The idea is that characters are made up of three traits:
Style
Violence
and Intelligence

these are prioritized as primary (5 dots), secondary (3 dots) and tertiary (1 dot).

resolutions are the appropriate trait's dots + 1d6, against a static task difficult rating set by the GM, which can be bumped up or down according to the varying conditions that might be occuring (more on this kinda thing later)

Two traits can be used in unison by adding the two traits and subtracting two dots from them, plus 1d6.

Resisted contests (like when your having a conflict with someone in some means be it verbal/mental/physical/ect or when someone is trying to prevent you from doing something) has the appropriate trait (which might not be the same trait from both) +1d6 with the higher one winning, obviously. The more someone wins by the more sure and permanent a victory it was. More importantly, someone who loses a resisted contest would most likely have the trait they were using penalized anywhere from -1 dots to -5 dots, which cannot be recovered until the next section or a GM's plot event. Penalties to Violence are called Hurt, to Style are called Shaken, and to Intelligence are called Nervous. If at any point the accumulated penalties in any trait reach five below zero, the character is incapacitated for the rest of the session (unless GM says otherwise)

Also, depending on what was being contested, after winning a resisting contest what the winner was trying to accomplish, like defeating his opponent somehow, might of suceeded, or if his opponent was just beat in trying to keep him from doing something, the winner now has to do the non-resisted task resolution for the task at hand, now that the pesky resistor is out of the way.

A shallow system that at least appears to me that would function at least to some degree in play, though that would have to be tested. I'd use it for any action type game without specific connotations (like you'r all gods, you'r all cowboys, you'r all werewolves) Instead it would be more for reflecting badassity in different areas, and I can picture working well for different action movie tropes.

Any thoughts?

BTW: the name is just some random word that came to me, deriving off of Swift.

The advancement routes would be chosen when the character is first made. There are two: Expert, and Everyman.

Expert allows the addition of dots to the primary attribute to an infinite degree. However only one dot (to make a total of two, or four) can ever be added to the secondary or tertiary.

Everyman has the five dot cap limit, but you can be free to allocate dots as you please. And, unique to this game, the amount of dots it would take an Everyman to have five in everything (6) is the max amount Experts as well can ever receive. Once 6 advancement dots in total have been gotten, the character is fully mature and cannot get any better. However, additional advancement dots gotten can be used to counter penalties, 1 dot for 1 dice (its a steep price, but what else are you gonna use em for?) this cannot be done until the character is mature, representing an experienced person no matter which stats they are best in.

so of course, the gaining of advancement dots to be placed in the 3 traits should be extremely rare and important, unless your playing a one shot or short campaign.

inspirations, at least of a shallow nature, for the ideal game/setting for use with Swiff is Fast Company, an excellent free JAGS setting, and lots of bad 80's pop culture action movies.

Violence is for anything dealing with physical violence or tangible threat therefore of.
Style is for implied threats and force of personality.
Intelligence is for logical problem solving and the quickness of your thinking in reaction to whats going on around you.

Pretty basic, pretty obvious.

Sample Starting Everyman or Expert (both start the same) Character-
Gibson
Violence (secondary) ...
Style (tertiary) .
Intelligence (primary) .....

Sample Mature Everyman Character-
Ted
Violence (primary) .....
Style (secondary) .....
Intelligence (tertiary) .....
(has five in everything)

Sample Mature Expert Character-
Kasanov
Violence: (tertiary) ..
Style: (secondary) ....
Intelligence: (primary) ......... (9)

(all but two points, one for secondary, one for tertiary, went to primary)

so, Im making a starting character in Swiff. I dedice to make a hippi drugdealer based off of Cheech and Chong movie characters. For them Id say Style is primary, violence is secondary, and intelligence is tertiary. However they arent all that stylish, smart, or violent, so for their growth path I'll choose Everyman, but that doesnt matter during character creation. So my character has style 5, violence 3, and intelligence 1. He's easily made Nervous by people smarter than him and by consfusing problems, isnt particularly strong or weak as far as physical violence and force and can avoid getting hurt to a good degree, and rarely ever get Shaken for a very long period of time because he has the style and attitude a drugdealer needs.

