Hi All

Well, it has come to my attention, most recently with my figuring up my damage rules that my core mechanics for T:COTEC are too calculation intensive for most people to want to use them. So I need to come up with a new core mechanic that won't be as hard to use.

To that end, I thought I would provide a list of the design goals that lead to my original core mechanics.

So here where the original design goals I had for my core mechanic (It met all of them it just turned out to not be very easy to use.)

Uses only D6
This was original design goal, not too important but would like to stick to it.

Open-Ended
System needed to be open-ended to allow for really high ability scores against low ability scores, etc. Allow infinitesmal chance of success and failure.

I did this by having "high fives" provide bonus dice which you rolled. A high five was a five for which there was no corresponding six. If there was five with matching six, then it didn't open-end with no bonus dice. Bonus dice were same sign as die that spawned them, with sixes matching dice of the same sign first. This fixed some of the values to keep them flat, which resulted in what I called a mitigated open-ended mechanic.

1-20 human Range with average 10
Wanted traits to be in the 1-20 range for humans with average of 10. Able to handle metahuman traits in the 20-30 range, super-human in 30-40 range, up to 100 for super-cosmic entities.

Allow for Hero Points to adjust odds
System needed to allow for the spending of Hero Points to alter odds of dice mechanic, including heroic use for aceing rolls and ex machina for deuceing rolls.

Model difference between Talent/Ability and Skill
System did this by having your Success Result Score being based on your Skill Score. Did this by counting positive dice pool of 2d6-2d6 roll. 6s were counted as zero and each point was 1/10th multiple of skill score, so average result was 1/2 your skill score(5 being average result of 2D6, with 6s counted as zero), with results of 1x, 2x, and majorly outside, 3x your skill score possible. The maximum number of dice you could count to determine your success total was based on governing attribute (Dicestep equal to governing attribute, which equated to dicestep/2 dice.) Thus your potential success multiple was limited by attribute, and your skill score was what was multiplied.

This system was adapted from MEGS handling of AV/OV versus EV/RV's and it's generation of RAP values. I liked fact that it based result on Effect Value.

Allow for Different Attributes to be used with different Skills
This was done by having Attribute value count as half, rounded down, called Aptitude. Plus Skill Score, with Skill score of 0 counting as no skill, default ability, 5 representing competent, 7 well-trained, 10 professional, 12 specialist, and 15 expert. You added up Aptitude + Skill Score to get Acting Score. I like this skill, attribute weighting and would like to keep it if at all possible.

Based on Logarithimic Scale
I like the idea of a log scale as basis for traits and want to use one to define powers(damage values, speeds, ranges), abilities, as well as do calculations and determine results with system. The one I chose is a 10 points to a factor of 10 which looks like.

GP Value
0 1.0
1 1.25
2 1.5
3 2.0
4 2.5
5 3.0
6 4.0
7 5.0
8 6.0
9 8.0
10 10.0
11 12.5
12 15.0
13 20.0
14 25.0
15 30.0
16 40.0
17 50.0
18 60.0
19 80.0
20 100.0



Now, what I did to encourage use of the log scale was to make it integral to the resolution mechanic through use of a Performance Factor column. Basically I had you count up your success total and compare it to Performance Factor column, you added this to ability factor to get success result factor, which corresponded to your success result score. What this did was to replace, the success total (total of positive dice) times 0.1 per point times Skill Score multiplication with addition and use of CORE Table. I also made extensive use of GP Scores to figure other results in system.

I also developed my Range Steps system, which broke each range of values into 3 values, low, mid, and high. So you could figure more precise results. And figured out range step math for "Complex Scores" what I called Scores with a range step.

Summary
Now, obvious major influences for system are Torg/Masterbook and MEGS/DC Heroes. It got mutated to fit my other design goals. I have done the analysis on 2D6-2D6 with my open-ended mechanic and have all the success percentages worked out, so if I could keep that I would be happy.

Now, I am loathe to give up my core mechanic just because it worked so good and met all my design goals. It's just that somewhere in my being enamored with it I accepted it's calculation intensiveness. Which people have pointed out will be a major turn off for most players. Thus I need to change it. But I would like to keep as many of these design features as I can in the retooling. I don't think the basic 2D6-2D6 plus Acting Score is too complicated, or I am over-compensating again? I do like how it gave average result of Acting Score and could be compared to hidden Opposing Score where necessary.

So do people have any ideas or advice on a CORE mechanic I can come up with that meets as many of the above goals possible while still being easy to use? Murdering my darlings has been less than easy in this case but I believe it needs to be done.

As for those people that are wondering, the game system this is for is called Teramyr: Chronicles of the Eternal Cycle. Subtitled A Role Playing Game of communal Fantasy and Mythic Imagination. It focuses on collaborative world design using a design architecture (Similar to HERO/GURPS), which the mechanics must provide the hooks to work off of. It rips off Aria: Canticle of the Monomyth, Universalis, Traveller, and Ars Magica in concept of how it is supposed to be played. It can also be called a universal rpg with a Universe for Teramyr background and mythos.

So anyway, I would appreciate peoples input and ideas for redoing core mechanic to make things simpler and easier to use, while still hopefully keeping several of the design features above. Also I would like to avoide the requirement for tables, such as MEGS or Torgs dice bonus table (the 2d6-2D6 worked ok for this). The only exception to this rule was the CORE table with the log progression which I used for everything, which people find I used to much.

best

Have you considered altering any of your requirements?

Because if not, I think that coming up with any more elegant a system will be difficult. I mean, I'm sure that some savings can be achieved. But it seems to me that the complexity of the math comes from the complexity of the inputs.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I think that to cover things in the scope in which you want to cover things, you'd do well to broaden your mehanisms, and reduce some of them.

Mike

I'm going to make a few assumptions here in the process of giving you some advice. Feel free to correct me where I've gone wrong.

About the logarithmic table -- you've stated it as a requirement, but I don't think it is at all. What it gets you is the requirement, and you haven't stated what that is. I'm guessing that's the log table's ability to represent the fact that a world-class weightlifter can lift 500 pounds or more and Joe Blow can only lift 100 -- but you don't want the weightlifter to have a strength score of 50 if the average human male is 10.

Same thing with some other items on your list -- I don't think they are requirements, either.

Here's my solution: you like the open-ended 2d6-2d6 mechanic. Fine: let's run with it. All the way. Ability scores will be generated by this mechanic, setting an average score of 0. A character with a strength of +10 will be tremendously strong, and a character with a score of -10 will be very weak. But you won't have the illusion of "the best human score is 20 and the worst is 1, so there's only a 20-to-1 difference in how much people can carry." The whole concept of applying these scores as a linear scale will be out the window.

But if we only ever use the attribute scores divided by 2 (is this the case?), then there's no point in having scores of -10 to +10. What we really want is -5 to +5. Try 3d3-3d3. Or a big handful of FUDGE dice. Or three fudge dice hacked to read -2,-1,0,0,+1,+2 -- open-ended if all are the same sign. [To make the dice, just permanent marker in an extra minus on one of the minus sides and an extra plus on one of the plus sides. ]

Or use points to buy scores in a similar range. Sounds easier to me.

Increase the scale on Skill scores, so that Expert corresponds to 20.

Where to go from here should be obvious.

I just had another thought: you could keep the 2d6-2d6 method for ability score generation if you divide the result by 2. You could even have interesting rules for when you get to round up and when you get to round down.