Resolution Curve

[Adam Graham]

Greetings,
     I'm looking for some thoughts on my resolution system.  Mainly for as to whether or not it is to random.  I have a system that I have been working on for about a year now and have begun play testing regularly.  An issue that has not yet been problematic in testing so far I feel might become so.  90% of the dice rolls made in the game are made as a percentile roll (1-100) which uses skill levels (1-30) and two attributes (1-10 each) as modifiers to the roll.  This makes the highest standard bonus possible at 50 with the most difficult standard required roll being  125.  The average required rolls will fall between 50 to 100.  Does this leave to much to the luck of the dice for the most difficult of a skill attempts.  What is the normal curve most games use?  I like things to be challenging at all times and I don't think the expert attempting expert skills should be flawless at them but is leaving 75% of their success to do so to chance  too much?  By the way, an action that would require these 125 difficulty rolls are akin to phenomenal actions such as, scaling a sheer cliff without tools, creating masterpiece goods (which add bonuses to weapons rolls and such),  impersonating someone to a close friend.
     I am  familiar with the D20 system which ultimately grants a bonus equal too and greater than the dice possibility, something my system seems to be the opposite of, which is fine as I always thought the D20 system made things to easy, especially at mid to high levels.  Though I am also familiar with both White Wolfs older and current versions I'm not enough of a mathematical  to determine how their system favors dice over skill, other than more skill means more dice so better odds.
     I realize I'm being vague in what my system actually is but this is due to time at the moment.

Thanx in advance for any input.

[Eero Tuovinen]

Hi Adam, and welcome to the Forge!

It seems to me that you're looking at the problem from some inverted perspective. What is "too much" luck or "too little" luck depends entirely on what you're resolving and why, not on any imaginary golden mean ratio of dicing sweet points.

Consider this dicing mechanic I've been fiddling with on and off: players roll d20 dice for their characters. A result of 1, 2 or 3 is a success, anything else is an abject failure. So most of the time you're going to fail. However, buying rerolls is cheap, you just have to go in a little deeper each time, risk a bit more to get it. So the player can keep on rolling and risking more for a long while, hoping to roll that success he's looking for. Failure is the default state, in other words.

Would you say that the above die mechanic has lots of luck involved? I would think so, because it's totally up to luck whether you get that success on your first roll or not at all. However, my game doesn't care about that, because it's totally OK for a character to fail in that game, and fail horribly, too. The game itself is about minority rebels working against the will of the majority, in the vein of V for Vendetta. If a character pushes it too much and ends up caught by the thought police, though luck for him. So the key to making the dicing work is all in the context: what you're resolving and why, and what results are acceptable. The morone dice mechanic I depict above works to my advantage in this game, because I want the players to assume that any given dice roll is hopeless.

What this all boils down to is that you could throw us a much more awkward and strange dicing system, and we probably couldn't say for sure whether it happens to be exactly what you need for your game. What you need to explain us is the conflict resolution system of your game: how is it resolved when fictional intents are in cross-purposes in your game? When we know that we can evaluate your dicing system, too.

[Adam Graham]

What you need to explain us is the conflict resolution system of your game: how is it resolved when fictional intents are in cross-purposes in your game?

The resolution system for skills and abilities is as described above.  The difficulty to perform such skills and abilities is based on more-or-less realistic conditions. 

Standard Difficulty Rolls
   When using a skill, or almost any other type of action, the skill level is modified by governing attributes along with any and all additional bonuses or deductions, and then applied to a D100 roll that is compared to the difficulty of the action.  If this roll is equal to, or greater than, the action's difficulty level, the action is performed successfully, if not, failure.

Heres an example of the riding skill:

Riding
(Agility/Intellect)
(Tools may be required)
Basic riding may be performed by anyone willing to try regardless of skill.  Commanding a mount in battle, or attempting to perform stunts and tricks, requires knowledge and practice along with a properly trained mount. 

