I am working on a simple, quick rules-lite system for my own needs. Originally I was going to just assume all characters have a 0 in EVERYTHING and not have any set stats, and let players increase particular things they want higher scores in, but in a way thats more effort than simply providing a few universal stats, so I am currently thinking I want to use Physical, Mental, Social and maybe Spiritual for Primary Traits (thanks/apologies to wherever I saw this used earlier this week).

I want to use 2D6 for *ALL* resolutions. My plan is to have a small scale of values that most things fall under. For example, most "normal" NPCs will have:

PHY 0
MNT 0
SOC 0
SPI 0

Toying with the idea of adjusting some for gender and such, but I'm trying to use such a small scale that I only really want an outstanding difference to justify having a different value in a Trait than someone else.

Here is the Trait range:

-4 Poor (really only accounted for by a disability, brain damage, etc)
-2 Lacking (very slight build, badly out of shape, serious lack of reasoning, etc)
0 Ordinary (most normal people have 0's in everything - sort of Mediocre)
+2 Tremendous (likely win arm-wrestling, Trivial Pursuit against Ordinaries, etc)
+4 Reknowned (peak human attainment, world-class)
+6 Superhuman
+8 Unique (rarely available, used for any "giant" scores, etc)

The Trait value descriptors are optional and I'm not concerned about them either way, they're just something players might be able to use to get an idea of what each value represents.

First off, I'm not sure if I want to use +1 or +2 increases (and decreases). My aim is to really differentiate one level of a Trait from another, so there's no "almost as good" - if you're "almost as good" as someone else, you'll have their same level of Trait, if you're better or worse, you'll have a higher or lower level, so I use increments of 2 to visibly and mechanically reinforce this large gap, but would like to use single increments (if for no other reason than because its more intuitive) if they would have enough effect in the game (which you can't know until you read my idea on resolution so we'll keep going).

Secondly, I'm not sure if I should stop at +4 or +6 for the normal human cap - I'm thinking +4 for "regular" heroes, as +4 to me represents a sort of epitome or peak of human attainment, like Olympic champions, world-class scientists, etc. +6 would probably only be available for special characters like Wushu and superhero types. The +8 would be very rare for even a high-action cinematic game, as +8 basically covers a multitude of "sins", being used for Evil Genius Brains from Space, Superstrong Giant Dino-Monkeys and such.

Task resolution and Trait checks (such as for lifting, seeing a clue, etc) will be done by rolling 2D6 and adjusting the roll by the "modifier" value of the Trait in question (so there are none for Ordinaries, which keeps things simple). Tasks are rated by Difficulty, as follows:

3 Trivial (rarely would require a roll)
4 Simple (doing a technical job, but one with which you have solid experience)
5 Routine (dunking a wad of paper in the trash from your desk)
6 Moderate (firing a weapon at a moving but mostly unobscured target)
7 Challenging (combat, studying an old but known tome, persuading)
8 Severe (casting a spell while your shirt's catching on fire)
9 Overwhelming (lifting a car's front end off of someone trapped underneath)
10 Legendary (hacking a government mainframe in 5 minutes with an iMac)
11 Nigh-Impossible (leaping off a roof and landing on your feet 4 stories below)

So back to the +1 or +2 idea briefly. The way the current resolution is, will +1 increments effect the dice enough to highlight the difference in levels, or would +2 be pretty much necessary?

Is there a better way to do this? Get rid of the DF and find a way to bring the entire system more in line with the smaller range like the Traits use. Base it off of successes, by maybe adopting a few ideas from the Ladder system?

And what about skills? Still working on that, but I'm thinking of making them similar to Traits, or rather, part of, or complementary to Sub-Traits, which I've been considering, below:

For players who want SPECIFIC aspects of a general Primary Trait singled out, I am considering Sub-Traits. My basic idea is that all Primary Traits have three aspects to them, and two tendancies for each aspect.

The three aspects of each trait (regardless of Physical, Mental, etc) are those of Force, Motion and Manifestation. These aspects are applied to each Primary Trait and each broken into two tendancies, either Affective/Assertive or Resistant.

The Assertive tendancy of Physical Power is Strength, while the Resistant tendancy is Tougness. The Assertive of Physical Motion is Precision, while the Resistant is Agility, and the Assertive of Physical Manifestation is Looks, while the Resistant is Size.

Although I realize these aren't totally perfect polar opposites, it does follow a halfway understandable pattern. So anyway, the idea is that if they want, players CAN (but don't have to) make use of Sub-Traits, each of which will have their own specific influence on various actions a character tries to perform, to increase or decrease them seperately from their governing Primary Trait.

I need help with coming up with Sub-Traits and names. Below are some of what I have come up with but of course, don't know if some make sense or will have any real use. It IS up to the players if they want them, but I would like to have a fairly sensible set of things for them to look through though.

