Hi all. Long-time lurker; first-time poster. I’d like to post, for general review and comment, the very basics of my system. If there’s any interest (and I mean “any”), I will follow with greater detail. My goal is a system that mechanically supports making all sorts of activities as potentially interesting and dramatic as combat, while retaining simplicity and elegance. I reckon I’m fairly Sim and doing my thinking in an S&S, fantasy setting, although I believe the system would allow for more scope than that. I’d dearly love to hear anyone’s thoughts on this.

One note: sometime after I began the design process, I became acquainted with HeroQuest, whose wise creators were obviously on the same wavelength as I. This presented a conundrum: either I abandon my system as too similar or risk looking like a bit of a copy. I’ve decided on the later route, with some judicious filching from those smarting than I. Despite many enlightening conversations with those strong in HQ-fu, I can not bring myself to really like the system. I love the intentions, just not implementations such as AP biddings. This is not a knock at HQ, but merely a statement of preferences and an explanation of why I’m bothering to go on. So please don’t tell me that HQ already does everything that I want, because I respectfully disagree.

The core concept of the system is the contest. A contest occurs whenever an actor attempts to do something at which he might fail (thus, walking across the room is not usually a contest, although some days, you never know). The random element is supplied by rolling the die (a d12). Each contest has a protagonist and an antagonist. These may be individuals dueling, opposing armies, Sir Edmund Hilary attempting to climb Mt. Everest, a poet and the complex poem he is trying to compose, or the Royal Court and the petitioner to it. Whatever. The protagonist initiates the contest and establishes its basic nature.

Contests are resolved by a general formula:
Roll d12 + Protagonist’s modifiers – Antagonist’s modifiers.

(This is flipped for the antagonist’s actions)

The computed number is compared on this chart, which is explained further below:

“1” = -2cc
“2” = -1.5cc
“3” = 1.25cc
"4" = -1cc
“5” = -.5cc
“6” = -.25cc
“7”= +.25cc
"8" = +.5cc
“9” = +1cc
“10” = +1.25cc
“11” = +1.5cc
"12" = +2cc

Numbers could be <1 or >12, but the results are easily extrapolated.

The second basic mechanic is the “contest check”, which is the damage mechanic. I define damage as that which limits an actor’s ability to continue a contest. During the contest, the actors deliver contest checks, or “cc”, to each other. Mechanically, a cc is a negative modifier to the die roll. An actor who receives 2 cc makes all future rolls in the contest at –2.

When an actor rolls, he multiplies his result on the chart by the Effect value of his tool or tactic (default of 1). This is the number of cc he delivers to his opponent. Note that if he fails, he delivers cc to himself. Success and failures should be narratively explained by the GM or players (perhaps successes are explained by the Gm, but failures by the player)

When one actor is unable to continue the contest because he cannot possibly make a successful roll, the contest is over. The narrative results of the contest will be explained by the GM and players, but the mechanical results are built in to the system. Temporary cc vanish at the end of the contests, but permanent cc are possible.

The modifiers to the basic rolls are further complications, but in essence, every personal attribute, ability, possession, connection, or motive is represented as a modifier, with 0 as the average. NPC’s could be represented with only one stat—the Contest Rating—used in all contests, while PC’s might have 15-20 stats.

The average chap has Strength 0, while the Warlord of Mars has +4 (only on Barsoom) and Elric might have –4 without his runesword. John Carter might further have “Leaping +3”, while Elric has “Pacts with the Beast Lords” +3 and “Patronage of Arioch” +2 (which doesn’t usually help him much, since the Knight of Swords has a ridiculously high Contest Rating).

So this system could be used for swordfights, battles against the elements, translating ancient texts, taming wild beasts, summoning supernatural aid, painting a masterpiece, or making the wittier bon mot in front of Le Comte. Standard antagonists need only be defined by one or two numbers, while complex characters can have their personalities and histories factor into the system. It all uses the same system, with only the implementations changing due to contest-specific factors (armor and shields factor in melees, while rhetorical flourishes factor into many social contests). I think that it would be simple, elegant, and playable. What about you good folks?

I think I follow you on the mechanics, and what you want them to accomplish. I think it has potential given your goals.

However, it's hard to make any thoughtful commentary without some context for the game. Perhaps you could give a general explanation of where you are going with the game? What's it about? What does play look like? That sort of thing.

