The Mechanics Critique will be very simple, I'm just going to present the basic task resolution method: other details, like combat specifics and such, I'll fill in if people seem to think the basic task resolution is passable. Here it is:

Players are looking for multiples 'of a dice' on a pool of rolled dice for success: A typical task is looking for two-of-a-kind, harder or opposed tests may often need more.
The actual number on the dice is only used for comparisons of equal-sized sets in a resisted test- lower is better. Thus, three 5's beats two of anything, loses to four of anything, beats three 6's, loses to three 4's. Got it?

Players roll a number of dice equal to an applicable Stat. A number of these dice equal to the applicable Skill are d6's, the rest are d10's. These dice are all considered one pool, so a 2 on a d10 can be combined with two 2's on d6's for a three of a kind.
Example: Joe wants to pick a lock. His Dex is 5 and his Lockpicking is 3. He rolls 3d6 and 2d10.
If a character's skill is higher than their stat, this represents having the know-how but not the physical/mental conditioning. The GM can allow the player to roll a number of d6 equal to their skill, if the GM rules the player has unlimited time, room for error, etc.
Example: Bob wants to pick a lock. His Dex is 3 and his Lockpicking 5. He rolls 3d6 and fails. The GM rules that nobody is around, and he's not likely to be interrupted, so he allows Bob to roll two more d6's and compare them in with the rest of the pool. If he still doesn't succeed, then Bob has tried every trick he knows, and much get better tools or do more research before he can try again.

The idea is that the more skilled you are, the less d10's you roll, and thus your odds of getting multiples of-a-kind increases. The question is: Does it increase substantially enough to be a good reward for someone having a high skill? Bare in mind that lower is better, so two 9's may not be good for much if you're competing with anyone.

Now the Setting Question: I would like to combine Martial Arts and Horror without either becoming a parody. That is, I want honest thrills and chills, despite a good portion of the game centering on combat. Now, at first it seemed impossible, since action, and especially martial arts action, seems to be the total opposite of scary in an RPG- it's invigorating and fun. But it should be doable, because after all, in the real world someone trying to kill you with a sword is scary as hell. Violence is terrifying, so there must be a way to make it so in a game!
I'm thinking about having my damage system actually incorporate the odds of temporary and permanent injury, such as scars or losing a finger or eye, into account. I'm not going to have any crude table to roll on, rather, Superficial, Temporary, and Permanent injuries will actually be classifications of wounds sustained during combat (like other games might use the classifications Light, Moderate, or Heavy) with self-explanatory results based the type of attack used. So, if a character is hit by a sword, and the wound category is Permanent, the GM is going to have them lose a finger, hand, or head depending on other circumstances.
In short, I'm doing with combat what Call of Cthulhu did with magic: Make it dangerous, terrible, dreaded- the last thing you'd ever want to fool around with; and yet, the game is about that very thing, so too damn bad. Hence, horror ensues. Hopefully. Thoughts on that?

As far as your die pool question -- well, that looks interesting. I would need more time with the math to even sit and think about it.

Now, in terms of your actual goals with the game, which seem to be making combat a terrifying, life-threatening experience: I can say for certain that this is doable, and can be great fun. Have you read Riddle of Steel? It seems to be sizeably different from what you are going for here, but it has a combat system that makes people very afraid. You probably want to look into it if you plan on continuing with this project. www.driftwoodpublishing.net

yrs--
--Ben

Now, in terms of your actual goals with the game, which seem to be making combat a terrifying, life-threatening experience:

A mix of major and minor musings.

1. Mechanics:

Uccisore wrote: Players roll a number of dice equal to an applicable Stat. A number of these dice equal to the applicable Skill are d6's, the rest are d10's.

the Spanish Inquisition Guy from Monthy Python wrote: In my game, the two base stats are Strength, Intelligence, and Agility -- no, three base stats, Strength, Intelligence, Agility, and Charisma -- no, four, Strength, Intelligence, Agility, Charisma, Perception, and Fanatical Devotion to the Pope... oh, I'll just come in again.