Action                           Difficulty              Numbered Value
Melee Combat             Complex                         50
Missile Combat           Exceptional                       75
Spell Combat            Exceptional                       75
Increase Speed          Extraordinary                     100
Remain Saddled          Exceptional                       75

Combat (All): This is the required difficulty that must be made on a turn by turn basis in order to perform the related forms of combat from a mount.  Success allows for normal combat actions, or spells to be accomplished.  Failure results in the loss of all attack actions for the turn as full concentration on the mount must be maintained.  These difficulties are increased by one if the mount is moving at greater than half combat speed, and increased by two if running.  No skill roll is required if the mount is stationary. 
Attempting to use a non-war trained mount for any type of close combat (within twenty feet of the fray) results in the difficulty level being increased by two.

Increase Speed: This action allows for the rider to push their mount to their maximum, non-mounted, movement rate.  This action requires the mount to make a running skill roll after the first minute as if they had been moving at top running speed for the length of time that would require them to do so. 
Should the rider fail the ride skill roll the mount will refuse to push on, where as failure of the mount to succeed in the running skill roll after the first minute will result in the exhaustion of the mount as normal.

Remain Saddled: This roll is made when any circumstance occurs that could cause the rider to fall, or be knocked from, the saddle that is not a result of a normal knockdown attack.  Knockdown attacks may be resisted as well though the difficulty to do so is increased to phenomenal (difficulty of 125).

At least 50% of the skills and whatnots in the system use this type of assigned difficulty for an action.  Most others use opposed rolls between those in conflict with one another.  Most skills do however have a single set difficulty unlike the ride skill which has multiple difficulties.

Opposing Rolls
   Whenever an action or skill roll performed by one individual forces an action or skill roll from a second individual in order to determine its success an opposing roll occurs.  This commonly happens with skills such as listen, notice and stealth, though almost any action or skill could, at one time or another, oppose the roll of another.  The modifiers for these rolls are always the main skill or ability being used, modified by the governing attributes and bonuses as normal, and then applied to a D100 roll.  A tie goes to the one with the highest bonuses. If the bonuses are equal as well simply roll again until a winner is determined.   

Combat as well uses a similar single roll system for attacking and applying wounds.  The attack roll is compared to the defense of the target and if it is equal or greater than the defense wounds are inflicted.  Combat is not where I am worried about the the dice vs. bonus issue however as in all tests it has worked very well and is doing exactly what I want.

This system also has degrees of success.  For most skills every level of success greater than required (as in for every multiple of 25 the roll exceeds the difficulty by) the time to perform the skill is reduced and for some skills greater levels of success are applied as well.  For combat purposes every twenty five  over the defense of the target increases the wound level by one.

I hope I explained what you were asking. 
Adam

[Eero Tuovinen]

OK, a picture is certainly starting to emerge. Now, more questions:

How competent are characters usually? What's the typical riding bonus of a character who isn't specifically investing in it? How about an expert? You say that the maximum bonus is +50; is it typical or exceptional to achieve it? How much does the player have to sacrifice in other things to achieve +50 for riding?

Do I read you correctly that the difficulty of melee from a moving horse can be as high as 100?

What "style" of action are you imagining for the game? Should characters judge risks reasonably? Is being valorous good or bad? Can players make tactical mistakes in the fiction that threaten the lives (or other objects of worth) of their characters? Can they make tactical mistakes in the mechanics that threaten the lives (or other objects of worth) of their characters?

In what circumstances of the fiction would you say that losing is warranted for player characters? How about NPCs? Likewise, what are the circumstances around the table and in the mechanics where loss is warranted for either? How about victory?

Who decides the consequences of failed or successful die rolls? Is the decision made before or after the dice are rolled? Who knows the stakes of the roll when they are first determined? Can the resulting consequences of a given die roll be mitigated in any way, or is the result sacrosanct? How about when the consequences were set without thinking it through first?

I know this is a lot of questions, so I ask for your patience in answering them all. Hopefully something will result of it.

[Adam Graham]

How competent are characters usually? What's the typical riding bonus of a character who isn't specifically investing in it? How about an expert? You say that the maximum bonus is +50; is it typical or exceptional to achieve it?

