New universal game mechanic idea.

[Bill Logan]

Okay.  This is my first major post.  Here goes.

Stats:
Players have no attributes, skills, advantages, disadvantages, or anything cumbersome like that (he said what?).  Instead they are just a list of Traits, decided upon by the player and the GM (perhaps with some guidelines in a book).  The format for these Traits is:

X (Strong, Skilled Acrobat, Wealthy, Attractive, etc.)
Very X (Very Strong, Very Acrobatic, Very Wealthy, etc.)
Extremely X (Extremely Acrobatic, Extremely Attractive, etc.)

Character Generation:
When generating a character, X costs 1 point.  Very X costs 2 points.  Extremely X costs 4 points.  Players have 10 points to build their characters.  In order to get more points to spend, players can create negative Traits (things which penalize you) if approved by the GM.  Examples:  Weak, Glass-jawed, Very Poor, Extremely Ugly, etc.  It's up to the GM to make sure that Traits that cover extremely broad areas should be limited to non-combative Traits.  Very Skilled Alchemist might be okay, but Very Skilled Fighter is definately not.

Game Mechanics:
Players simply roll 3d6 for any action that a reasonably competent person should be able to attempt with minimal or no training.  Thus, anyone could pick up a pistol and shoot it reasonably, but could they unjam it?  Anyone could attempt to field-bandage a fallen friend, but could they operate on the poor friend when he has an artery torn by a laser?  You get the idea.  If a reasonably competent person can have a fair chance, you roll 3d6.

Target Numbers:
I like to keep target numbers simple, and here's my idea:  Target numbers range from 1 to 6.  When a character rolls his action dice, each die that equals or exceeds the target number counts as 1 Mark.  Typically, only 1 Mark is necessary to be successful (albeit minimally so).  The more Marks scored the more dramatically successful the character is.

Target Number & Difficulty
1 Automatic Success – don't even roll it.
2 Routine – Most people could do this with minimal effort.
3 Challenging – A reasonably talented person should have a fair chance of success.
4 Complex – Expect to fail now and then unless you are particularly skilled or talented.
5 Difficult– You probably should try to find an easier way.  Very skilled or very talented people should be successful.
6 Very Difficult – Maybe if you're lucky...

Action Resolution:
If you can convince your GM that one or more of your Traits should help your chances of success, you may roll additional dice.  

X +1d6
Very X +2d6
Extremely X +3d6

Never should a player be successful at convincing his GM that more than two Traits can come into play simultaneously.  However, the GM can apply any number of negative Traits your character possesses that seems reasonably appropriate.

You can even have quality equipment.  

Good gear provides +1d6
Very Good Gear +2d6
Extremely Good Gear +3d6

Thus, in an extreme situation a player may get to roll 3d6 for free, +6d6 for two extreme traits, +3d6 for extremely good quality equipment = 12d6!

Remember that each die that comes up equal to or greater than the target number counts as 1 Mark.  There is no guarantee that any dice will show up as a Mark even with 12 dice to roll!  But the odds obviously improve with more dice.

Character vs. Character
Simply have each character develop a number of Marks based on the situation.  The Target Number is typically 3, modifiable only by adverse conditions.  The one with the greater number of Marks is the victor.

Well, that's my idea.  I still don't have mechanics built for combat or damage or armor, etc.  But it's a start.  What do you think?

Example Character

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kalen Thrall (Carousing Science Officer on the UPD Explorer)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extremely Perceptive          (4 pts)
Very Skilled Space Scientist       (2 pts)
Skilled Blaster Marksman       (1 pt)
Skilled Wilderness Survivalist       (1 pt)
High Status – StarBaron Thrall's grandson    (1 pt)
Very Talented Small Spacecraft Pilot    (2 pts)
Light Sleeper          (1 pt)
Very Fast Runner          (2 pt)
Charming             (1 pt)
Addicted to Gambling          (-1 pt)
Extreme Soft-spot for Women       (-4 pts)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yup.  That's the whole character sheet.  Just looking at it gives you an image of the character.  Much better than numbers and such, eh?

[deadpanbob]

Bill,

Welcome to the Forge, if no one else has done so.

Okay, standard Forge question #1:

Why would I play this game instead of say, Fudge, Fate (a specialized application of Fudge), or even, a little more out there, the Pool?

All of those games have very simplified rules and systems - the Pool is even more simplified than what you've proposed above.

If you've never heard of those games - well might I respectfully suggest you read the following: Mike's Standard Rant #1.

The system you propose has been done before - which isn't a snipe!  You could do great things with a system like this, but you have to be able to answer standard Forge question #1 above.

Now for standard Forge question #2:

What's the point of play?  What do you see as an ideal play session?  What are the real people, the players, doing and saying around the table while playing this game?

That's another important question to answer.

If you haven't searched through the forums and articles 'round here very thuroughly yet - you'll find that nearly every game design you could possibly imagine has been attempted.  That doesn't mean that your ideas can't be executed in a new and unique way - nor that they can't provide a new spin on tried and true designs.  I just got the vibe that your post was presenting this approach as new - which it isn't yet - but could be depending on where you take it.

