Basic Mechanics

[Callan S.]

Hi Sign,

You've mistaken where I'm coming from. When you say "there is no instant kill result simply because that should not be decided by a simple dice roll" I'm totally cool with that, that sounds fun. What I'm against is using a different rule for "It's entirely a different thing however if the player steps out of a plan at 15,000 feet or jumps under a bus or whatever". Whatever rule your using for determining when a PC dies (whether that rule is they can't die, or it takes a bunch of failed rolls, or the GM decides), you should use the same rule if someone jumps out of the plane or in front of a bus. There's no benefit to having a special, different rule for when someone does this - just use the regular rules or stop inviting the person to play.

Anyway ""there is no instant kill result simply because that should not be decided by a simple dice roll" is totally cool, sounds good, hope to see it in print

[signoftheserpent]

It was supposed to be the higher the number, the greater the difficulty, yes. My bad.

And difficulty levels are fixed. Three levels is enough for all situations I think; anything more and it becomes rather cumbersome to judge a given situation in game terms.

The purpose of designing the proficiency idea was to give purpose to attribute scores as half the time in games they re largely useless. Other than to make the dice pool att + skill (which is rather commonplace), or use one to modify the dice pool created by the other, I came up with that. Unfortuantely it is somewhat flawed; the rationale was to have been that a skill rating in excess of the realted attribute shows a character trained up to and possibly beyond his potential. A skill he has some considerable aptitude in, perhaps. Consider though that at mas levels you would be rolling 6d6. If the Attribute was 4, for example, and the skill 6 it would be either 6d6 or 4d10. So that balance remains. 4d10 grants a greater chance of just succeeding the task but will never give the degree of success that 6 dice can. So it's all relative and not about the scores alone: a character with att 2 and skill 4 is relatively as gifted as someone at 4 and 6, it's just the latter is generally better anyway.

The other method was to grant bonus dice to the pool equal to the difference between the attribute and the difficulty if the former was greater, but that would require considerable attribute scores as to be ineffectual. really the stat scores are rated from 1-5.

These rules are the basic mechanics designed at the regular power level - the superpower stuff will be dialled in later.

[Ken]

And difficulty levels are fixed. Three levels is enough for all situations I think; anything more and it becomes rather cumbersome to judge a given situation in game terms.

I would add an easy and super hard level to your difficulty chart, just to give GMs a bit more latitude when determining task values. Most GMs probably don't need to be told that they can come up with their own difficulty values, but some may. Adding two more levels to your chart may not cause as much trouble as it could clear up. Just a thought.

The purpose of designing the proficiency idea was to give purpose to attribute scores as half the time in games they re largely useless. Other than to make the dice pool att + skill (which is rather commonplace), or use one to modify the dice pool created by the other, I came up with that.

Its tough to be original. Commonplace rules mechanics are not always a bad thing; they are commonplace for a reason. Personally, I think that game engines need to be balanced according to your game concept (not necessarily reality) and accessible to your players; confusing rules get ditch anyway half of the time, or just cause the game to get shelved.

Unfortuantely it is somewhat flawed; the rationale was to have been that a skill rating in excess of the realted attribute shows a character trained up to and possibly beyond his potential. A skill he has some considerable aptitude in, perhaps. Consider though that at mas levels you would be rolling 6d6. If the Attribute was 4, for example, and the skill 6 it would be either 6d6 or 4d10. So that balance remains. 4d10 grants a greater chance of just succeeding the task but will never give the degree of success that 6 dice can. So it's all relative and not about the scores alone: a character with att 2 and skill 4 is relatively as gifted as someone at 4 and 6, it's just the latter is generally better anyway.

Oh, I don't know how flawed it is. The only real concern I had was when a character had maxed their stat and skill; If you allow those characters to trade a die for one step up the dice chart, that pretty much solves it. allowing characters to opt for fewer chances at scoring higher numbers is attractive when performing tricky stuff, and may draw people to trying more extravagant actions.

The other method was to grant bonus dice to the pool equal to the difference between the attribute and the difficulty if the former was greater, but that would require considerable attribute scores as to be ineffectual. really the stat scores are rated from 1-5.

