For my Imp Game, I devised a neat little mechanic for the system using 2d6. Its very simple: Players roll less than or equal to the Target Number to succeed, anything over fails.
Within the system itself, the Target Number is a universal value, shared by everyone. Each player also starts with a pool of points and the TN at 2, the lowest possible value on 2d6. Using these points, they can raise the TN and make an attempt. Success nets them back points equal to the roll, failure means they have to take one for the team, blow it, and let the next person attempt with the now elevated TN.

When I first posted the idea back in my "Dungeons For Dummues" threads, mention was made of how it could easily be used elsewhere. One person suggested even a Horror setting, which might be neat to attempt.

What I'm pondering now is, just how much can a designer get away with milking a single mechanic idea? The Universal TN and simple roll system are wonderful and easy to play, and I find myself comming up with other, slightly different applications of it. One of which is a slight reverse: Players start with the 2 TN, but must roll higher than the TN to win. Rolling less than is a failure and each success drives the TN up. A player could also ask for a temporary bonus of some kind and drive the TN up in response, upping the stakes. Scary part is I have a lot on my plate as it is, and this is weaseling its way in with the thought "Well, it similar enough to the core of the Imp Game, you can work on both easily!"
But, enough of my own organizational and inner voice problems, anyone else have thoughts on milking mechanics? Is there any way it is a good thing or is it horridly cheap? How often has it been done and is it successful or a dreadful demise for all systems involved?

A single mechanic, by itself, is nothing. It takes an entire system to make a game. By itself, a single mechanic could be used in any game. But the real question is: Does that single mechanic fit with the rest of the system, and does that system accomplish the goals you set for the game?

daMoose_Neo, I'd be careful with those "slightly different applications" of your mechanic. The closer the variations on the mechanic are to each other, the easier it will be to confuse them, come game time. Elegance similarities are nice from a designer's perspective, but it could be rough on the players when they're trying to remember whether they want to be over or under a given number, and whether a failure makes the TN higher or lower, and whether... well, you get the idea. The infamous old-school D&D Armor Class system is one example of how this can go wrong, but there are others.

That said, the notion of the "request a bonus to drive up the stakes" variation is really interesting to me--maybe it's worth setting THAT as the core mechanic for most task (or conflict) resolution, and then defining certain classes of tasks/conflicts that don't allow it.

Brendan wrote: daMoose_Neo, I'd be careful with those "slightly different applications" of your mechanic. The closer the variations on the mechanic are to each other, the easier it will be to confuse them, come game time.

daMoose_Neo wrote: What I'm pondering now is, just how much can a designer get away with milking a single mechanic idea? (snip) But, enough of my own organizational and inner voice problems, anyone else have thoughts on milking mechanics? Is there any way it is a good thing or is it horridly cheap? How often has it been done and is it successful or a dreadful demise for all systems involved?

daMoose_Neo wrote: anyone else have thoughts on milking mechanics? Is there any way it is a good thing or is it horridly cheap? How often has it been done and is it successful or a dreadful demise for all systems involved?

Not agonizing, just pondering.
I have a nasty tendency myself to start going off on tangents with one idea and was wondering how common this kind of thing was in the RPGs and how well that worked, such as my using a 2d6 w/ universal TN in different ways or applications.