Well, variation of a die mechanic, I should say. I am working on a system that works like this:

Stats & Skills (and just about everything else that has a variety of levels) are rated on a dice scale I call Aptitude Steps (AS):

1d4
1d4+1
1d6
1d6+1
etc... until
1d12+1
1d12+2 etc...

The basic die roll is:

Stat AS + Skill AS
vs.
Difficulty AS + Situational AS

Difficulty AS is simply the inherent difficulty of the task, irregardless of the conditions surrounding the attempt. An easy task is a AS of d4.

The Situational AS is intended to relate how much more difficult a task may be to perform due to time constraints, weather conditions, footing etc... essentially the Situtaion in which you find yourself attempting a task. Optimal conditions have a Situational AS of d4.

The GM would roll the Difficulty AS and the Situational AS to determine the number that needs to be beaten (greater than or equal to) by the PCs roll of Stat AS + Skill AS.

I just wanted any opinions on this mechanic, and whether or not the addition of a standardized set of situational AS integrated like this sounds like a good idea. This method would allow one simple table to layout generalized basic modifiers without the hundreds of specific modifiers that can appear within a normal set of rules. (Actually, the working table that I have created has descriptions by AS for Stats, Skills, Task Difficulty and Situational on one table.)

An example of the Situational portion of the table:
d4 - Perfect Sunny day, Flat even ground, No rush, unlimited time
d6 - Overcast or wet, slight ground obstacles, slight rush, minor time restraints
d8 - Shadowy or raining, some appreciable obstacles, hurrying, moderate time restraints

etc...

Also, there is a mechanic that basically staes that what if it is raining (AS d8) and you have a minor time restraint (normally an AS of d6)? Simply take the higher AS and add +1 to the roll. This is a simple way to take into account multiple Situational AS's.

Well?

I'm not sure if you know this, but the average roll of 1d6+1 is equal to that of 1d8 (they're both 4.5). With that done, this looks like a pretty good mechanic. I think that a table of pre-determined conditional bonuses would be almost necessary if a strong Social Contract is not emphasized. If not, maybe a mechanic could be introduced to prevent a GM from going super-competitive and trying to kill the PCs. For example, situational AS's could not go past a certain total for one character in a set number of rounds (if you use rounds). Of course all that only applies if you're going for wide distribution; if it's just you and your group, then there's probably nothing to worry about. As long as your table is easily accessible, or the rules are clear and simple for ad hoc decisions, the mechanic looks fast and simple.
Also, what are the stats and skills in your setting? I'm getting interested.

Sounds workable to me overall, but some things you might want to consider:

1. Statistically, there's not much difference between 1d4+1 and 1d6. Likewise between 1d6+1 and 1d8, etc. A roll of two (1d4+1) against a roll of two (1d6), for instance, is a fair roll favoring neither side. Did you intend the side rolling 1d6 to have an advantage?

2. What about actions that are against another character's abilities, such as find vs. conceal, or attack vs. defend? Presumably you'd roll Stat + Skill vs. Opposing Stat + Skill in those cases, but what if there are also situational factors favoring one side or the other (find vs. conceal in darkness, for instance)?

3. How are ties handled? Tie rolls will be fairly frequent.

4. Whiff factor. Because any size die can roll a 1, there's no guarantee that for instance a roll of 2 x 1d12 stat and skill will beat a roll of 2 x 1d4 (that is, succeed for an inherently easy task under optimum conditions). Depending on how ties are handled, the chance of failure is approximately 7%.

5. The usual problems that arise when a system requires an assessment of inherent difficulty. If instance, is there such a thing as easy brain surgery? That is, can a routine brain surgery be an easy task for a well-prepared brain surgeon, without an unskilled guy off the street also having a significant chance of success? Is the inherent difficulty assessed from the point of view of the average guy, or the average brain surgeon? Is the inherent difficulty of reading a text in Japanese kana assessed from the point of view of the average Japanese citizen, the average linguist, or the average Westerner? What's the inherent difficulty of doing 30 push-ups in 90 seconds? (A few months ago, my real-world chance of success would have been exactly zero; currently my chance of success is close to 100%.)

- Walt

Suvordaeus wrote:

1- I'm not sure if you know this, but the average roll of 1d6+1 is equal to that of 1d8 (they're both 4.5).