My previous Cheech and Chong type character is trying to beat an arcade game to impress a bar waitress. This a style+1d6 roll for him against the static number of 7, for a difficult game (and he has no real skill with video games, just a knack for style with the ladies). He rolls a three and has an 8, enoguh to just barely beat the game with his last life. That is sure to impress the lady, who isnt really opposing his charms (style) at all. However, a biker grabs the other controller and now it's player 1 versus player 2 instead of the computer. This is a resisted contest. The biker isnt trying to impress the lady, just to humiliate our drugdealer hero, so it's a violence+ld6 roll. Unfourtunately this guy has a violence 5 and rolls a 5, so he has a ten. Angry now, our hero counters with a combined double trait move, his 5 style with his 3 violence, minus 2, leaving 6 plus a 1d6 roll of 3. This is still only 9, so the biker defeats him at the game. The biker won the opposed contest, and in this situation there is really no chance for our hero to complete the task itself at this point, so he's lost both the game and his attempt at impressing the woman. Even worst, having used both Violence and Style, he gets -1 penalty to both for losing, becoming slightly Shaken and slightly Hurt from the traumatic experience.

Guns and weapons are superficial. A handgun might add no bonus to your Violence while a shotgun might, due not to size but to the level of movie badassitude of shotguns. However even this will probably just be a plus one bonus. The point? Violent people can be just as violent with anything, and can have guns and weapons as props that dont need to be tracked or statted out, they are merely artificial ways to act out their Violence score. Same with computers and gear for Intelligent people, and the clothes and cars for Stylish people. The +1 violence bonus would be in recognition of the badass act of holding the shotgun onehanded and all cool like, which could probably work for whatever stat the person is using, be it Violence, Style, or maybe, maybe if they can explain it well enough, Intelligence.

I have character creation, I have conflict resolution, I have wounded modifiers and weapons rules (or lack therefore of noted), so what else do I need to have a complete system?

Also, any other comments at all about any of it?

Hi CJ,

I like the use of the traits -- the example was helpful there -- in terms of playing off your strengths but then being able to apply other abilities when challenged in that realm. I think that the heavy dependence on the character himself (through traits), rather than specific skills or equipment is a very smart choice, given the genre you're emulating: it's really all about character, not about "stuff." Also, the application of "violence" in situations beyond direct physical violence is cool and will allow the character, who are certainly pidgeonholed to some degree, to still engage in a wide variety of activities.

Still, it seems like some mroe differentiation is in order between characters, aside from the prioritization of the traits. I would stay away from skills, as youv'e done so far. But maybe some "specializations" that lend advantages when a character is in certain knids of situations? For instance, someone with 5 in violence could be real good at dealing with (i.e. intimidating, extracting money from, evicting...) tenants in a slum. Or a stylish guy would actually have a mechanical advantage with the ladies (not in that way you sicko).

Another possibility is to have some additions related to what I would normally call style (maybe call it "flair" since you already use "style"): the mannerisms and such that every character has which define him, but in the kinds of movies you're emulating are usually larger-than-life and become quite important. Maybe if a player can work in a description of his character's flair, he gets some advantage, or can recover more quickly from defeat's penalty. Something appropriate to the scene, and preferably funny I'd think. I can't come up with a good example at the moment, but hopefully you Know what I mean.

Hope that helps.

PS. In the future, I think it would be better to lump all your mechanics into one post (unless they're really large and you're on a modem), since it might appear that you were attempting to "bump" your thread.

to the last bit, I was actually coming up with this stuff as I go along.

And for specializations...so like a +2 or +3 benefit in certain specific situations? Hmm... So, would this be best as "you can get a specialization of +3 to a specific situation for one advancement dot instead of just upping a trait +1" or would it work better by having a seperate category of points for specializations? Hmm..

Or maybe make a edge/flaw type system with the specializations, limited areas that you have an extra bonus, to weak pionts that are limited areas that you have a negative modifier. Hmm.

For example, Artful Dodger has a specialization that gives him +2 to situations to avoid getting hit, which can be added to his violence (avoiding getting beaten up), style (avoiding something uncool in a cool manner), or even intelligence (paying attention and solvign the problem of how to avoid getting hit). Bassically, in most situations he just has to use his normal traits, maybe combine two at once, but in the specific scenario of avoiding getting hit or shot by someone he can see in front of him, has a +2 to his normal trait+1d6. Just as an example.

But to buy that, the Dodger had to get a flaw where he has -2 in social situations with people authority, such a police.

Yeah, I think "edges" of some sort would be best. You don't necessarily want characters with lots of specializations.

