The Cychosys Roleplay System has recently been published online. It offers a point-based, multi-genre, universal system available in freely-available PDF files. Notes for campaign settings used in playtesting are also in the process of being posted.

We offer a forum, frequented by the game designer and playtest group, for public comment, questions, and general bs'ing.

I invite you all to check it out, comment, and critique it, at www.cychosys.com.

Thank you.

I've playtested this system and I love it. Its highly adaptable and can suit many different roleplaying genres.

I highly urge you to check it out.

First, a layout nitpick: The PDF could not start in a worse way, for me. That first page of tables, without context, is very off-putting. It doesn't encourage me to read further. I decided to press on, though, in the interest of giving feedback. You might want to consider starting the document with a general statement of intent or other introductory text, instead of a page of tables.

I'm not sure what the goal of this system is. I think it's supposed to be "universal" but that term means different things to different people. I'll try to judge the rules based on what they seem to support. This may or may not be the actual goal behind them, so take my comments with a grain of salt.

At first glance, this system supports a wildly chaotic and unpredictable style of play. The dice system causes all characters to critically fail 8.3% of the time (a roll of 12 on 1d12) regardless of training. Based on the examples in the text, it seems as though a lot of dice rolling is preferred, even for tasks which are generally considered trivial in most RPGs. For instance, the Private Eye character in one example is asked to make a Navigation roll to remember how to get to his client's office. He also makes an Observe roll to spot any tails. That's two separate rolls for one bit of action, each with an 8.3% chance of a fumble.

If dice rolling is to be this common a character can be expected to fumble at least once per session. This system would support a style of play that featured slapstick or incompetent characters who generally botch a job even if they're trained for it. In the PI example above, a critical failure on the Navigation roll might have our detective hero wandering aimlessly around his hometown, searching in vain for an address he visited yesterday. Definitely not the stuff of heroic fiction, but appropriate for a Pink Panther-style escapade.

I'll hold off on further comments until I have a better idea of the goals and preferred style of play for this game. I suspect that slapstick was not what you were after.

Do you have specific questions/comments/concerns that you would like us to address in this thread? That might help us focus the discussion.

Actually, John, I used a similar die mechanic called d10+ (1-10 = 1-10; 11=flub, 12=auto) for Toast, and it worked fine in play, with just as high an emphasis on lots of rolls. Basically there's a 16.6% chance that something interesting will happen for any roll, for good or ill. And that's actually pretty...well, interesting, in my experience. Toast is a "serious" game, and the dice mechanics didn't significantly undermine the tone with slapstick.

Anyway. Hi Rat, Chosen - welcome to the Forge!

As John has pointed out, you'll get better responses if you pose specific questions. Keeps the conversation focused and as useful as possible. So. How can we help you?

Of course, there's also the possiblity that you're not looking for design advice, in which case the Publishing or Connections forum might have been a better spot for this. But no biggie. Just give us a better idea what you're looking for, 'kay?

I believe that the system worked for you, Ethan, and didn't result in slapstick. However, for me, an 8% chance of critical failure everytime I roll will always be pretty ridiculous. Sometimes this is what I want, but when my no-nonsene fighter-jockey wrecks his spaceship for the second time this session because I botched the Landing roll... well, the game just gets silly.

There are certainly techniques that both GM and players can provide to keep this kind of silliness from happening, but so far I haven't seen any such techniques in the game text. Played as written, characters in Cychosys screw up a *lot*. Since trivial rolls are common (I think), they often screw up doing perfectly ordinary things (like remembering where they parked their car). That's slapstick, in my opinion.

Maybe you can share why your game didn't devolve into slapstick, and the techniques you used to keep the very unreliable resolution system in check. Might be helpful insight for the Cychosys system.

Hmmm. I was GM-ing whenever we played Toast. But it's been years; I can't remember any specific techniques I used to keep things focused. All I can remember is that it seemed to work. I will say this, though - I'm guessing you haven't played in a system that has that high a percentage chance of "critical" results. 8.3% looks huge on paper but in practice really isn't as extreme as you might think. Of course, I could be wrong and you have played such a system, in which case, nevermind.