Good luck.

Cheers,



Jason

[Mike Holmes]

Well, the number two question "what do you do?" can only be answered for a generic game with "whatever the GM and players want".  So we can assume that standard for this game, I'd guess, Jason.

The problem is that, given that all generic games have this answer, you have to compare them to each other on the same scale. Does this game have the ability to do whatever the players and GM want well? Well, it certainly seems to stay awar from being too limiting. But I'm not seeing much in the way of any specific ability to model anything that you don't find in most games.

Lesse:
1. Player defined abilites with very large grained distribution.
2. Simple difficulty system.
3. Die pool resolution.

Well, I can name a whole lot of systems that have exactly these attributes. Story Bones, for example is the free version of Story Engine, and it has all this and more. This page:

http://www.darkshire.org/~jhkim/rpg/freerpgs/bykeyword/universal.html

has a link to the PDF version, along with numerous other free RPGs that do what this game does.

A few questions. Why the focus on combat? Doesn't that mean that the game is less "universal"? By focus on combat, I mean specifically pointing out that combat skills should be narrower, indicating that combat will have a privileged place in play. Not to mention the upcoming combat specific rules.

How many negative traits am I allowed to take? Is there a limit?

Do Marks have any mechanical effect, or are they just for description's sake?

Mike

[Bill Logan]

Okay.  Thanks for the great advice.

QUESTIONS:
As far as the two questions: the game mechanic concept was preliminary.  Before being able to provide answers to these questions, I needed help in solidifying my mechanical concept.  I apologize if this is not the correct forum for such discussions.  I assumed this assembly of esteemed rules-tinkerers would be able to offer some assistance.

Since I posted the original message, I've had time to do some playtesting.  Several problems exist with the flexibility given to the player at the point of character generation.  All of my players are excellent role-players with a story-slant to character design (no min/maxing), but none could ignore the fact that saying Extremely Tough (or Extremely Influential, etc.) had pretty broad implications, necessitating a list of approved traits.  This, of coarse, went against the very concept of the flexible system.

FOCUS ON COMBAT:
I did not intend the focus on combat, but every role-playing game has, at its core, a game balance that focuses on character survival against obstacles (whether directly confrontational, verbal, or just plain tricky).  So any initial discussion of game mechanics (in my opinion) has to keep combat in mind.

LIMITS:
After playing around with the game rules, I found that a character should never be created with more negative Trait points than half his positive Traits (huh?).  What I mean is: if the GM allows a 10-point character, he can have up to 5 points more if countered by an equal number of points of negative Traits.  Otherwise, people start listing negative traits that seem less like character flaws and more like GURPS quirks.

Additionally, I found that the X, Very X, Extremely X formula works well for most genres, but like Fudge (and some others) some Scale-like modification needs to exist to represent extraordinary levels of Traits.  I'm not sure what to do about this and still keep things versitile and simple.

Anyway, my question to you: is there a simple manner in which players can still be given the flexibility to assign adjective-like Traits to their character with some level of balance without necessitating a direct list?

My thought is for GMs to assign an extra point cost for Traits which sound too broad, but this is very subjective, don't you think?  Maybe 1 point extra (on top of whatever level they purchased the Trait for) for a Broad Trait, 2 points extra for a Very Broad Trait, and 4 points extra for an Extremely Broad Trait.  This means that someone who wanted to make a character who is Extremely Tough could - but the GM may warrant this a Very Broad Trait (it sounds like it governs many physical aspects of a character) and would cost him 6 points instead of the 4 normally associated with Extremely X.  I could playtest this idea, but I'm curious what you all think.

[Andrew Martin]

Since I posted the original message, I've had time to do some playtesting.

It's really great to see that you've managed to test out your game system, and that you're feeding back that experience into your game design.

FOCUS ON COMBAT:
I did not intend the focus on combat, but every role-playing game has, at its core, a game balance that focuses on character survival against obstacles (whether directly confrontational, verbal, or just plain tricky). So any initial discussion of game mechanics (in my opinion) has to keep combat in mind.

There's a number of games on The Forge and elsewhere, which seem to contradict your opinion. Consider Zac's Shadows for one.

All of my players are excellent role-players with a story-slant to character design (no min/maxing), but none could ignore the fact that saying Extremely Tough (or Extremely Influential, etc.) had pretty broad implications, necessitating a list of approved traits.  This, of coarse, went against the very concept of the flexible system.
...
Otherwise, people start listing negative traits that seem less like character flaws and more like GURPS quirks.

System does matter.

:)

Anyway, my question to you: is there a simple manner in which players can still be given the flexibility to assign adjective-like Traits to their character with some level of balance without necessitating a direct list?

As can be seen from your experience in play testing, the game currently rewards min-maxing behaviour even from players who are: "excellent role-players with a story-slant to character design". Have you considered rewarding your role-players, instead of "punishing" them with a game system that rewards "min-maxing"?

What exactly do you mean by "some level of balance"?

By the way, the quick solution to your problem is the same solution to "The Tragedy of the Commons".