Agreed. I would steer clear of that. The important part is that your thinking, and all this work may lead to a very interesting and fun game. Keep it up. I'm looking forward to reading more.

Take care,

Ken

[signoftheserpent]

Thanks.

It's best not to worry about the supeorpower aspect of this for now; mainly for the reason I gave above, but also because I have a rather unique approach I plan on using.

The main flaw with the proficiency method is that it really is a bit too abstract.

In respect of being original, I agree entirely. It isn't just a matter of pride for me though, it's about finding the balance between practicality and originality. I could as Im sure most of us could come up with anything but if ti's too abstract, strange or convoluted - compared with the existing systems (which is the point) - then it's a waste of time.

Anyway, I have edited the basic mechanic as follows:

When making a test, the player rolls (Attribute)d6 generating 1 success for each roll that at least equals the difficulty number:
4 (average)
5 (complex)
6 (tough)
7 (almost impossible)
Attributes are rated 1-5. Characters have skill values which are modifiers allowing the player to reduce his dice pool size to increase the size of the dice being rolled by one shift on the following chart:
Skill +1 d8 (basic training)
Skill +2 d10 (extra curricular study)
Skill +3 d12 (studied with the best)

For example: I have Intelligence 4 and Computers +1 attempts an average task of net surfing (difficulty 4). I can take my chances and roll 4d6 and take what I roll – or I can use my skill in computing to shift the die type +1 to d8. if I do, I take a commensurate dice pool penalty and thus roll 3d8. My knowledge in computing has allowed me some choice as to how to proceed given my flexibility in given me the opportunity to trade in some greater measure of potential success for a chance to assure I just accomplish what I'm doing. This system also allows me to achieve at tasks that are more difficult – difficulty level 7 is impossible on a d6 so some measure of attitude is required.

This assumes a d6 standard. I have added an upper level of difficulty. I agree somewhat that 3 levels is, or at least can  be perceived, as too few. However adding a lower level is a bad idea simply because it over complicates players doing things they really aren't going to fail at. In real life people can do things they are trained to do or are used to doing (even things like flying jet planes) statistically enough to make this level of difficulty little more than a hassle.

[Ken]

Another neat idea.

Anyway, I have edited the basic mechanic as follows:

When making a test, the player rolls (Attribute)d6 generating 1 success for each roll that at least equals the difficulty number:
4 (average)
5 (complex)
6 (tough)
7 (almost impossible)
Attributes are rated 1-5. Characters have skill values which are modifiers allowing the player to reduce his dice pool size to increase the size of the dice being rolled by one shift on the following chart:
Skill +1 d8 (basic training)
Skill +2 d10 (extra curricular study)
Skill +3 d12 (studied with the best)

For example: I have Intelligence 4 and Computers +1 attempts an average task of net surfing (difficulty 4). I can take my chances and roll 4d6 and take what I roll – or I can use my skill in computing to shift the die type +1 to d8. if I do, I take a commensurate dice pool penalty and thus roll 3d8. My knowledge in computing has allowed me some choice as to how to proceed given my flexibility in given me the opportunity to trade in some greater measure of potential success for a chance to assure I just accomplish what I'm doing. This system also allows me to achieve at tasks that are more difficult – difficulty level 7 is impossible on a d6 so some measure of attitude is required.

This assumes a d6 standard. I have added an upper level of difficulty. I agree somewhat that 3 levels is, or at least can  be perceived, as too few. However adding a lower level is a bad idea simply because it over complicates players doing things they really aren't going to fail at. In real life people can do things they are trained to do or are used to doing (even things like flying jet planes) statistically enough to make this level of difficulty little more than a hassle.

This is an interesting turn from before, but this way really penalizes those with less than average stats. If a character had a score of 2 they wouldn't be able to use more than one shift, so any benefit from having a high ranking skill is lost. If the character only had an attribute score of 1, then they would get no benefit from using skills at all.]

My suggestion would be to keep the die shifts for skill levels, but ditch the part where you loose a die per shift. This gives skills something special, and helps the character no matter what their stats are. It also has fewer moving parts, which is usually good. Your difficulty numbers seem to be pretty in sync with the dice progress; each level is about the average roll for each of the dice your game uses (d6, d8, d10, d12).