I have indeed played such a system. Several, in fact. None of which meant to support "silly" play, either. The most common technique to manage a dice system like this is to only call for rolls when failure (espeically catostrophic failure) is desirable as a possible outcome. If you're only rolling when it's "interesting", so to speak, then the high-variance can be a nice addition to the game.

Take Godlike, for instance. If you make a player roll for every task his soldier attempts, he will fall on his face all the time -- even at tasks he's trained for, like shooting a rifle. If you asked the players to roll for each shot taken in a marksmanship exam, for instance, they would all be drummed out of the infantry immediately. However, if you apply the same system to tasks attempted only under severe stress, then the more random results are desirable and not silly at all.

It's the combination of trivial-task rolls and significant chance of catastrophe that makes for a slapstick game, in my opinion. I suspect that your game ran smoothly because you as GM were able to judge what constituted an "interesting" roll and what didn't. The creators of Cychosys probably do this, too. It would be very helpful if these "when to roll" techiniques were outlined in the rules.

ethan_greer: I'd also say your post gives away that you were using a particular technique when you say something 'interesting' happens rather than a screw up. I'm getting the feeling you used it to inject stimulating extra problems that the players could use their wits to unravel. That is fun. Other GM's might just say the PC screws up and they crash their space ship yet again, with no presentation of a problem that the players might be able to resolve with wit. Your technique (I estimate) engages players, the latter one simply takes it out of their hands and makes their PC's fail.

Hope you don't mind the back handed compliment. :)

John, Noon, I think you're probably both correct - I didn't call for rolls on every little thing, and I also used the Flubs and Autos to spice things up and keep the players on their toes rather than screw with them. And Noon, back-handed or otherwise, I'll take any compliment offered. :)

All this about Toast is neither here not there, however - we're supposed to be talking about this Cychosys game of King Rat's. Unless this was just a spam post...?

I suggest (humbly) that we wait and see what the originator of the thread has to say before we say anything else here.

Looks like I'm a bit late here, but I was curious and went nosing around the game's discussion forum.

It appears they recently switched from 2d6 to 1d12, and so I'd submit that it may very well be worth discussing the prevalence of critical failures (since obviously rolling two 6's is quite different from rolling one 12).

I'm also interested in the experience mechanic -- right now, it seems that a character will gain 1 XP every time their player rolls an 11 or 12. (For reference, the sample character seems to start with 100 or so XP.) That's an intriguing idea, that learning is based on some particular insight gained from a striking success or failure, but I'd be curious to hear about the designer's experiences with things like some players advancing much faster than others through sheer luck, or players who manipulate play to get as many rolls as possible so that they can advance more quickly.

Now that I have those questions off my chest, I'm happy to wait for the writer to pop his head back in.

Howdy...I'm a long time playtester of this game so maybe I can help a little.

Rolling is not necessary for trivial actions and the GM would never make you roll a navigation total to return to your secret lair, obviously you know where its at. It all depends on the GM style I suppose but, he/she can make you perform as many dice actions as they seem appropriate. Generally we would make a navigation total to find someplace in London that we have never been before, or if we go into the sewers. Hope the example is helpful.

With the d12 mechanic the critical failure rate is up a bit, but its not like every critical failure results in a "major life altering incident". This is largely left up to the game master. I mean it obviously does depend on the situation being rolled for. I mean if your trying to find your way through London to an Inn and you crit a navigation total you may find yourself going down the wrong street or getting on the wrong train. Its not like you accidently step on a rake it flies up and pops out your eye. Like was mentioned earlier its more of a keep the players on their toes thing for less life altering rolls.

The thing is the 12 is also a stop on a dice action if it isin't your inital roll. A stop is not a critical failure. I think everyone understood that but just thought I'd get it out there for clarification.