MENTAL
Force: Assertive: Reasoning, Resistant: Willpower
Motion: Assertive: Creativity, Resistant: Discipline
Manifestation: Assertive: Perception, Resistant: Patience

SOCIAL
Force: Assertive: ??? Reasoning, Resistant: ???
Motion: Assertive: ???, Resistant: ???
Manifestation: Assertive: ???, Resistant: ???
(somewhere in here I know goes like Behavior, Diplomacy, Charisma, etc)


Any ideas, anyone?

Social Force (Assertive) could be something like presence.

In a 2d6 system a difference of 1 can be quite a lot, as much as %14. Take a quick look at the table to see what I mean (it's the percentile chance of rolling equal to or less than the number).

d - %
2 - 2,78
3 - 8,33
4 - 16,67
5 - 27,78
6 - 41,67
7 - 58,33
8 - 72,22
9 - 83,33
10 - 91,67
11 - 97,22
12 - 100


Secondly, you're aiming for a simple system. You start of with four stats, then go and divide them into three, and divide those into 2 again. That's actually a total of 24 stats (or 28 if you keep the base stats). I know they are optional, but are you sure this is the way you want to go with it?

Also, you have one base physical stat, while you have three mental ones (I'll include social and spiritual as mental for the sake of argument). In my experience, it's the physical stats you roll the most against when playing. There is the odd wizard, and the odd mental or spiritual resistance roll, but social interaction tends to be resolved through role play. Do you need all those mental stats?

Other than that I like the what you've got. It's not too far from what I'm working on myself. :) I like using 2d6 for everything and the difficulty table could work fine. Are you including some kind of critical system, or automatic success/failure. And how are you planing to treat healing and wounds.

Ragnar

As previously mentioned a +1 increment makes a huge difference when rolling vs a TN in a 2D6 based system. Do you always use target numbers? The +1 makes an even bigger difference if you are using any sort of opposed rolls. I can't imagine using +2 increments if there are any opposed rolls in your game.

What kind of game are you aiming for? Write up something and post it in the Indie RPG design forum.

No wasn't really going for anything in particular, just getting a feel for an idea I was toying with - sadly nothing close enough to write up as even a draft yet, but I do appreciate the feedback, and I guess I tend to agree that bonuses of multiples of 2 are a BIT high, but as I said because of there only being a few levels in a stat, I was trying to highlight the difference between the levels to denote just how many people fall into one category. Opposed rolls are what I prefer for some situations but I'd like also to keep things fast and so I figured target numbers would be easiest in most situations.

Hi Dr V.

Have you considered having no stats at all to begin with, instead working out what you want the rules to encourage in play and working back from that (and if stats are part of that goal, only then employing them)?

Hmm.

To an extent, yes I have considering starting statless. I do however know that in SOME fashion, I would like to have a few indicators of how well characters can do things, but nothing too mechanically intrusive or intimidating for players unused to rpgs and such.

My preference and intent is for a fairly simple, common sense method of creating characters, with the option for narrative as well as 'random' for people who aren't fond of having to be on the spot creative for such things or who need a little help to kickstart them. But I want characters to have certain basic abilities or at least categories of abilities, but don't want stats to become a CENTRAL focus, but more complementary to the way players play a character, so they support a playing style but aren't relied on in and of themselves, so without lots of subdivisions like Combat > Ranged > Modern > Firearms > Basic > Pistol and such. I'm thinking some rule lite variant for a quick sit down and play rather than having reams of rules and items and options and things to refer to, but more a 'potentiality' layout, basically indicating what types of items or abilities or such that could be available for players, but nothing specifically mandatory.

I'm thinking more along the lines of Feng Shui or even to an extent Wushu, both of which I enjoy but neither really have quite the ... hmm... the atmosphere or gist of what I'm wanting, which isn't very helpful since I can't really verbalize it - I'll know it when I see it. FS isn't bad but I don't like the different colors of wild dice and all that and I would like a simpler, lower range for stats, skills and difficulty and target numbers, and Wushu is good but TOO nebulous and relies too much on continuous flashy stunt descriptives, which you can do to a small extent for non-combat, but the system just doesn't lend itself to more than a few moments of cerebral pontificating.

Dr. Velocity wrote: hmm... the atmosphere or gist of what I'm wanting, which isn't very helpful since I can't really verbalize it - I'll know it when I see it.

Dr. Velocity wrote: Hmm.

To an extent, yes I have considering starting statless. I do however know that in SOME fashion, I would like to have a few indicators of how well characters can do things, but nothing too mechanically intrusive or intimidating for players unused to rpgs and such.

Yes I really liked that idea when I saw it. Having the entire system really, fit the game itself, very thematic and emphasizing the specifics that you intend to be important... I will definitely keep it in mind and hopefully can figure out how to use it somehow.