All skills that can be used untrained (no points invested) of which riding is one (as are about 75% of the skills) use two attributes that range from 1-10 added together as a bonus to the D100 roll. 
At creation characters receive 10 + their intellect score in skill points and an additional 3 + their intellect every level to purchase skills with.  Skills may be increased no more than 3 points per individual skill per level.  Therefore by level ten, if the skill was increased every level by 3 they would be at the skill level maximum of 30.  If both attributes for the skill, in this case intellect and agility were a 10 the total bonus would be 50.
As a note all attributes (agility, fortitude, intellect, might, persona, resolve) begin at 3 and players get 15 points to put where they desire to a maximum of 10 at creation.  Additional attribute points are gained at a rate of 1 per 5 levels (current level max is 20).

How much does the player have to sacrifice in other things to achieve +50 for riding?

Even with a low intellect of 3 one still receives a minimum of 6 skill points per level, agreeably to reach a max level of 30 by level ten this would use half their points, but in that case it is representing an almost single minded devotion to the skill.  As for a combat skill, they can only be as high as the character level and they max out at 20 so the same character would still be able to increase their primary weapon skill 1 skill level per character level and have 2 skill points left to use as they wish.  Yes, I know that means weapon skill levels are lower but there are other things that make up for this and as I said earlier, combat is working incredibly well.

Do I read you correctly that the difficulty of melee from a moving horse can be as high as 100?

If they are attempting a melee attack at actual running speed yes and no.  The difficulty for the ride skill would be 100, and if this was successful then they may make a normal melee attack.  If the ride roll failed then no attack would be possible.  However, no attacks are usually possible at all if one is moving at a running speed so though the difficulty is high they are performing an action that is normally not possible, simply because they are not the ones running, the horse is.

What "style" of action are you imagining for the game? Should characters judge risks reasonably?

The game is set in the middle ages, is low magic (only elemental, necromancy, and conjuration magic) with industrialized magic and magical items none existent.  Risk factors for performing actions are intended to be for the most part realistic.

Is being valorous good or bad?

Since this is a games of the righteous followers of God struggling against the corruption of man and the devil then yes, being valorous is definitely good.  My game setting is a reflection of these issues today portrayed in the middle ages in a low to medium fantasy background.  Yes, this is for the most part a Christian RPG and I might market it as such.

Can players make tactical mistakes in the fiction that threaten the lives (or other objects of worth) of their characters? Can they make tactical mistakes in the mechanics that threaten the lives (or other objects of worth) of their characters?

Well if they really blow it bad then yes, I guess this is possible, but to actually die from the failure of a single skill, or even a string of them, would be about like getting struck by lightning.  Unless they were to fail miserably (by 25 or more) when attempting to disarm a trap, that could be bad.

In what circumstances of the fiction would you say that losing is warranted for player characters? How about NPCs? Likewise, what are the circumstances around the table and in the mechanics where loss is warranted for either? How about victory?

Not sure I really understand this question.  Losing is not the objective, we all want to win right?  But failure is a part of life and no matter how good one is at anything they can still fail an action.  Just like no matter how horrible one is at something, they can still try.  This is one thing I do like about the high dice factor.  Regardless of your skill you can still fail extraordinary tasks (difficulty 100) 50% of the time and phenomenal (difficulty 125) tasks 75% of the time.  But with these high difficulties, even should you fail the chance of it being a disastrous failure (failed by 25 or more) verse what is being attempted is not that bad.  And even if the result is disastrous the result will almost never cause injury, though tools might get broken and such.

Humm, did I answerer my own questions?  The system does fairly well what I want, what I really am asking is is the dice curve, which is opposite of many systems as the dice play a larger part than skill, something that would be perceived as frustration for the majority.  I do very much plan on marketing this endeavorer, hopefully by having an E-book before the end of the year and a physical book following shortly after.

Who decides the consequences of failed or successful die rolls?

The Narrator of the game, with most of  successful results detailed in the skill write up or just being common sense.