However, as pointed out we just recently switched to the d12 mechanic. We did use the 2d6 mechanic for some time and the critical failure rate was a bit lower. We have had some discussion on the Cychosys forum, and we will be including the 2d6 mechanic rules as optional rules for the system. Each mechanic has its merits and flaws. The 2d6 has lower critical failure rates, less stops, and more XP gain. The d12 has higher failure rates. more stops, and less XP gain. The stops may not seem to important at this point, but they keep totals in check.

As for XP, the inital assesment was correct. 1 XP for an 11 or 12 rolled. This basically means you can learn from your triumphs and mistakes. As pointed out this does mean that characters that seem to do more rolling tend to gain more expereince. I've played in three major campaigns with this systems variants and the XP has always been the gained through dice actions. With the occasional award of 10xp from the GM for a really well played moment. Suprisingly though nobody ever seems to soar through the roof with XP. In the current version's campain (Victorian Fog) the largest gap in XP is maybe 30 pts. I will grant you that the character that has the most XP has a time warping pocket watch that lets him go three times a round, therefore he get more rolls which equals more XP. This gap might seem large to a beginning set of characters but with 300+ pt. characters (we have been playing for like 8 monts so we have gained a bit of XP) the gap is not very large.

Players just trying to find things to roll for just to gain XP is a possibilty. We are a close knit gaming group and we haven't seen that abuse. I do understand where it is a real possibilty however. All, I can say is this is where the GM needs to step in and take control of his game if he sees this kind of abuse. The d12 deters this a bit with its higher failure rate. Like how I brought that full circle?

As for the system we just wanted to post it so people could try it out. However, input is always good to hear. Not sure we had any specific issues we needed addressed.

I'm not quite as eloquent as King Rat, but I hope I helped.

Thanks for the response, Chsoen One.

I think I still don't understand the type of play that the rules are trying to support, so I don't think I can offer any helpful critiques. If they're supposed to support "anything and everything" then I really can't help you. Those kinds of systems just aren't my thing.

It sounds like maybe King Rat just posted here as a kind of advertisement for his game and isn't really looking for in-depth design help here at the Forge. Which is fine. You're probably getting plenty of useful feedback on your own forum.

Good luck with your project.

The system is designed to try and support almost anything. Its kind of plug and play after a fashion. You work out a story plug in whatever genres (wilderkin, faith, kata) are appropraite for that world paradigm, and run with it.

Thanks for the input you have given John. Its much appreciated.

Ok, I'm going to ask it.
(We all knew it was coming)

King Rat, Chsoen One:
If you've got a generic system, one that does just about everything fairly well, but needs tacked-on rules to really do anything in a super-spiffy way, what's going to make me play Cychosis rather than GURPS (if I like super-crunchy games) or Fudge (if I slide in the opposite direction)?

As you know, there are a few roleplaying games already out there. Both in the game stores and floating free on the web.

What's going to draw someone to yours? What is the real key to Cychosis, the one-sentance sum-up that's going to make me take a deeper look?

Hell, nevermind the hypothetical. I haven't downloaded the rules yet, so I'm a real, live test case. Why should I check out Cychosis?

-Matt

I'm not sure what you exactly mean by tacked on. If in tacked on you mean the genres see below.

Well, the genre rules aren't really tacked on...they work just like everything else does in the system. Its just a matter of allowing players to use those subset of skills that would compliment that genre. For example: If you were doing a realistic WWII era game you wouldn't want to use any sorcery or nethermancy, but you might want to include Kata.

As for what sets Cychosys apart. Its a skill based system thats not as heavy as Gurps, but not as light as fudge. It utilizes one dice, and the mechanic is consistent for every action you make, from firing an AK-47 to summoning a demon. The damage system is effect based, and is pretty unique in my opinion. Its also very versatile. However, I'm a playtester and not the designer. If you would, I'd direct you to read the [URL=http://www.cychosys.com/manual.php]Introduction[/URL] of the manual. Its a one page read and I'm sure it will stimulate you more than my quick blurb here. It can be found on the second page of the Intro and Chapter 1 pdf.