Let me know what you think,

Ken

[signoftheserpent]

You make a good point, but the system you propose simply changes the system into an inverse of something like savage worlds. If there is nothing to compensate for rolling better dice you will always roll better dice. If you then naturally scale up the difficulties you change the nature of the system. The point of this system is resource management: your attribute is your resource. What this means is that the character is trained (ie the skill) to better use that resource, but the resource itself is still the crucial factor. It's important to remember that players can choose what and when they use shifts; f theyhave Skill +2 they can choose either to go d6 -1d8 or -2d10.
Now of course this is limited if they have low attributes, but there are two things to consider. Firstly, in rpg's players generally don't make much use of their low end attributes and don't tend to give skills much credence in those areas. Such skills and abilities get used as a last resort. Now granted attribute levels here limit the skill level that a player can have - but that isn't unrealistic; someone with Intelligence 1 is just not going to be much good at academic tasks, no matter how much training he has - certainly not in comparison to level 3. That's just the nature of human ability - and no character can ever be good or shoudl be good at everything of course. So they should have less flexibility in how they can apply theemsleves, that's not unreasonable.
Where it does become a problem is at level 1 where paying points to give a character a skill (which I envisage character generation to employ) for an attribute they have level 1 in (which is rare but possible and I wouldn't want to prohibit it). Not long after I posted this idea I decided to create a base skill rank of +0; this was ostensibly to compensate for untrained use. Skill rank +0 allows characters to use skills without penalty rolling attribute d6 (or 1d6 at least). They don't get shifts, but if the costs for skil levels are appropriately scaled, the system will make sense.

[Ken]

You make a good point, but the system you propose simply changes the system into an inverse of something like savage worlds. If there is nothing to compensate for rolling better dice you will always roll better dice. If you then naturally scale up the difficulties you change the nature of the system. The point of this system is resource management: your attribute is your resource.

A lot of rpgs (and maybe even yours) require players to spend character points (or some other currency) to build their characters; diverting these resources to skills rather than other traits would be the counter balance to rolling better dice. Its also a form of resource management.

It's important to remember that players can choose what and when they use shifts; f theyhave Skill +2 they can choose either to go d6 -1d8 or -2d10.
Now of course this is limited if they have low attributes, but there are two things to consider. Firstly, in rpg's players generally don't make much use of their low end attributes and don't tend to give skills much credence in those areas. Such skills and abilities get used as a last resort. Now granted attribute levels here limit the skill level that a player can have - but that isn't unrealistic; someone with Intelligence 1 is just not going to be much good at academic tasks, no matter how much training he has - certainly not in comparison to level 3. That's just the nature of human ability - and no character can ever be good or shoudl be good at everything of course. So they should have less flexibility in how they can apply theemsleves, that's not unreasonable.

I get that; and really I don't have much of a problem with it. Its just that since skills don't tack on any bonus that doesn't require you to shed dice, a player could buy a skill up to max and get no benefit if their attribute is very low. Some gamers still model their characters on concept and don't always try to maximize the rules for optimum effect. Also, a character with rank 1 in a stat doesn't have a really good shot at accomplishing even average tasks, and having multiple skills ranks doesn't help. The character building strategy here would be don't buy skills that your stat can't support, but first time gamers or first time players in your game may not get that at first.

Where it does become a problem is at level 1 where paying points to give a character a skill (which I envisage character generation to employ) for an attribute they have level 1 in (which is rare but possible and I wouldn't want to prohibit it). Not long after I posted this idea I decided to create a base skill rank of +0; this was ostensibly to compensate for untrained use. Skill rank +0 allows characters to use skills without penalty rolling attribute d6 (or 1d6 at least). They don't get shifts, but if the costs for skil levels are appropriately scaled, the system will make sense.

I was going to suggest this the other day, but didn't want to add more complexity to your system. Sounds pretty good.  Keep it up.