Is the decision made before or after the dice are rolled?

They would be known for the most part by both the Narrator and player, miserable failure results could be decided on the whim of the Narrator.

Who knows the stakes of the roll when they are first determined?

Generally the Narrator will inform the player of the difficulty they must roll against before they roll.  Unless there is some reason not too.

Can the resulting consequences of a given die roll be mitigated in any way, or is the result sacrosanct?

I have no idea what you said. I knew I shouldn't have slept in English class.

How about when the consequences were set without thinking it through first?

The players would, I think, have a fair idea of the consequences of their actions unless there are unknowns at play or they are acting on wrong, or misinterpreted information.

I know this is a lot of questions, so I ask for your patience in answering them all. Hopefully something will result of it.

Actually you are helping me remember some of the basic reasons I began this project.  Its been a year or more with a lot of work, and sometimes I can loose focus on what I started.  I noticed this dice curve issue a few days ago and I got really excited that everything was going to be wrong.  You have been a tremendous help.
Thanx
Adam

[Eero Tuovinen]

How competent are characters usually? What's the typical riding bonus of a character who isn't specifically investing in it? How about an expert? You say that the maximum bonus is +50; is it typical or exceptional to achieve it?

All skills that can be used untrained (no points invested) of which riding is one (as are about 75% of the skills) use two attributes that range from 1-10 added together as a bonus to the D100 roll. 
At creation characters receive 10 + their intellect score in skill points and an additional 3 + their intellect every level to purchase skills with.  Skills may be increased no more than 3 points per individual skill per level.  Therefore by level ten, if the skill was increased every level by 3 they would be at the skill level maximum of 30.  If both attributes for the skill, in this case intellect and agility were a 10 the total bonus would be 50.
As a note all attributes (agility, fortitude, intellect, might, persona, resolve) begin at 3 and players get 15 points to put where they desire to a maximum of 10 at creation.  Additional attribute points are gained at a rate of 1 per 5 levels (current level max is 20).

How fast do chacters advance in levels? Once per session? Faster? Slower? How high are characters assumed to advance?

So, roughly speaking, a player could reasonably begin with 15 skill points and around 14 points in the two Riding abilities if he was going for that kind of character type. Say he uses a third of the skill points in Riding, so he's at 5+14=19. Say 20 for added simplicity. That means he will fail one third of the time when trying to fight on horse-back.

Now, from your other description I get the sense that you're looking to emulate reality to some degree. Using a very simplified understanding of what "failing one third of the time" means, I'd say that that kind of failure percentage can only be expected from an inexperienced squire. So I get the impression that starting characters are assumed to be inexperienced teenagers who have hardly found a profession. Is that fair, would you say?

Going forward, let's assume the character spends 3 skill points in Riding every level. By level five he's maxed out his Riding skill (as well as some other important skill or two). At that point his bonus is +44 - quite tidy for combat purposes, he's going to fail only 6% of the time now. 5%, if he spends the ability increase in a Riding ability as well. That sounds more like it for a fighting man who has to depend on his skill with the horse. So would you say that a character at fifth level is a professional?

Still going forward, what does the character do with his skill points next? Apparently he's going to learn new things now that he's completely professional in Riding. So the character at level ten will be 1% better than he was at level 5. Again considering this from an emulative perspective, this seems like the plateau effect you get with middle-aged professionals - progress slows down. The abrupt increase in other skills seems weird, though; now that Riding isn't eating up skill points, the character will suddenly start learning other things. Perhaps not so weird, assuming that the skill set has enough "life experience" -type skills to put those points in. So would you say that character levels from five to ten depict middle-aged professionals? How have you figured this?

Overall this seems good to me. No problems with the leveling system or skill point distribution. However, all this has to be evaluated in context with the advancement system in general: when do characters advance, why, and how often. Much depends on that.

Do I read you correctly that the difficulty of melee from a moving horse can be as high as 100?