2 - Also, what are the stats and skills in your setting? I'm getting interested.

Walt Freitag wrote: Sounds workable to me overall, but some things you might want to consider:

1. Statistically, there's not much difference between 1d4+1 and 1d6. Likewise between 1d6+1 and 1d8, etc. A roll of two (1d4+1) against a roll of two (1d6), for instance, is a fair roll favoring neither side. Did you intend the side rolling 1d6 to have an advantage?

2. What about actions that are against another character's abilities, such as find vs. conceal, or attack vs. defend? Presumably you'd roll Stat + Skill vs. Opposing Stat + Skill in those cases, but what if there are also situational factors favoring one side or the other (find vs. conceal in darkness, for instance)?

3. How are ties handled? Tie rolls will be fairly frequent.

4. Whiff factor. Because any size die can roll a 1, there's no guarantee that for instance a roll of 2 x 1d12 stat and skill will beat a roll of 2 x 1d4 (that is, succeed for an inherently easy task under optimum conditions). Depending on how ties are handled, the chance of failure is approximately 7%.

5. The usual problems that arise when a system requires an assessment of inherent difficulty. If instance, is there such a thing as easy brain surgery? That is, can a routine brain surgery be an easy task for a well-prepared brain surgeon, without an unskilled guy off the street also having a significant chance of success? Is the inherent difficulty assessed from the point of view of the average guy, or the average brain surgeon? Is the inherent difficulty of reading a text in Japanese kana assessed from the point of view of the average Japanese citizen, the average linguist, or the average Westerner? What's the inherent difficulty of doing 30 push-ups in 90 seconds? (A few months ago, my real-world chance of success would have been exactly zero; currently my chance of success is close to 100%.)

- Walt

I thought whiff factor had more to do with a high possibility of failure on *routine* tasks. Doesn't seem like much of a problem for a game where you'll be rolling at roughly even odds. Now if your chance of failure to tie your shoes was in the thirty percent range and your chance of successfully using your crossbow was in the 10 percent range you'd have whiff factor issues.

I don't know if there is a term for what happens when the game system has a significant chance of failure on a ridiculously easy task, but that is something present here. Call it a stupid failure, I suppose.

NeuroZombie, I don't think your system will have many stupid failures (or much of a whiff factor) as long as Stat AS + Skill AS are at 2d8 or higher for anything which matters to a character.

You might want to avoid skills like "dodge" and "perception" in favor of using some kind of derived stat, ala Hero System. Just give everyone a dodge skill if they're all going to need it. Godlike has a serious problem with this in that there are skills you really really need if you're going to have a character live more than 2 game sessions, but the book doesn't warn you about it.

Overall, this looks like an awesome system. Any idea what kind of setting you want for it?

Precious Villain wrote:
Overall, this looks like an awesome system. Any idea what kind of setting you want for it?

This system is basically a Step Mechanic, as defined on John Kim's website. The issue with a Step mechanic you get whenever better = bigger die is that the 'better' dice have a larger spread, which is kinda counter-intuitive. 'Worse' dice will never get impressive results, but 'better' dice can roll both good and crappy results. If you want this, then no problem.

If you don't like that, you can fix it by having better = smaller die tied with roll-under. In that case, 'better' dice will always roll impressive results, never crappy results. 'Worse' dice will have widely varied results, both good and bad.

Heya,

I'd just caution against having the Difficulty AS and the Situational AS be random. This will likely creating wildly different overall difficulties for actions that are essentially the same. I'd rather see a set of guidelines or a table suggesting DAS and SAS for the GM and leave him the power to modify it as necessary.

Peace,

-Troy

Thanks everyone for all the great comments. I have thought about them extensively, and think I will be totally redesigning the mechanic, but I will keep the same feel if possible. You all gave me exactly what I needed :)

Hello,
I may be a little late to the game here, but you might like to check out my own Pollies for a system that uses a similar (though simpler) mechanic.

Having playtested Pollies, I can tell you that this sort of mechanic works, and that fiddling with the different dice in play adds a "gamey" element to the role-playing experience that is quite enjoyable.

Pollie is great! It is a bit simpler than my system, but I think thats a good thing.

NeuroZombie wrote: Pollie is great! It is a bit simpler than my system, but I think thats a good thing.