A more evolved dice mechanic

[Ar Kayon]

The exercise was to create a dice mechanic that scaled very accurately.  The result of the dice rank design shown is that characters will always be at the correct scale in relativity to any challenge.  For example, if someone of great skill was challenging someone of little skill, he will have a high consistency of success whereas two men of great but equal skill each have less consistency.  So, instead of high-level characters hitting each other constantly due to huge skill modifiers, their to-hit ratios will be more believable.

Implications:
*Large amounts of hit points are not needed.
*An independent, static defense value (such as armor class) is not needed.
*Conducive to simulation style.

I'm sure I can make it much better, however, but I haven't bothered to critically analyze the system as I no longer have a setting to attach the rules to.

[MacLeod]

I think its an interesting idea. It reminds me of Talsilanta's Action Table where the 'target numbers' are always the same regardless of the action being performed.

In any event, I wouldn't change too much...

Rank 0 would be 1D3
Rank 6 would be 1D20
Rank 7 would be 2D6
Rank 8 would be 2D8
Rank 9 would be 2D10

Makes it so your Effective Range would never change from...
3 = Partial Success
2 = Success
1 = Critical Success

I propose this idea because I'm sure there would be lots of moments where players suffer penalties and might end up using Rank 6 a lot more often than might be readily apparent. Plus, I think while Rank 0 would end up being rare... applying math to the rolls wouldn't fit the style of this dice mechanic. =)

I'd like to see this mechanic attached to a game... though, my personal preference is toward heroic/cinematic style games. Also, the Attack / Fight Back rules on the other page are a bit wacky. =P

Also, another excellent Die Step system is Spellbound Kingdoms... Though it operates similarly but more simply than Earthdawn.

[Ar Kayon]

The fight back rules were designed with the super-heroic character in mind, like a ninja who can take out multiple opponents in a minimal time frame.  Also, instead of blow-for-blow, I wanted to model a general melee exchange where both combatants are attacking and defending toe-to-toe.  So, instead of specific manuevers such as block, thrust, parry, etc., the system presents general tactical manuevers, resulting in faster combat resolution*.  Thus, with the core system intact and by tinkering with the special rules a bit, such as removing the chain-of-attacks mechanic listed in the first sentence or installing concrete distance increments, the system could also encourage party-based strategy against a potentially large group of opponents without too much combat molasses.

*Armor or any other sort of passive defense in this system could also be represented in a general method as well.  For example, a full suit of plate armor would have a dice rank attached to it instead of a static defense value, such as 1d4, where a roll of 3 nullifies a minor attack success, 2 nullifies a moderate and minor, and 1 nullifies those as well as a critical success.  Naturally, lesser armors will have bigger dice assigned to them and will follow the same dice rank logic where you need to roll within the 1-3 range.

*Along this train of thought, I would also consider narration post-roll instead of pre-roll where the player and GM describe what happened after the action has been resolved.
Example:
Player - "I attack the Black Knight."
GM - "The Black Knight engages you in combat."
Player rolls a 3; GM rolls in secret, which is a 1 for the combat action and 3 for the armor check
Player - "I move in close, shove the Black Knight with my shield and then smash him in the helmet with it."
GM - "The Black Knight rolls with the blow as the shield deflects off his helmet and then counterattacks by bludgeoning your sword arm with his mace, opening up your guard as he follows up with a mighty blow to your head.  The mace smashes into your helmet and shatters your skull as you drop to the ground dead like a sack of potatoes."
Player - "What?!  That's bullshit!  Fuck you, I'm going home."

[MacLeod]

That makes a lot of sense. =) Personally, I prefer lots of abstraction, hand-waving and fast yet colorfully narrative moments.

I would imagine the health system for this game like this; 1 Critical box, 2 Moderate boxes, 3 Minor boxes. Armor adds boxes. When a category fills up it spills over to the next category. Taking a Critical always defeats the individual which is a condition under which the opponent decides their fate (AKA not always death).
Heroic PCs would probably have a resource they could expend to demote a damage type.
Super characters gain special abilities that increase boxes... or special defensive powers that can break Critical and Moderate damage down into manageable chunks.

Classy example, by the way! =P

[Ar Kayon]

I would imagine the health system for this game like this; 1 Critical box, 2 Moderate boxes, 3 Minor boxes. Armor adds boxes. When a category fills up it spills over to the next category. Taking a Critical always defeats the individual which is a condition under which the opponent decides their fate (AKA not always death).
Heroic PCs would probably have a resource they could expend to demote a damage type.
Super characters gain special abilities that increase boxes... or special defensive powers that can break Critical and Moderate damage down into manageable chunks.

These are good ideas which I will take into consideration.  Instead of special powers, however, I'll introduce skilled maneuvers.  The difference is primarily connotation as I want to differentiate heroic characters and normal characters by virtue of skill and training rather than superhuman gifts.

How will special skills be used?  There will be a small but renewable resource pool that represents a character's ability to focus in combat and time complex maneuvers.  I may simply call it "skill points".  Here's a rough draft idea of how it will work:
1. When a special skill is used, a skill point will only be depleted if it is not successful.
2. A combatant can spend a turn to regain his focus, renewing skill points.
3. Scoring a critical success may also renew a point, but I'm not sure if 1 and 2 are already enough to keep things flowing.  Perhaps a special skill may be self-renewing like #1, except only on a moderate or critical success.