Your example is even more specific than I was thinking -- though I realized my own examples weren't so clear on this so I'll elaborate. See, it's getting very skill-like since it names a specific thing the guy can do. I was thinking more along the lines of: "+2 style in situations involving:" and you plug in some situation, rather than a specific action. For instance: bars, casinos, drug-deals, cop chases. None of these name any one thing the character can do ("run away from cops real good"). Rather these "edges" apply because it's a whole scenario the character is familiar/comfortable with because of his background, and he's done it many times before. So the guy with "good in a cop chase" could hide well, or run away well by taking a secret route, or trick a "friend" into giving himself up as a distraction. I personally think that's way cooler, and allows a lot more freedom and creativity from players. But YMMV of course.

That certainly fits in with the style over reality aspect of the game, the same way guns and weapons are mostly just props. But would it be appropriate for Bubba the biker to be smarter, more stylish, and more violent in situations involving motorcycles/bikers? Maybe...he knows biker style, he has a knowledge of bikes and mechanical stuff and lather jackets, and knows how to fight with the tools/parts of a bike or on a bike well to. So yeah, I guess that sort of area of expertise works pretty good.

Yeah, I think that works. Of course you could associate edges with one and only one trait too -- so the biker's edge is in Violence. But I think it makes more sense generally for edges to be trait-spanning, and thus more regularly applicable -- and you avoid some weird discrepancies that could come up otherwise.

So, for instance, I could say that the standard starting character can have one speciality and one weak-spot. So I make Clint. Clint has Violence as primary (5 dots), Style as secondary (3 dots), and Intelligence as tertiary (1 dot). He's also an Expert as far as advancement, but that doesnt matter during character creation. My idea for Clint is that he's a modern day Spaggeti Western gunslinger. For his speciality, Clint has +2 to all traits while in situations involving duels. He's an experienced gunfighter who can tell (Intelligence 1 +speciality 2) wether or not someone's gun is empty or not based on previous shots and whatnot, can persuade and negotiate a lot better while in a faceoff (style 3+2) and is even more deadly in one on one duels than normally (violence +2). It's a very usefull speciality, as fights are a big part of the genre. So he needs a pretty bad weak-spot. Clint has a -2 to all traits in situations involving social niceties. He is not as a good fighter when in a contest with strict rules or ettiquete (violence 5 - 2 weak-spot), may have rough charisma but is a clutz and a fool in formal situations (style 3 -2) and is dirt dumb when it involves high society or proper schooling (intelligence 1 -2).

oops, one other thing. since weak-spots will propell starting character's tertiary traits into the negatives, I think a rule needs to be stated to the effect that while they operate in the negative when the weak-spot applies, any penalties (Hurt, Nervous, Shaken) still start at -1 from his trait's base score (in this case 1) for keeping track of when he'll reach -5 and be incapacitated.

Sweet :)

Sounds like a good way to handle the negative too. You've got a nack for coming up with good examples on the spot, CJ.

So after one default, you think you'll allow further specialties/weak spot combos to be taken if the player so desires? Any limit?

I present some sample characters and their advancement paths:

Working Man
--------------------
Violence 5
Style 3 4 5
Intelligence 1 2 3 4 5

speciality:+2 to situations involving Americana (apple pie, baseball, american pop culture and current events)
weakspot:-2 to situations involving foreign cultures

Chessmaster
--------------------
Intelligence 5 6 7 8 9
Style 3 4
Violence 1 2

speciality: +2 to situations involving logical strategy and tactics
weakspot: -2 to situations involving mobility (wheelchair bound)

Stand Up Comedian
--------------------------
Style 5 6 7 8 9
Intelligence 3 4
Violence 1 2

speciality: +2 to situations where humour is appropriate
weakspot: -2 to situations where humour is innapropriate

Character Creation:

Characters consist of 3 traits, a nature, a speciality, and a weak-spot.

The three traits are Violence, Style, and Intelligence. These must be prioritized during character creation. The one most important to the character is the primary trait, and it starts with 5 dots. The second most important is secondary, and starts with 3 dots. The least important is tertiary, and starts with one dot.

The nature of the character dictates how more dots for traits are distributed as they are gained during play. There are two natures. The first, Expert, restricts the character to adding only one dot each to his secondary and tertiary trait. However he can add all other dots gained to his primary trait. The other nature is Everyman, in which no more dots can be added to the primary trait, and instead dots are added to secondary and tertiary until they both reach 5. Once a character has gained a total of 6 extra dots during the game, that character is deemed a Mature Character and can no longer gained dots to put in traits.

The speciality of a character is a general area of expertise, a type of situation in which all of their traits get a +2 bonus. Simmilarly, the weakspot is a type of situation where all of the character's traits get a -2 penalty.