Uccisore wrote: Example: Bob wants to pick a lock. His Dex is 3 and his Lockpicking 5. He rolls 3d6 and fails. The GM rules that nobody is around, and he's not likely to be interrupted, so he allows Bob to roll two more d6's ...

Uccisore wrote: I would like to combine Martial Arts and Horror....it should be doable, because after all, in the real world someone trying to kill you with a sword is scary as hell.

So what if your skill is higher than your base stat? Or is that just not possible?

Uccisore wrote: My entire goal is to make the player stop thinking "My number is higher than his number, this should be a piece of cake" and start thinking about severed arteries, how long it would take an ambulance to get out there, and how much he cherishes having all 10 fingers. Do you think that imputting psychological effects on the characters will help put the players in the mood I'm shooting for?

So to take your "fight the guard" example, the player can't be thinking "oh, my number is higher, I've got a 98% chance of winning" if the player doesn't know the guard's exact stats because the character doesn't have a "perception" or "read body language" or "identify sword school" ability that's high enough to determine them. Confusion creates fear

I actually addressed this with my 'off the cuff' example, but I see it wasn't as clear as it could have been. Let me try again. Let's use Lockpicking, and assume 5 minutes is a 'typical' amount of time to pick the lock in question.

A further refinement might that each skill has a untrained difficulty. The average is d10, but harder skills might be d12, easier ones d8, almost impossible ones could be d20.

Consider also that this system could work with a non-fixed set of attributes, or if the "bigger" entity is something other than an attribute.

Hmm, I just noticed a quirk. A skill of 1 is meaningless.

So you mean like brain surgery would be d20 and driving a car would be d8, but skilled dice are always a d6 regardless? That makes pretty good sense actually. Is the need to have half a dozen of every kind of dice on hand worth the refinement, you think?

I'm having a hard time wrapping my brain around this idea. Do you mean that each character would specify their own list of Attributes, like "Sexy" or "Computer Programmer"? If I did that, wouldn't I still be stuck with needing another set of attributes to cover stuff they want to attempt that isn't covered by the attributes they picked? Or, would I just assign a flat number of dice (like, 2) to such rolls?

Another element here is that I don't want the skills to be completely contained within a stat. For example, shooting a gun might be based on Precision and Firearms. Identifying a gun in someone's hand might be Intelligence and Firearms.

I like the idea of having specializations that allow for a d4 to be rolled. The problem is that their needs to be a trade off, which is usually understood as "greater ability, rarer utility". This trade off falls apart quite often, especially in combat where characters get to decide what weapons they carry on them.

Well, there's one slight benefit: A skill of one increases the odds of the set (my term for the multiple of-a-kind rolled) being 1-6, which gives an advantage in comparison of ties against someone with no skill (lower digits are better, remember). But that's so slight that your basically right. Does that require a fix, you think, or is it just a footnote that a novice is hard to distinguish from a completely unskilled person?

I'd like to explain my combat system in this thread too, you want to hear about it? :)

Interesting system. I like the contrast between being really good at a skill, or just having a really good stat.

The idea of having player-defined traits doesn't really work, however, because without the set skills and stats, there's no point for the two different dice. If you've got Lock-Picking 4, you roll 4d6 and don't worry about the rest of it. I suppose you could feature a lot of shoehorning by the GM (which would happen in any case, with the way your system works), but having to do so with solely player-defined traits would be a rather large nightmare.

Perhaps you could have fixed stats and two types of user-defined skills, with one type being fairly broad (perhaps referring to occupations) and another fairly narrow (stuff like Lock-Picking or Moving Silently).

To use the lockpicking example: Will has a Dexterity of 4 and a Thief of 3, but he hasn't picked many locks so he doesn't have anything specifically in Lock-Picking. However, he wants to try to fiddle with the lock on a door to get in to a locked room. He rolls 3d8 (for the applicable broad skill of Thief) and 1d10 for his Dexterity.