If they are attempting a melee attack at actual running speed yes and no.  The difficulty for the ride skill would be 100, and if this was successful then they may make a normal melee attack.  If the ride roll failed then no attack would be possible.  However, no attacks are usually possible at all if one is moving at a running speed so though the difficulty is high they are performing an action that is normally not possible, simply because they are not the ones running, the horse is.

Except that cavalry charges with lances and without have always been a major part of the tactics of fighting off horseback.

Do you have situational modifiers in the system at all? Like, does having rain or mud affect the difficulty of fighting from horseback? Or having a badly trained horse?

Is being valorous good or bad?

Since this is a games of the righteous followers of God struggling against the corruption of man and the devil then yes, being valorous is definitely good.  My game setting is a reflection of these issues today portrayed in the middle ages in a low to medium fantasy background.  Yes, this is for the most part a Christian RPG and I might market it as such.

OK, this part sound interesting. It's not your topic, though. If you'd like to start another thread and tell us about how your game portrays the struggle against the devil's corruption, I'd find that very interesting. Also, your thoughts about designing and marketing a Christian RPG would find interest, I'm sure.

Can players make tactical mistakes in the fiction that threaten the lives (or other objects of worth) of their characters? Can they make tactical mistakes in the mechanics that threaten the lives (or other objects of worth) of their characters?

Well if they really blow it bad then yes, I guess this is possible, but to actually die from the failure of a single skill, or even a string of them, would be about like getting struck by lightning.  Unless they were to fail miserably (by 25 or more) when attempting to disarm a trap, that could be bad.

So the GM is supposed to set consequences that complicate the lives of the characters, but do not stamp on them. Sounds reasonable. Is there a mechanical wounding system (hit points, whatever) or similar that tells the players when a character dies? Could this system take control away from the GM?

However, that's not quite what I was looking for. What I meant to ask was:
- Will the game feature choice situations where players can make foolish choices that lead to very bad results? For example, could there be a situation where a player can choose to attack an enemy, and it proves a grave mistake that the player shouldn't have done? Should players keep alert for the smart way to act in different situations, to safeguard their characters? Is the GM supposed to give players challenging situations where they have to make the right choices for their characters to live?
- Likewise: does the system include choices that greatly affect character efficiency? For example, could the player choose skills in character creation that end up useless in the game? Or is there special maneuvers in the combat system that contribute greatly to character effectiveness?

In what circumstances of the fiction would you say that losing is warranted for player characters? How about NPCs? Likewise, what are the circumstances around the table and in the mechanics where loss is warranted for either? How about victory?

Not sure I really understand this question.  Losing is not the objective, we all want to win right?  But failure is a part of life and no matter how good one is at anything they can still fail an action.  Just like no matter how horrible one is at something, they can still try.  This is one thing I do like about the high dice factor.  Regardless of your skill you can still fail extraordinary tasks (difficulty 100) 50% of the time and phenomenal (difficulty 125) tasks 75% of the time.  But with these high difficulties, even should you fail the chance of it being a disastrous failure (failed by 25 or more) verse what is being attempted is not that bad.  And even if the result is disastrous the result will almost never cause injury, though tools might get broken and such.

That's a good answer. So I could say that victory and failure are both warranted by the luck of the roll, with character skill having some say in it. Those with skill and luck can expect to triumph, while those with neither will fail. Significantly, nobody is safe from luck.

This is not such a simple question. As a counter-example, let's take a gaming classing called My Life with Master. In that game victory is warranted for those with clear emotional landscape: characters who hate themselves and are tired of life are sure to win any deeds of violence or villainy they care to try, while characters who have great love in their hearts will triumph when it comes to being free and doing right. There's some dicing involved in that game, too, but as you can see, character skill plays no part. Victory is warranted foremost via purity of motivation.

But, that's just an example of another way of doing things. Back to our scheduled program...

Can the resulting consequences of a given die roll be mitigated in any way, or is the result sacrosanct?

I have no idea what you said. I knew I shouldn't have slept in English class.