Character Advancement:
As stated, 6 dots total can be gained during character creation. Experts receive 4 to their primary trait, and the other two are distributed to their secondary and tertiary traits. Everymen distribute 2 dots to their secondary, and 4 dots to their tertiary, so end up with 5 dots in each trait.

A character can lower his weak-spot to a -1 penalty or raise their speciality to a +3 bonus once they have gained 3 of the 6 extra points on their way to becoming Mature Characters. Once a character is Mature whichever they didnt choose occurs, so end up with a speciality of +3 and a weakspot of -1.

Looks good, CJ, I think it's a solid start. Now how about some details on how it actually plays, in terms of what players do? How do you decide who acts and when, for instance (IIEE)? What different kinds of players are there -- a GM? What jobs do the different players get? Is there any narration involved from non-GMs? Also, on what basis are characters rewarded for advancement?

Personally, I think it'd be good if you focused a little on at least one kind fo setting as an example when you do a final write-up, with the idea that it can be easiyl customized to others. And "Swiff".... I can't help thinking of "wiff" as in a miss. Doesn't bring to mind "swift" for me.

Initiative

Sneaking up is a resisted contest. If the sneaker wins the contest the victim takes a temporary penalty and then presumably the next resisted contest, the actual attack, occurs. If the victim wins then they receive no penalty, and the resisted contest between the two (the attack/defense) goes on normal.

In a Standoff there is a simple resisted contest. The loser takes a temporary penalty and then the actual attack resisted contest occurs.

In a Fray all members are in contest, no penalties occur, but from greatest to least each gets to decide who they engage in a resisted contest.

btw: temporary penalties only last during the combat, and do not remain or require being "healed" afterwards. So it makes it easier for the victim to get further penalties, but the temporary penalty is subtracted from the normal penalty after the fight/situation is over. So if the victim starting with a -2 penalty for being snuck up on, and end up with -5 at the end of the fight, in reality they only have a -3. So they were incapacitated for the fight, but get up afterwards.

CJ,

I think you might have misunderstood my question (if you were trying to answer it...). By "who gets to go" I didn't mean just character initiative, but how interaction between players goes -- how do events logically follow from what players say? I'd suggest checking out IIEE at the end of Ron's Simulation Article and this thread for starters.

I like the basic character quantification overall, although admittedly
how it interacts with the game mechanics will make a considerable
difference.

(For some reason, I think the term weak spot nicely captures your
ambience better than would terms such as "disadvantage", "flaw", or
"drawback".)

More on the game mechanics themselves!

Since your three stats fit more a specific style or ambience rather than a
specific genre, I might want to several variations of your game for
different genres (as I would with Gobi's Punk game!). What I mean
is that I can easily picture this character quantification working equally
well for a t.v. cop show campaign, a natural disaster movie campaign,
an invaders from space campaign, a fight-the-giant-shark/gator/gerbil
campaign, a pulp archaeological quest campaign (such as a wryly punkish
sort of Indiana Jones tale), a hard-day's-night-on-the-spaceship campaign
(less Star Trek and more Darkstar), or even a wryly punkish fantasy
tale (not Conan nor LOTR but more Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, although
you might need to have a fourth stat such as Spirit or Magical Oomph).

Crackerjacker wrote: I present some sample characters and their
advancement paths:

Working Man
--------------------
Violence 5
Style 3 4 5
Intelligence 1 2 3 4 5

speciality:+2 to situations involving Americana (apple pie, baseball,
American pop culture and current events)
weakspot:-2 to situations involving foreign cultures

Chessmaster
--------------------
Intelligence 5 6 7 8 9
Style 3 4
Violence 1 2

speciality: +2 to situations involving logical strategy and tactics
weakspot: -2 to situations involving mobility (wheelchair bound)

Stand Up Comedian
--------------------------
Style 5 6 7 8 9
Intelligence 3 4
Violence 1 2

speciality: +2 to situations where humour is appropriate
weakspot: -2 to situations where humour is innapropriate

Indiana Jones is a mature everyman with every stat at 5, whereas his father is a mature expert with intelligence of 9, style of 4, and violence of 2.

and I think it would work in different genres.

Pulp would best be captured by playing with mature characters, whereas in a cop drama they might be starting characters that never gain any advancement dots. For a disaster game most of the characters would be starting "level" everymen, with perhaps an expert (a doctor?), and maybe a Bert Gumble mature or at least somewhat advanced expert or everyman character.

And generally I thought this game would be played like the standard of roleplaying games, such as Dungeons and Dragons, Shadowrun, or countless other games, where players dictate their characters actions, maybe speak in character, and there is a Gamemaster runnign the game.