Take Care,

Ken

[signoftheserpent]

Well as far as skill rank redundancy goes, there is of course nothing to be gaine dby having a Skill rank greater than your base attribute, that's true. But then players won't be building their characters that way. I don't see that as a limitation since they will prirotise their scores according to how they want to play their character and so really these attributes and skills are already redundant. It's no more unrealistic than having a system where a character can have an attribute rated at say 1 and a related skill at almost max level.

I think the basic premise is sound, but there is a discrepancy that affects lower attribute scores).

The only alternative to this is to allow a skill score rated in the same manner as attributes and form the dice pool from the total of the two; then allowing up to (skill) shifts within that. Thus a character with Intelligence 1 and Computers 3, rolls the same dice pool as if he had Intelligence 3 and Computers 1; however the former gains >3 shifts while the latter 1.

[Ken]

Well as far as skill rank redundancy goes, there is of course nothing to be gaine dby having a Skill rank greater than your base attribute, that's true. But then players won't be building their characters that way. I don't see that as a limitation since they will prirotise their scores according to how they want to play their character and so really these attributes and skills are already redundant. It's no more unrealistic than having a system where a character can have an attribute rated at say 1 and a related skill at almost max level.

This is the most important factor right here. If this is the way you want your game to work, then this is the way it should work. As designers, we aren't always trying to model our rules on reality, we are trying to tap into the energy of a given genre or paradigm. I don't know how characters are built in your game, so I'm a bit at a disadvantage at giving advice; I can really only crunch numbers at this point.

Now, having said that:

The only alternative to this is to allow a skill score rated in the same manner as attributes and form the dice pool from the total of the two; then allowing up to (skill) shifts within that. Thus a character with Intelligence 1 and Computers 3, rolls the same dice pool as if he had Intelligence 3 and Computers 1; however the former gains >3 shifts while the latter 1.

I  think this is pretty cool, and allows high skill values to augment low stats and still maintains that quirky dice scale mechanic. Personally, this is the way I would go, for one reason; it allows a player to model a character that may make sense in their head, if not yours. There are a multitude of character concepts and ideas out there (sometimes I feel there are a higher concentration in super games, because they seem like a nexus for different genres like fantasy, espionage, science fiction, etc.), and a game that tries to tackle that needs flexibility (or doesn't, I guess). Your example, for instance, would allow for a savant character who really can't access his mental faculties for most endeavors, but is an instinctive wiz at computers. You could also make an old man, who really can't exert himself or move too fast, but is still a crack shot with pistol.

Just some thoughts.

Take care,

Ken

[signoftheserpent]

Thanks.

I'm still not a 100% sure about that second idea simply because it seemed odd to have a 1 attribute and 3 skill guy have the same dice pool as one with scores swapped, even though your examples explain it better!

I think the reasons for the attribute only dice pool idea make sense, but ultimately it is too limiting to have skills only possible at no greater than the attribute. I dunno.

Of course all design is a compromise on reality versus playability, but the point of this discussion is to create something that a) isn't convoluted b) isn't a complete ripoff of existing ideas and c) reasonably realistic as the characters are first and foremost real people. Though they will have what might best be described as superpowers (which aren't the pointof this discussion) they are still humans who function, at least in all other respects, like the rest of us in our world.

This doesn't mean rules have to be accordingly complicated - nor rules system can accurately model life! It means they have to be consistent and realistic.

[signoftheserpent]

I am concerned that the game features a vairable versus a variable and that it might best be served as variable versus constant. Right now it's variable dice pool versus variable difficulty and I'm not sure that statistically (and i'm not going to get overly concerned with numbers because I really don't think it necessary) it works out.

[Ken]

I'm still not a 100% sure about that second idea simply because it seemed odd to have a 1 attribute and 3 skill guy have the same dice pool as one with scores swapped, even though your examples explain it better!

There pools would look the same on the surface, but for different reasons, and only when they are performing the same task (computers, in this case). The guy with the more specific training related to the task at hand would be able to upgrade his dice, allowing fewer chances with better odds of getting a successful result; this also means that he has fewer chances at extra successes. The guy with more ranks in stat has tougher odds of getting a high roll, but more chances of it. The other trade-off here is that the guy with the higher stat gets more dice at everything he does related to that trait; the skill-oriented character only gets the benefit when he is doing something that plays to his training. I think this has a more balanced and elegant flare to it than the alternate.