Heh, sorry; I'm not native, so my language tends towards idiosyncronic at times. What I meant to ask: if my character's horse has gone crazy and tries to jump down a cliff-face with me, and we roll my Riding to see if I manage to stop the crazy horse, how binding is the result? If I fail, do I fall down the cliff and die? Or does the GM give me another roll to see if I manage to grab the cliffside before plummeting to my death with the horse? Does he even want me to roll that, or will he just narrate it so? What if I fail that roll? Can I use some resource (hero points, I don't know) to mitigate the result? Who decided whether there is a river down in the gorge, which perhaps could soften my fall?

As we can see, there's plenty of common ways to mitigate the merciless turn of the dice. What I'm interested in with your system is three-fold:
- How the system sets the stakes of the roll. In other words, who decides what the die roll is for.
- What factors affect the success of the roll in fiction and mechanics. Character skill seems to be the only one at this point.
- How the result of the roll is implemented in the game. Is there any additional steps between rolling and implementation.
Those three points are paramount for judging whether your system has too much or too little randomness. As my example in the first post hopefully demonstrated, you can have an extremely lopsided dicing mechanic (or no dicing mechanic at all), as long as you mitigate it with the other parts of the resolution system. That mitigation could happen in any of the three places I list above: your dicing could be totally random, but that's not a problem if only suitable things go to the dicing mechanic in the first place, with other matters being resolved in some othe way. Likewise, random dicing is not a problem if the players can affect the outcome with character skill, hero points, motivation points or whatever. And finally, even if the above two factors do not mitigate the dicing, its randomness is still not a problem if the actual result can be modified after the roll.

So that's why I ask about things around your dicing mechanism. You could flip a coin about whether my character plummets to his death, as long as the coin toss wasn't the last word on the matter.

But, that's it for now. Consider starting that other thread about your game's themes of corruption and Christianity, that sounds interesting.

[Yakk]

Are the difficulties facing the characters relatively static, and the players simply get better at overcoming them?  Or do you intend a sliding scale of challenges?

Do you have a system for extreme failure/normal failure/partial failure/partial success/normal success/extreme success?

How common are rolls?  Are there rules about when you roll and when you do not roll?

Do you want/need rules for things that are more and less luck dependant?  In a "realistic" model, some tests depend more upon luck, some things depend more on training, and some things depend more on talent.

[Adam Graham]

How fast do characters advance in levels? Once per session? Faster? Slower? How high are characters assumed to advance?

Leveling is much like the old D&D game.  XP is received for successfully overcoming encounters either through combat or diplomacy.  Those that are "plot pivoting" and resolved in a righteous manner will reward bonus XP.  Personally, I am also one to award bonus XP for superb role playing and penalize the opposite.  Required XP for each level is equal to the level that will be attained times 10.  As the XP reward for encounters ranges between 1 an 10 points leveling isn't exactly quick but it isn't to snails paced either I don't feel, especially for levels 1 through 10.  The maximum player character level is presently 20, though continued advancement would be simple to implement I don't really see a need for it.

So I get the impression that starting characters are assumed to be inexperienced teenagers who have hardly found a profession. Is that fair, would you say?

Yes this is the intended idea.

Going forward, let's assume the character spends 3 skill points in Riding every level. By level five he's maxed out his Riding skill (as well as some other important skill or two). At that point his bonus is +44 - quite tidy for combat purposes, he's going to fail only 6% of the time now. 5%, if he spends the ability increase in a Riding ability as well. That sounds more like it for a fighting man who has to depend on his skill with the horse. So would you say that a character at fifth level is a professional?

If 3 skill points are spent every level it takes until level 10 to have a max skill level bonus of 30, for a max modified skill level of 50 if both attributes for the skill are at 10s.  And yes at level 10 they could be considered pros.

Still going forward, what does the character do with his skill points next? Apparently he's going to learn new things now that he's completely professional in Riding. So the character at level ten will be 1% better than he was at level 5. Again considering this from an emulative perspective, this seems like the plateau effect you get with middle-aged professionals - progress slows down. The abrupt increase in other skills seems weird, though; now that Riding isn't eating up skill points, the character will suddenly start learning other things. Perhaps not so weird, assuming that the skill set has enough "life experience" -type skills to put those points in. So would you say that character levels from five to ten depict middle-aged professionals? How have you figured this?