Hiya Dr. Welcome to the Forge! In echoing coxcomb's post, what is this game about? What is the creative agenda, ie: the "goal" of playing? Or is this just a resolution mechanic at this point? One thing I notice is that it is task based rather than conflict based:

samsara wrote: The core concept of the system is the contest. A contest occurs whenever an actor attempts to do something at which he might fail

Brendan, I think it's not clear that it's task based - it would work fine for conflict based resolution in any case.

I do agree, however, that the IIEE needs consideration. Who decides if somthing is a contest? When is it appropriate to roll to walk across the room? When is it not appropriate to roll to skewer somebody with a sword?

As for the chart, I'd do two things. First I'd explain it as multiply the margin by the Effect value and divide by four. BTW, which way do you round, normally? If you keep the chart, then do this (assumes rounding "nearest"):

[code] |Effect Value
Roll |1 2 3 4 5 6
-------------------------------------
1 -2 -4 -6 -8 -10 -12
2 -2 -3 -5 -6 -8 -9
3 -1 -3 -4 -5 -6 -8
4 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6
5 -1 -1 -2 -2 -3 -3
6 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -2
7 0 1 1 1 1 2
8 1 1 2 2 3 3
9 1 2 3 4 5 6
10 1 3 4 5 6 8
11 2 3 5 6 8 9
12 2 4 6 8 10 12[/code]Also assumes integer effect values. Adjust as appropriate for fractional effect values.

Mike

Thanks for the prompt responses. The system is, indeed, action-oriented; contests are defined as a series of actions and their consequences. But actions are defined very broadly. Right now, the system is also just a mechanic. I strenuously avoid any whiff of “generic”, but I do think that the mechanic could be implemented in numerous ways in order to play lots of different games. For example, I have worked out a Taint implementation for a game which is kind of an OD&D pastiche and comment: the characters fight awful beasties and take their cool stuff, only to find that they longer they use this cool stuff, the more unpleasant they are becoming. It could be tweaked to a more general, Sorcerer-style Humanity game. For another example, there’s a heroic adventurer set-up in which the characters must sacrifice stats in order to improve/learn new stats. The idea of that game is to explore what you must lose in order to gain (remember that personality and community are stats). I will happily expand on these ideas if anyone wants to see them.

I also have two very broad “modes” to the game which I am calling the Classical and the Romantic: the Classical is very defined, chargen is point-buy, and you will always know what stats go with what actions. The Romantic is very free form, chargen is by theme, your stats are improved on the basis of what fits this character and his theme, and any stat could potentially apply to any action given the proper description. I’m a bit more excited by the Romantic mode right now (many thanks to Mark “Tipop” Williams for many enlightening conversations about this), although the Classical has the appeal of formalism and elegance.

Rather than go into a more specific discussion of stats, let me answer the question about contests and how they end. I’ll also provide some examples. The basic mechanism is this: since 0 is the average stat, an average guy in a contest with an average guy has a 50% chance of succeeding in his actions. That is, he rolls a d12, adds his modifiers (0), subtracts his opponent’s modifiers (0), and reads the result. 1-6 is some form of failure; 7-12 is some form of success. Whoever suffers a relative modifier of –6 would lose the contest, since even rolling 12 results in failure (12 – 6 +0 = 6). “Relative” is important here. If the first guy has suffered 2 cc, then the second guy wouldn’t be out until he suffers 8 cc (12 – 8 + 2 = 6). This would all be a bit more involved for most PC’s since they not only have higher stats, but usually a variety of stats which they could bring to bear in the contest; in addition, many folks would give up before being thoroughly bested. But this is the basic mechanism for ending a contest.

Let’s take a sword-fight as a starting example:

Ex #1: Naughty Gutboy Barrelhouse of old-school fame attacks his companion Balto the Monk with his battle-axe (he’s evil, remember). Gutboy has a modifier of +5 (how this is determined comes later, but it’s kind of a skill + stat thing) while Balto has a +1 (for those who recall Balto, he’s only a 1st level monk, poor sod, and ought to travel in better company). Gutboy rolls a 7, which when computed is 7 (roll) + 5 (his modifier) – 1 (Balto’s mod) = 11. His axe has an Effect rating of 3 cc (I just made that up, but it would be something like that), so he multiplies this by 1.5 (from the “11” chart) and finds that he has delivered 5 contest checks to Balto (3 x 1.5 = 4.5, rounded up to 5). Balto is now at –5 to do anything and is pretty much in trouble. If he tries to attack, his +1 mod has turned into a –4 (+1 – 5). 2 more cc delivered to Balto will definitively put him out of the contest, at which point it must be decided if he is knocked out, fainted, or had his head removed.