Check it out.

OK.

I threw down for the challenge, so I feel like I owe you guys a meaty post. Let's see if I've got one...

When I said "tacked-on," I was referring to the tendancy for universal systems to have a solid core, usually concerned with simulating a close approximation of our own reality. But, because of the universal moniker, the game has to do everything else, as well. So, just to use GURPS, in Gurps: Martial Arts, they give you tons of new rules for unarmed fighting styles. Gurps: Space gives tons of new rules about spaceships and blasters and stuff. Every Gurps book I've seen has new advantages and disadvantages at a minimum, and when you tack these on to the main rules, you supposedly get a good approximation of the genre in question.

This is only kindof true, though. If by steampunk I mean "gritty, dark, deadly exploits using anachronistic tech against the repressive Victorian elite," that's quite different from the steampunk which is "pulpy, light, improbable exploits saving the world weekly via absurd gadgets."
And, really, I don't think one base system can cover both. It'd need variant rules for such fundamental things as accuracy, damage, healing and all the rest.
Even a universal system has a certain "feel" to it. Risus and Gurps are equally universal, but one's wacky and absurd, the other's "realistic." There hasn't been a Gurps: Toon, and I hope there never is.

And this is where the rubber starts to hit the road. If I want to play Arthurian fantasy, why would I use Gurps: Middle Ages 2 when I could use Pendragon? If I want futuristic comedy, why would I sweat melding Gurps: Space and Gurps: High-Tech and Gurps: Illuminati when I could go with Paranoia? Crazy, cinematic reality hopping? Torg, not Gurps: Everything.
These games have more to offer than Gurps, in their area of specialization. Pendragon has great personality mechanics, and a real sense of generations passing. Torg has nifty rules for disconection if you're playing with a reality that isn't real to you. And I wouldn't want to play Torg using the Pendragon system, or vice versa. Because with a game built around a tight focus, it can do that thing really well.
In comparison, a unversal system is limited - by definition - to more bland rules.


Rant over. That's my standard argument. Hell, I just used it a few days ago. You're free to take it or leave it, of course. (You're pretty invested in the opposite side, after all.)

And I'll admit, you intrigued me enough to take a look.

I like it! It's got some clever bits.
And now that I'm invested, what sorts of feedback are y'all looking for? What seem to be the rough spots?

-Matt

Thank you for the post...

Well first of all I will say that we have tackled several different settings with Cychosys. If you look at the webpage you can see the settings we have touched in greater detail.

We have done cyberpunkish, space, romanesque fantasy, and currently doing Victorian super heroes. The system holds up well in all of these settings. I'll agree there is a "core" system per say. However the additon of the genres does not add additional rules. It adds a group of up to four skills and trademarks, those skills and trademarks work like every other skill or trademark in the system does. They are just inserted to give players the appropraite skills to mimic the reality they are playing in. The "feel" of the game is dictacted by the GM not defined by additional rules.

However, a nod to you about your concern in universal systems...we are developing "framing rules". This would be optional rules you could insert if you wished to help flush out things. Some of them are more of suggestions on how to design certain tricks than rules per say. I am only talking about two additonal rules at the most, not a full fledged sourcebook per say. Just to clarify.

I understand your argument about why use a universal system that may be kind of bland when you can use a more specialized system. However I will play devils advocate, I mean the argument between universal v. specialized is one that will rage on till long after were gone I'm sure.

To this I can only say its a learning curve, and to be honest in some instances even those more specialized systems are lacking in ceratin departments. Hell, the original reason we even designed Cychosys was because Cyberpunk lacked heavily for us. Not to mention everytime I want to try out a new setting I'm not forced to shop around for new systems, spend money on them if neccessary, and/or learn a new rules set everytime. I mean heck do they even publish Paranoia anymore?