Ya if skill points are invested solely to one or two skills when they max out they will find other places to put the points, but short of lowering the max points that can be spent in any one skill per level thats the way its going to happen.  I don't feel that it is a real issue though as in life when we master one thing we often find something else to learn as well.

Overall this seems good to me. No problems with the leveling system or skill point distribution. However, all this has to be evaluated in context with the advancement system in general: when do characters advance, why, and how often. Much depends on that.

As stated above characters advance when they have the Xp to do so.  This should occur every two or three sessions for levels 1 - 5, every three or four sessions for 5 - 10 and then slowdown a bit from there depending upon the intensity of the game and what is accomplished.  Advancement is supposed to reflect the honing of skill and ability.  At one point I planned on only allowing skills that are actually used throughout the course of the session to be advanced though I tend to find it somewhat cumbersome to do so.  Especially when their are times that some skills wont get used do to the situation and since this could happen at no fault to the players I decided not to penalize for it.

Except that cavalry charges with lances and without have always been a major part of the tactics of fighting off horseback.
Do you have situational modifiers in the system at all? Like, does having rain or mud affect the difficulty of fighting from horseback? Or having a badly trained horse?

There are 3 main movement speeds: walking, running (3 x walking speed, and combat (1/2 running speed).  Combat is conducted at combat speed, when one is running they lose their agility, dodge (if they have it) and their shield (if they have one) to their defense and it is generally the only action that can be performed in a turn (3 seconds).  In this case a mounted knight charging with a lance would be moving at combat speed and no roll other than to see if they maintain control of the mount to perform the attack (difficulty 50) is needed.

I have come up with more situational modifiers than I probably need and therefore have reduced them to just a handful in order to not slowdown game time.  But yes, charging on a horse with a lance in the pouring down rain where the ground is muddy and slippery would be a pain, but you can still try.

So the GM is supposed to set consequences that complicate the lives of the characters, but do not stamp on them. Sounds reasonable. Is there a mechanical wounding system (hit points, whatever) or similar that tells the players when a character dies? Could this system take control away from the GM?

The life system is a morphed hit point/wound threshold type system as everything, no matter how big or how small, has the same level of life.  How much one is injured for depends on how hard one got hit and how much protection they have verse what is hitting them. As far as it taking control from the GM I find that to be impossible as nothing can take control from the GM.

Will the game feature choice situations where players can make foolish choices that lead to very bad results? For example, could there be a situation where a player can choose to attack an enemy, and it proves a grave mistake that the player shouldn't have done? Should players keep alert for the smart way to act in different situations, to safeguard their characters? Is the GM supposed to give players challenging situations where they have to make the right choices for their characters to live?

If the players do stupid things, and I don't mean innocents mistakes, then yes bad things could result.  Though the game setting can lend itself to deceiving the players into performing evil acts unknowingly but then that is one of the things they are trying to combat against and should therefore be on their guard verse deception.  However this game (or any other Game) should not turn into the GM attempting to get the players to make bad choices without them being able to learn it is a bad choice through role play.  I don't think that any one wrong decision should spell doom for the players.  A string of them maybe, but not just one.

Likewise: does the system include choices that greatly affect character efficiency? For example, could the player choose skills in character creation that end up useless in the game? Or is there special maneuvers in the combat system that contribute greatly to character effectiveness?