Ex #2: Now let’s rewind that. In a parallel world, Gutboy swings his axe and rolls “1”. Zounds! 1 + 5 – 1 = 5. The chart says that gives a –.5cc multiplier. The axe has a 3 Effect, multiplied by -.5 = -2 (remember fractions round up). He has given himself 2 cc! Maybe he threw himself badly off balance by chopping and missing; maybe he pulled his shoulder out of joint; maybe he got his axe caught in a door – the details can be improvised (my thought is that when a player screws up, he could devise the explanation and so remove some of the sting of blowing it). Maybe Balto stands a chance now, although he’d be advised to hoof it out of that old dungeon.

I think that this combat system is fairly gritty (once you take 6 cc’s, you’re pretty much out of the fight) and avoids fighters laughing at the daggers being stuck into them. But it would allow for equally matched foes to duel, delivering 1 or 2 cc’s every once in a while. I’m also thinking of an optional “dueling rule” that would give the player who fails a choice of either delivering the cc’s to himself, as Gutboy just did OR letting his opponent recover a like amount of cc’s; thus two matching foes could see-saw back-and-forth like Errol Flynn and Basil Rathbone while two mismatched foes are likely to end the thing in a round or two.

Someone (I can’t recall who, but I think it was in a review of the Dying Earth game), pointed out that non-combat contests are usually less interesting than combats because they are usually one-roll events: you make your stealth roll and pass unnoticed or you fail it and the guards are alerted. The problem is that there is no give-and-take like in combat; up one round and then suddenly finding the tables turned. I want that kind of drama for all contests, which would then make combat seem (maybe paradoxically) less interesting since less unique.

Ex #3: So in yet another parallel world, Gutboy finds himself debating the Modalist Monarchian theology with Balto. Here Balto has a +6 and Gutboy has nothing. Gutboy rolls his “5” which modifies into (5 + 0 – 6 =) -1. Gutboy is using a standard argumentative technique with an Effect rating of 1. Multiplying this by –2.5 (extrapolated from the chart result of “-1”), he delivers –3 cc to himself, which is pretty bad. Maybe he quoted some heretical source, or thought they were talking about Buddhism instead of Christianity, or couldn’t think of anything to say and called Balto a name, or just sat there and gargled. Anyway, he’s now at –3 for any further actions in this contest. And when Balto smiles and begins to speak, his rolls will now be at +9 (his +6 - -3). If Gutboy suffers 3 more cc, he is out: maybe he starts crying, maybe the audience gets up and leaves or maybe they all start booing him. In any case, he cannot win the contest (however his objective was stated).

If you’re still bothering with me, then I’ll move on. Contest checks come in two major and two minor varieties (this is a lot simpler than it sounds). Most of the cc in the above example are temporary checks. When the fight is over, in #2 above, Gutboy will have freed his axe or recovered his balance or shrug off his sprained shoulder. In #3, Mr. Barrelhouse will regain his ability to speak as soon as the debate is over. Temporary cc disappear when the contest is definitively concluded.

But for every 5 temporary cc suffered, a character gains 1 permanent cc. In #1 above, Balto suffers a permanent cc (and will be lucky if that’s all he suffers, since he’s likely to be rendered incapable in the next round). Permanent cc require some time or effort to be removed. I haven’t set a healing rate yet; maybe 1 cc per day or two days or something. These are the major varieties.

The minor varieties are physical or mental cc. This is determined only for permanent cc. The idea is that anything in the immediacy of a contest throws you off, so if Gutboy is chopping at Balto and somebody begins to persuade him to stop, it weakens his ability to attack (he’s distracted or confused or his heart’s not in it). Conversely, if Balto is detailing the finer points of St. Augustine’s theology and somebody begins shooting arrows at him, he will not be as effective an interlocutor. However, once the contest is over, the GM will decide whether permanent cc are physical or mental (it should be obvious most of the time). In #1 above, if Balto gets away, he will be running around with a big wound in his shoulder for a while, which will hurt his physical activities, but not so much his mental ones (he learns to ignore the pain after a while). And in #3, if Gutboy keeps getting walloped in the debate, he may have permanently lost confidence in his abilities as an orator and thinker, but this won’t hamper his chopping skills.