Since your game is aiming more for real people, I'm not sure that stat aptitude plays as much a part in performing a real world task as skill. I'm a pretty smart guy but don't know a lot about plumbing (because I bought the gaming skill, not the plumbing skill); I may be smarter than a guy who  works as a professional plumber (or even a plumber's assistant), but that guy is going to whoop my butt when running a water line. My intelligence is basically going to tell me to put the pipe down and call a plumber.

Of course all design is a compromise on reality versus playability, but the point of this discussion is to create something that a) isn't convoluted b) isn't a complete ripoff of existing ideas and c) reasonably realistic as the characters are first and foremost real people. Though they will have what might best be described as superpowers (which aren't the pointof this discussion) they are still humans who function, at least in all other respects, like the rest of us in our world.

This doesn't mean rules have to be accordingly complicated - nor rules system can accurately model life! It means they have to be consistent and realistic.

Also, you had an idea earlier about adding the value of the skill rank to the result of each die. That idea didn't suck. You would have to reset your difficulty number, but that shouldn't be a big deal. This would certainly be easier to grasp and implement than swapping dice (it just wouldn't look as cool). Also, you would need fewer types of dice.

I am concerned that the game features a vairable versus a variable and that it might best be served as variable versus constant. Right now it's variable dice pool versus variable difficulty and I'm not sure that statistically (and i'm not going to get overly concerned with numbers because I really don't think it necessary) it works out.

I agree. Variable vs. variable is going to be hard to intuit. You had posted a fixed difficulty chart earlier; I would go with something like that.

I know that originality is important to you; I think its important to most designers, but don't let it drive you away from simple mechanics that work.

Good luck. Interested in your thoughts.

Ken

[signoftheserpent]

Here is the best compromise I can find; it is somewhat more complicated (though not much really). The dice swapping idea appeals to me because it gives players choices not usually present in rpgs, rather than rolling a fixed dice pool or value.

One could always base the dice pool off of the skill and use the attribute to function in place of the skill. It's just a matter of perspective.

Difficulty is variable along the chart; that was my concern.

When making a test, the player rolls his attribute value as a dice pool; attributes are rated 1-5. Characters also use their skills to improve their chances of succeeding. Skills are rated from 1-3 to reflect rising levels of competence. Each level allows the player to use better dice. The default is 6, each level of a skill allows the player to shift the dice type one step higher; for instance a skill of 3 means rolling d12 – the highest dice type.
Furthermore players may also shift down from their maximum to the lowest dice type – d6 – in doing so they add 1 to their dice pool per shift. Thus a skill level of 3 would roll d12's, but a shift of -2 would roll (dice pool +2) d8.
One success is generated on each roll that at least equals the difficulty number:
5   (easy)   
6   (average)
7    (tough)
8    (almost impossible)
Skill 1 – d8   (basic training)
Skill 2 – d10   (further education)
Skill 3 – d12   (serious study)
Any dice that roll their maximum can be rolled again adding further potential successes. No dice may open end more times than the skill level concerned. If the player eventually generates at least as many successes as the difficulty level he scores a critical success. This means achieving a greater than normal level of accomplishment with whatever commensurate benefits that may entail.
For example: I have Intelligence 1 and computers 3. This allows me to roll 1d12 when trying to process info on my pc. If I want I can shift through 2d10, 3d8 to 4d6 if I want, depending on the difficulty. If my scores were reversed I would be rolling 3d8 (Int 3 and computers 1) or 4d6.

[Ken]

Hey-

That is awesome!!! It allows characters to benefit from their stat rating and get a direct benefit from training no matter what their basic strengths are. The downgrading of dice just seems cleaner to me than the upgrading mechanic, and allows for the really gifted character to roll more dice and come out with more impressive successes while performing average tasks. Hurray!

The fixed difficulty value chart should also make play faster and more intuitive.

This is great stuff. Looking forward to seeing more parts of your game, and how they fit into this new system.

Good job, and take care,

Ken

[signoftheserpent]

Thanks!

I just hope it isn't too convoluted to be practical. It shouldn't be. Beyond this I doubt there will be anything as complex.