So let's say you wanted to spend your turn trying to disarm your opponent.  A normal disarm may incur tough penalties, but a well-timed disarm (using a skill point) may have no penalty.  You roll a 1 and refer to the rules.  The standard rule says you don't lose a skill point and the specific rule (pertaining to the individual maneuver) states that you successfully disarm the opponent and may follow up with a free attack (no opposing action, such as "fight back") in the same turn.

Other special maneuver ideas:
1. Counterattack - gives you a free attack after a successful defend action. 
2. Group Fighting - allows you to attack more than one opponent in the same turn.
3. Sidestep - flank an opponent after a successful moving defense.  On a roll of 1, you may follow up with a counterattack if the skill is available to you.
4. Shield Mastery - gives you a free attack (with an improved success rate) to knock your opponent off balance after a successful defend action.
4. Open Guard - Break your opponent's defense with a free attack allowed after any success.

[MacLeod]

The difference is primarily connotation as I want to differentiate heroic characters and normal characters by virtue of skill and training rather than superhuman gifts.

I guess the importance of this decision relies heavily on what you are going to apply this rules set to. If you are building a toolkit then you'll want room for Super Heroes, Mythical Monsters, Wizards, Vampires, etc... Then again, if the core of the rules is most definitely Mundane then it wouldn't be too difficult to build a supernatural powers add-on. =)

How will special skills be used?  There will be a small but renewable resource pool that represents a character's ability to focus in combat and time complex maneuvers.  I may simply call it "skill points".  Here's a rough draft idea of how it will work:
1. When a special skill is used, a skill point will only be depleted if it is not successful.
2. A combatant can spend a turn to regain his focus, renewing skill points.
3. Scoring a critical success may also renew a point, but I'm not sure if 1 and 2 are already enough to keep things flowing.  Perhaps a special skill may be self-renewing like #1, except only on a moderate or critical success.

This reminds me of the mechanic I use in my own lil' game called Intergalactic League of Brawlers. The special resource that powers special abilities regenerates constantly via special moves, time and rolling very well. What I found worked for me is to have lots of different things to do with that special resource to force players to think strategically about its use. Rarely does a particular option stand out as The One, so it turns into a game of calculated gambles. =D

[Ar Kayon]

I guess the importance of this decision relies heavily on what you are going to apply this rules set to. If you are building a toolkit then you'll want room for Super Heroes, Mythical Monsters, Wizards, Vampires, etc... Then again, if the core of the rules is most definitely Mundane then it wouldn't be too difficult to build a supernatural powers add-on. =)

The core system will not have attributes.  Instead, in order to differentiate natural abilities, I was thinking that upon character creation you can buy talent or ineptitude along broad skill categories.  For example, you can buy "powerful" or "fast" talent prefixes and ineptitude prefixes such as "clumsy" or "stubborn". 

Implications
- Prevents incompatibility with an external system that values different natural abilities.  By not having a separate attribute module in which core rules are designed around, you could easily insert your own set of natural abilities without having to rework the system.  Thus, designing a system around super heroes with fantastic abilities shouldn't be too much of a hassle; you could simply increase the range of a particular prefix in most instances (e.g. "super-powerful")
- Encourages diversity of natural abilities rather than min/maxing.

[MacLeod]

I've been on a player-defined qualities kick lately... Trying to find ways to combine a narrative type system of that previously mentioned nature with something a little more gamist...

So what I'm trying to say is, I think that is a great idea. =)

Are you going to establish an optional shopping list of 'keywords' or will it be entirely player-defined? One of the issues with letting players do as they please is the broad versus specific use of words. Of course, GM intervention can stop that but it's a concern nonetheless. Nothing like that guy who writes down Athletic and Towering Mental Faculties and pours points into those two aspects. =P

[Ar Kayon]

Talents and inaptitudes (thought it would be better than "ineptitude") will be system-defined, but those individual qualities will not be part of the core rules, only the concept.  They will be system-defined and have a narrow quantitive range in order to prevent munchkin saboteurs from doing their dirty work.  I don't want a pimp-my-character system; I want something where players focus on what's actually going on. 

I took Mass Effect 2 as the perfect example of a game where attributes are absent and special skills enhance tactical color without unbalancing the system.

[MacLeod]

This is true. =) ME2 is awesome.
I think system-defined is a strong path to follow. I imagine that the Talent choices will have differing levels of broad versus specific. Such as Strong being decently broad then you'd have specific spells or narrow paths of magic.

Well hey, I don't really have any more illuminating questions as of yet... but I'll be watching this thread for further points to comment on. =D

[Locke]

This is true. =) ME2 is awesome.
I think system-defined is a strong path to follow. I imagine that the Talent choices will have differing levels of broad versus specific. Such as Strong being decently broad then you'd have specific spells or narrow paths of magic.

Well hey, I don't really have any more illuminating questions as of yet... but I'll be watching this thread for further points to comment on. =D

Hmmm I haven't played ME, but will have to check it out.  It kinda seems like the talents and what you talk of are similar to what I have done in my system.  Check it out in sig.