Edward the Thief also has a Dexterity of 4 and a Thief of 3, but he's picked a 2 points in Lock-Picking. He rolls 2d6 (for the narrow skill), 1d8 (for the broad skill rating that wasn't replaced), and 1d10 for his Dexterity.

This way, players have a strong reason to refine specific skills, but it also gives them broad groups of skills without having to worry about a lot of bookkeeping and at the same time balances the fact they have access to a lot of skills with the fact that they simply aren't as good as someone who's trained specifically.

In fact, I'm going to be plucking this Broad/Narrow skills thing, but feel free to snag it as well.


Also, as a character development thing, you could make Broad Skills and Narrow Skills each cost 2 to buy, but Narrow Skills only cost 1 if you've got a Broad Skill which is applicable. For an example: If you've got no ranks in Thief or Lock-Picking, you might just choose to pick up a 2 points in Lock-Picking to supplement your other skills. This would cost you a total of 4, because it's not a skill you'd have any basing for.

However, let's say you've already previously spent 4 points to pick up Thief 2. Because your Thief 2 applies, you can spend 2 points instead of 4 to pick up Lock-Picking. It's something most Thieves would learn the basics of sooner or later, so learning more about it would come more naturally to someone who had the basic training preparing them for it.


Just a couple ideas to throw out there for you.

Hey, I could go places with that I think. Now, is the idea here that the broad skills (like Thief) are on a list that I came up with, and the narrow skills (lockpicking) are player-defined, or is it the other way around? Or are you dropping the idea of player-defined traits altogether?
In the current skills list, there are fewer items than you might expect, because I've taken broad categories like "Academics" and left it to the player to be more specific when they buy the skill. The idea of having Academics itself, for a lesser benefit, completely escaped me!

Yes. As a dice collector, it would be worth it to me.

But you may decide traditional attributes meet your needs best, but it's worth examining the need for that.

I think you do need to document it. You also need to make sure the system makes it reasonable to get two dice in a skill. The good thing is it does increase the cost of learning a skill (you need to get 2 dice, not just 1), yet it provides some advantage while you are learning the skill. Turn the probabilities into a feature.

I think I'm going to do with traditional stats, just because I have so little experience (read: none) with games that do it another way, that I wouldn't trust myself to design it properly.

I'd make it so that a level 1 skill would be very unusual for a character to start with, and would instead be a part of the process of learning a new skill in game, I think.

Where you will want to concentrate your energy is finding the right values for attributes and skills and the right set of attributes and skills.

Do you need to set a maximum? If three of a kind is better than two of a kind, then you can go out to 13 dice before it's automatic. Also, more dice have a better chance of getting a lower two of a kind.

You also should consider if contests against the environment are static (you just need 2 of a kind to succeed, the environment doesn't roll) or dynamic (the environment gets a roll).

Dynamic contests against the environment will be more interesting, assuming you only roll for "important" ones.

In dynamic contests against the environment, you can assign the environment numbers and types of dice depending on the overall difficulty and how focused the environmental challenge is (so a simple cliff might only get d10s against climbing, while a cliff with specific challenges might get some d6s or even d4s). A trivial obstacle might get 2d20 (almost guaranteed to be beat).

You may want to think about what happens if no one rolls a double. I'd reccomend using the highest die roll with the lowest winning (though you might choose to use the highest skill die roll - the question is do attributes whose potential isn't attained in a skill (Dexterity 5, Dodge 3 representing that Dodge has only reached part of the potential) dominate over the skill. This is a tricky dynamic that you need to think about. I'd reccomend such a success not really be a success, more a slight advantage to one side or the other.

If you want to enable narativist play, you could play some tricks with the player who scores the lowest high die value gets to narrate the outcome of the challenge (which the other player may have won).