I’ll stop there for now and continue with stats next time if I still have any folks with me. I'd also be quite interested in discussing how and when contests are intiated and how to decide upon the resolution. Thanks for any thoughts you may have.

As I have mentioned in another thread or two, my baby girl was recently born and I have been much distracted. Am still so, actually, but thought I might answer a question or two here raised by Mike.

The Nature of Contests:
The players declaration of intent is only that: intent. Actual effect will be
determined by the die roll. Rolling poorly means that things you did not want to happen, happen. I’m thinking that in these cases, the GM could leave the actual descrition of the effect up to the player; the mechanical effect is built into the roll.

A potential complicating factor of this system is the need to determine the
nature of the contest. This includes the *scope* of the contest and *who*
determines this.

The scope of the contest sets forth the victory conditions. To use “the
Princess Bride”, in the Wesley-Inigo duel, Wesley seems to determine that he is trying to knock out Inigo, not kill him. Trickier is Wesley v. Vizzini;
what is actually being contested there, since Wesley is going to put the
poison in both cups and Vizzini is going to die? It seems to me that this
contest is about making Vizzini shut up and drink. If the Sicilian had won he would still be talking about himself.

A pertinent question then: could each actor in a contest have his own victory condition; can the scope of the contest be different? Is Wesley engaging in a contest to knock out his foe, while Inigo is engaging in contest to kill? Can Wesley change his mind part way through (he probably was going to kill Inigo initially)?

In some cases, the nature of the contest will be obvious: you knock down the door and see the evil, Stygian sorcerer about to plunge the knife into the victim; swords drawn you rush in. It’s a fight to the death. But the Wesley-Humperdink thing shows that the nature may not be so obvious: Humperdink clearly thinks this is a duel, while Wesley turns it into a conversation.

It strikes me that if we grant the idea of an initiative-sysyem for now, one
approach is to say that the one with initiative determines the nature of the
contest. In the first case, the wicked sorcerer would probably love the
contest to be anything other than a physical fight, but he was surprised and has no say. In the second, Wesley wins initiative and determines the contest will be persuasion rather than dueling.

If I went that way, then the system needs something else. Since I’ve proposed Offensive and Defensive Values for fights, then it would make sense to have such a distinction for Mental/Social and Spiritual Contests. For example, your vanilla-fantasy orc (does that sound kind of weird?) would have terrible social skills, but would also be very hard to persuade or engage in a poetry contest. Perhaps this orc has OMV (Offensive Mental Value) –4 (he’s a slobbering monster) and DMV +4 (he’s fairly impervious to attempts to persuade). If Wesley tried his trick against the orc, he would quickly lose the contest, at which point a new contest would begin: the fight.

This gives a rationale for those scenes where the hero or villain stands
around and talks for a while before the fight actually starts and his
antagonist doesn’t just rush him. The hero rushes in and tries to convince
the villain to give up; he fails and the fight commences. What we would have is two sequential contests: a mental contest followed by a physical. It would be vital then to recall that temp cc’s disappear after the contest is
concluded, so the effects of the debate (or whatever it is), may not carry
over into the duel. The heroes from the Princess Bride use a wheelbarrow and a holocaust cloak in a contest to scare the pants off of the guards. If they had lost the contest, then a new, physical contest would have commenced.

The opposite example would the trip across the Fire Swamp. There, I’d be
tempted to make the entire trek one contest: Wes and B vs. the Swamp. Each roll represents a new challenge or turn of the challenge (the flame, spouts, the lightning sand, the RUR’s). This kind of contest then *would* be wearying on the actors (another example would be Sam & Frodo trying to get to Mordor). Saving Buttercup from the lightning sand tires Wes out and makes it that much harder to fight the RUR. So, mechanically, the first round he rolls very well and has no problem with the spouts, then he rolls badly and Buttercup falls in, then he rolls okay and the they get out, but with temp cc’s, which impact their next roll (against the RUR’s).

An alternate idea for determing the nature of the contest: maybe each actor determines the nature of his own contest. Maybe Humperdink really is engaged in a fight, while Wesley is in a declarative battle. Humperdink’s problem then is that Wes strikes first and hard and Humperdink is overwhelmed. If he had rolled slightly better, then he could have rushed Wes and stabbed him. This would be simpler (“everybody do whatever you want to do”), but maybe more problematic. If Humperdink stabbed Wes, could Wes really keep trying to convince him to lay down his sword? Seems unlikely.