combat. My first idea was to consider the first attack (the first punch landed or whatever) as a prelude to the general combat which followed.  After the prelude, people enter general combat which is more abstract. Anyway, you should be able to seize the advantage in a similar way.

Then why even bother with something as villainously meta-game as initiative rolls?  Find a way to abstract your 'lead in' rules and use that in place of the tired hack of initiative rolls.  Truly, I see initiative rolls used in more bad 'old fashioned' games than good, regardless how good and 'old fashioned' they be in your experience.

Besides, what about all the stuff that leads up to "the first punch landed?"  Where does that soliloquy go?  In most games, you say, "I wanna punch dat guy," and the gamemaster says, "roll for initiative."  This is how an older system 'skips' all the detail (and soliloquy) between when that burning desire to plant a facer on "dat guy" settles in and when the blow actually lands (because he might see it coming, you might telegraph your punch, et cetera, et cetera, all in one roll).  If that's what your initiative rolls are it doesn't get any more meta-game than that.

Totally new gamers, or people used to old style systems, are very likely to initially be put off by the abstractions.

And here I'm a little retro. In a way I really, really appreciate many of the really old RPGs because of their very well defined and clear systems. Even though they had multitudes of flaws the mechanics were clear and not abstract.

Although there are benefits to be reaped from more abstract style of rules it should be noted that such games are initially hard to learn.

Whoa!  This is really all over the map in terms of terminology.  Those "old style systems" were "very well defined and clear" precisely because they were abstract.  I mean one minute turns?  'To hit' rolls?  Hit points?  What could be more abstract?  Real people don't look at a situation going, "Well, I have about a 65% chance of succeeding so I'll go for it."

What I mean with the mechanics being clear is that the ACTUAL dice rolled and how modifiers were added were quite straightforward. Compare to SR where difficulty numbers and successes come together in a very difficult-to-evaluate way.

So although they sucked in many ways, their mechanic was fairly simple and straightforward. And then I mean what die you rolled and how you decided how much damage you dealt.

Of course they were filled with abstract constructs, but I'm talking about the game mechanic in itself.

Why do you keep bringing up Shadowrun?  If you don’t like it, it should be the last thing you want influencing your design, good or bad.  Bury it, let it rest in peace; make your own game in the total absence of its design.  (Even bad games have good ideas hidden in them, if you categorically denounce an entire game, you never know if there was baby in with that dirty bathwater.)

Now let me take a deep breath; what the heck does this have to do with abstraction!  Those "straightforward" "dice rolled and...modifiers" systems are extremely abstract, for no other reason than how "straightforward" they were.  Fewer dice, fewer modifiers, simpler rules equals abstraction!  ('Cause it certainly don't equal improved modeling of all the tiny details that make up reality!)

Okay.

That's over.

What I see looking back over this thread (other than difficulty addressing your goals directly) is a problem with two terms.  The first is meta-game; the second is abstraction.

Let's get on the same page here.  How about for meta-game, we call any rule that does not represent direct resolution of an action attempted by a character, a meta-game rule?  Character creation?  Meta-game.  Initiative?  Meta-game.  Wound effects?  Meta-game.  Okay?

I realize I am asking you to create rules that are the demon meta-game when I suggest that you 'out' the 'seamless transition' process that you are so clearly bent on.  Heck in Scattershot we have a meta-game mechanic that has, on every single occasion (with experienced gamers), caused a 'that won’t work' reaction.  What is it?  'Mechanical play proceeds around the table counterclockwise, no exceptions.'  No reordering based on character speed, no initiative bonuses; even the Flash (tm DC Comics) can be caught as flat-footed as the slowest of characters.  And you know what?  Not more than three turns into it and every complaint has evaporated.  In fact, once it gets going, most players don't even remember it.  Not at all like meta-game rules like 'go in the sequence of character speed plus modifiers,' which always results in 'whose turn is it?' sooner or later.

Now, about abstraction, I'm not at all sure what your problem is.  All rules regarding combat are mere abstractions on the real act.  To understand abstraction perhaps I can use an old saying; 'a picture is worth a thousand words.'  Words are abstractions of what we want to communicate.  A picture contains tons more detail than only a few words can describe.  (It should be obvious that 'pictures don't do you justice,' meaning even pictures abstract reality.)

Now you see soliloquy as 'more detailed,' right?  Yet soliloquy is not as detailed as pictures (which aren't as detailed as reality).  Now you want 'seamless transition' to combat rules, which are clearly less detailed than soliloquy.  The problem you seem to be having with the 'seamless transition' is the loss of detail at the instant of transition.  This is all because combat rules are even more abstract than soliloquy (which is more abstract than pictures, et cetera; you get the idea).

All you've posted about your mechanics focuses on how these abstractions interact with each other.  That is inherently a meta-game concern (how rules interact with other rules has nothing to do with resolving 'real' actions).  You are extremely sensitive to the transition point between soliloquy and combat, yet all your work focuses on a realm you repeatedly say is your anathema, meta-game.  No matter how much you tweak, change, or redesign your combat, it is still an abstraction over soliloquy.

If you want to 'fix' the problem with how to 'seamlessly transition' from soliloquy to combat, you must focus your attention on the 'event horizon' between the two.  Once you figure out how to pull enough of the relevant detail through this 'event horizon,' I can assure you that the details of the combat system will practically write themselves.  (I know this is a bit of a broad over generalization because you will want to keep in mind the general function of the abstraction which is combat when choosing what detail should 'come through,' but really, in a 'seamless transition' discussion, isn't the 'transition' all that matters?)

Please don't patronize me by pulling my post apart and finding individual counter-examples that, by being exceptions, if anything, prove my point. Just answer one simple question (and quote no other part):

Why can't you write rules that translate the detail of soliloquy into the abstraction of combat?[/list:u]Fang Langford