Your dice mechanic has a lot of stuff to play with :-)

Frank

Do you need to set a maximum?

You also should consider if contests against the environment are static (you just need 2 of a kind to succeed, the environment doesn't roll) or dynamic (the environment gets a roll).

You may want to think about what happens if no one rolls a double.

What I mean is for both broad and narrow skills to be definable by the player, with the GM basically deciding exactly what the skill is allowed to cover. It could go like this:

Player: "Okay, I'm going to use my Electrician skill to try to hotwire the car."
GM: "Alright, roll your Intelligence + Electrician at d8."
Player: "Wait, I've got Car Wiring as well!"
GM: "Alright, roll for Car Wiring at d6 as well, then."

Basically, the idea is for players to present the idea of using their occupations or specific skills in specific situations, and the GM can either accept, reject, or compromise for each. This puts the onus on players to come up with correct uses for the skills, and leaves less for the GM to worry about.

It's an interesting idea- one potential issue is that, because of the way damage works right now, the combat skills can't work this way- they have to be discreet and fixed. Do you think it's a problem to have combat skills work one way, and other sorts of skills work another?

Not at all. Many games do do this.

The thing with having player-defined skills is that it simplifies things greatly for you, the developer. You don't have to think up 30 terms for broad skills and 90 terms for narrow skills, invariably which will offend some of the people who pick up your game. All you have to do is say "THIS is how broadly defined skills work", "THIS is how narrow skills work", and give a rough guideline for how each is defined.

All you have to do is say "THIS is how broadly defined skills work", "THIS is how narrow skills work", and give a rough guideline for how each is defined.

Yeah, you'd have to limit it somewhat to professions... To borrow your example, a spy isn't a Spy as a profession, he's a Diplomat and a Thief. Make sure that you specify that a profession should have one broad focus... for example, the Thief only has one broad focus: Being where he's not allowed. A Mechanic only has one broad focus: fixing broken equipment. The Thief doesn't get any combat skills as an extra, and the Mechanic doesn't know basket weaving.

Perhaps even have players define their like above. One players Mechanic might be defined as Fixing Car Problems (which would cover the electrician and computer bits), while anothers might be defined as Mechanic: Fixing Mechanical Problems (where he'd be able to fix the engine, a fried electrical system or cpu in a car would be screwed... but he can fix non-car related mechanical problems as well). Include a rule stating that if the player has to include the word "and" in his description, it becomes a seperate skill.

To once again borrow your spy example, the definition of a Spy might be something like: "knows foreign contacts" (which could include lawful and otherwise contacts and the ability to speak a few languages), or it might be "going where he's not allowed" which would be exactly the same as a thief.

Oh, and Uccisore: I'm stealing this player defined Broad and Narrow thing for my own RPG. If I'm going to think up a system this good, I may as well use it. :P

The way I have it written up right now, is this:

Characters pick a Profession Pursuit, a Recreational Pursuit, and a Past Pursuit.

They function the same, except that a Professional Pursuit automatically trains 2 skills in it's category, a Recreational Pursuit trains 1, and a Past Pursuit doesn't train any. Training basically means an extra points towards skill advancement every so often, in addition to those gained through using the skill in play.
Pursuits are defined by a title and a very short description. The point of the description is to list two areas the Pursuit relates to. Thus, the way it's set up now, you'd have
Spy- smooth-talking and sneaking around.
or
Spy- multi-lingual impersonator.

The GM can allow you to use your Pursuit for things other than these if he decides to, but these things are all you have a right to expect from him. The skills are both for enhancing the things listed in the description, and for adding new things altogether. For example, either example of 'spy' above could take Persuasion (something that relates to the description) or Helicopter Piloting (has nothing to do with the description, but still makes sense for a 'Spy'), as a skill under that persuit.
One final factor- Pursuits don't have levels like skills do. If something falls under your Pursuit, you're rolling d8's instead of d10's, and that's that.