Heck we have even played a few TORG one shots with Cychosys. Our GM is a huge TORG fan. It was done with two simple tweaks. Adding a skill called reality and allowing XP to be spent as possibility. We could never add that to the manual but once again it demonstrates how adaptable I feel the system is.

Once again I truly appreciate you taking a peek at it, and taking the time to post.

Gurp Toons...ick!

Anyways, we posted the system to kind of just get it out there for people to use if they saw fit. We didn't have any major design questions. We just kind of wanted general input.

Maybe you could speak on the parts you like, dislike, or just don't understand. Also, it has come to our attention that our manual could be a little better written/organized. We have been looking at it so long it never phases us. What are your thoughts?

Ack~! Sorry I've been away from the board for so long. I'm reading through the replies now, and composing my response. I will post it later today.

Okay, I think I've addressed everything posted. If I missed a question, or if there are others, please post.

John Harper wrote: First, a layout nitpick: The PDF could not start in a worse way, for me. That first page of tables, without context, is very off-putting.... You might want to consider starting the document with a general statement of intent or other introductory text, instead of a page of tables.

John Harper wrote: At first glance, this system supports a wildly chaotic and unpredictable style of play. The dice system causes all characters to critically fail 8.3% of the time (a roll of 12 on 1d12) regardless of training. Based on the examples in the text, it seems as though a lot of dice rolling is preferred, even for tasks which are generally considered trivial in most RPGs. For instance, the Private Eye character in one example is asked to make a Navigation roll to remember how to get to his client's office. He also makes an Observe roll to spot any tails. That's two separate rolls for one bit of action, each with an 8.3% chance of a fumble.

John Harper wrote: Do you have specific questions/comments/concerns that you would like us to address in this thread? That might help us focus the discussion.

Andrew Norris wrote: It appears they recently switched from 2d6 to 1d12, and so I'd submit that it may very well be worth discussing the prevalence of critical failures (since obviously rolling two 6's is quite different from rolling one 12).

Andrew Norris wrote: I'm also interested in the experience mechanic -- right now, it seems that a character will gain 1 XP every time their player rolls an 11 or 12. (For reference, the sample character seems to start with 100 or so XP.) That's an intriguing idea, that learning is based on some particular insight gained from a striking success or failure, but I'd be curious to hear about the designer's experiences with things like some players advancing much faster than others through sheer luck, or players who manipulate play to get as many rolls as possible so that they can advance more quickly.

Garbanzo wrote: If you've got a generic system, one that does just about everything fairly well, but needs tacked-on rules to really do anything in a super-spiffy way, what's going to make me play Cychosis rather than GURPS (if I like super-crunchy games) or Fudge (if I slide in the opposite direction)?

What's going to draw someone to yours? What is the real key to Cychosis, the one-sentance sum-up that's going to make me take a deeper look?

The examples are intended to show the mechanics of the system, and should not be used to infer playstyle. Navigation rolls typically would not be mde unless some part of the trip were unfamiliar to the characters. It is not uncommon for our group to have 2-3 fumbles per character during a play session (8-9 hours). I would describe the feel of the game as roughly midway between realism and pulp.

Fumbles/crashes are not necessarily catastrophic (even though it uses that term in the manual--I think that was left over from the old dice mechanic when fumbles had a 2.7% chance). Their interpretation is largely situation dependent. I can't remember a situation in which our GM has manufactured a critical event simply because a fumbe was rolled in a low-threat situation.

What Ralph said. Everything he said is solid, helpful advice. Take it very seriously.

If you want Red Raven to be more than a convenient house-system for you and your friends, these are the issues that need to be addressed.

John Harper wrote: If you want Red Raven to be more than a convenient house-system for you and your friends, these are the issues that need to be addressed.

Valamir wrote: Similarly be explicit about this. Do not rely on GM judgment to determine when to apply a fumble and when to ignore it. This is important system mechanic stuff. Why bother using a rule set if the rule set is going to leave all of the important issues up to the GM anyway. Might as well just make it up.