It is possible to make a horrendous character I suppose but not nearly as bad as some games I've seen/played.  Character creation is fairly straight forward and as the character description tells what the  focus of the class is and what attributes are primary really bad mistakes should be far and few between.  I feel I have eliminated all the useless skills though some might find more use than others, and social skills like diplomacy, intimidation and bluff will probably be used more by the party speaker than others. As for special maneuvers in combat, only combat oriented classes receive them but they are quite effective and can make a big difference.  Non combative classes, the Apostle (a priest) and the Magus have their own special talents for hostile engagements and they are quite effective as well.

if my character's horse has gone crazy and tries to jump down a cliff-face with me, and we roll my Riding to see if I manage to stop the crazy horse, how binding is the result? If I fail, do I fall down the cliff and die? Or does the GM give me another roll to see if I manage to grab the cliff side before plummeting to my death with the horse? Does he even want me to roll that, or will he just narrate it so? What if I fail that roll? Can I use some resource (hero points, I don't know) to mitigate the result? Who decided whether there is a river down in the gorge, which perhaps could soften my fall?

If you failed the roll you failed the roll and your dead, HA!!  Seriously though, the game itself does not have hero points or anything like that.  I'm personally not a fan of such and therefore don't use them.  Situation's like this fall entirely upon the GM.  I really don't think it matters if you are give 1 roll to decide death or 50. If the GM wants you to die you probably will, if they find it more of a pain to kill characters than its worth, like I generally do, you will live.  I narrate situations like this others may call for a roll, realistically trying to come up with rules for every possible situation like this one will bog things down.

As we can see, there's plenty of common ways to mitigate the merciless turn of the dice. What I'm interested in with your system is three-fold:
- How the system sets the stakes of the roll. In other words, who decides what the die roll is for.

The GM based on the guidelines presented in the skill description or by one that closely matches it.

- What factors affect the success of the roll in fiction and mechanics. Character skill seems to be the only one at this point.

The present difficulty of the action which is attempted to emulate a realistic difficulty by the standards of the time line the game is set in.  Incidentally the set difficult for the majority of the skills under normal circumstances is between 50 and 75.  The more difficult tasks that have difficulties between 100 and 125 are usually the result of attempting something under harsh circumstances or trying to accomplish something that borderlines on the impossible.

-

How the result of the roll is implemented in the game. Is there any additional steps between rolling and implementation.

Not normally.

Thanx again for the response, you have been very helpful especially in reaffirming me in why I came up with the system I did.
Adam

[Adam Graham]

Are the difficulties facing the characters relatively static, and the players simply get better at overcoming them?  Or do you intend a sliding scale of challenges?

Yes the difficulties are fairly the same though under good or bad circumstances they could vary slightly in their difficulty.

Do you have a system for extreme failure/normal failure/partial failure/partial success/normal success/extreme success?

A natural roll of a 1 on a D100 is always a failure and a natural roll of 100 allows for a second roll which is added to the first.  As for a system for each level of success other than decreased time for performing the skill then no.  I feel that guidelines and rules that go that in depth tend to bog down play.

How common are rolls?  Are there rules about when you roll and when you do not roll?

Anytime players perform an action that can have a negative effect for failure, be it not noticing something to missing a target with a weapon, there is a roll.  Automatic actions are never rolled unless the GM feels there is a need for if for one reason or another.

Do you want/need rules for things that are more and less luck dependent?  In a "realistic" model, some tests depend more upon luck, some things depend more on training, and some things depend more on talent

I always agree with the statement that "I'd rather be lucky than good".  I feel that my system has plenty of luck factor already, to the point that I thought that maybe it had to much, however after the in depth look and bouncing the idea off of others I no longer feel that to be true but that the system is actually doing just what I had intended and wanted.

Thanx for the input
Adam

[Eero Tuovinen]

Yeah, I think that you've answered your own question admirably well, Adam. The system doesn't seem to suffer from having too much randomness. An important consideration, however, is the method that is used in choosing when to roll and about what: you say that it's up to the GM, but that leaves the onus of making the system work on the GM, who has to make sure to have not too many or too few rolls, and about the right things to boot.

In general, the kind of game you seem to be making is somewhat prone to problems that arise with skill checks being initiated in the wrong places, rather than the check mechanic itself having any fundamental problems. The randomness of the system is quite all right if the GM takes it into consideration when requiring skill checks. So if you have any good advice or mechanics to ensure that checks are not used unnecessarily, all the better. The actual mechanic seems fine, anyway.