First, sorry for the long post, but I have a lot to cover.

I've been working with a concept for a while now, and I'm having trouble to create task resolution mechanics that can do what I want them to do.

The Basics

In this game, PCs are essentially ordinary people who get swept up in extraordinary circumstances. Because of this, the mechanics need to be gritty and realistic, but at the same time, slightly heroic to give the PCs a fighting chance against various obstacles.

The System

For this system I'm having attributes and skills. I'm often asked if I need to have seperate attributes and skills, and the answer is yes. Everyone has a certain degree of intelligence, but not everyone can go into a forest and know which mushrooms are safe for eating, and which are not. Also, attributes are going to affect the skills. A person with lousy coordination is going to have a harder time hitting with a sword than someone who is extremely agile. I'd like the system to reflect this.

Attributes and skills are not the be-all-end-all for the system, but they are the core. There are various other elements that I'm intending to implement that will affect game play. For example, there is a seperate Willpower stat that is not an attribute or skill, but will be used in various situations. There are also Techniques, which have prerequisites based on skills or attributes and allow a character to use a skills for certain specific tasks (like disarms, library research, etc.) or would give bonuses to certain attribute tests (like a bonus to a climbing check, which is based on Strength, and is not a skill), as well as provide many other distinguishing traits. All other features I plan for the system are quite modular and can be modified to fit whatever resolution mechanic I end up with.

The Problem

I've tried designing using a roll-under, roll-over, Silhouette variant, D-D, and dice pool mechanics. So far, I haven't accomplished what I've set out to do. Just for example, let's say that attributes and skills both range from 1-10. Some elements I would like to accomplish are as follows:

a) There are automatic successes and failures.
b) There are no skills to represent natural abilities (i.e. no "notice" skill. Everyone has eyes and knows how to use them), and so this is handled with attributes.
c) A character should be able to accomplish a typical task (meaning no difficulty modifiers) more often than not. This especially going for an "average" character making an attribute test.
d) Contested checks may involve attribute vs. attribute (Strength for arm wrestling), Skill vs. Skill (two characters at the market bartering), and skill vs. attribute (one character is using a stealth skill to evade another characters perception).
e) In contested checks, there is always a chance for the underdog to succeed. For example, one character has Barter 1, another has Barter 10, while the Barter 10 character is most likely to succed, the Barter 1 should have a chance, even if it's a long shot that requires a critical success.

I've developed over a dozen conflict resolution mechanics for this system. Items (a) and (b) are very easy to design for, so there's no real problems there. Items (c), (d), and (e), are causing me the most problems, as none of the mechanics I've developed has satisfied all these elements.

Where I Am Now

Essentially, I'm at a dead end. I've been reading articles online for the past week about game design to see if I can find anything to get me over this hurdle. While I've found some good info online, I'm still not "there" yet. Technically, I don't have a working system, but what I have at this point is as follows:

Attributes range from 1-12, 6-7 ave. (13 with racial modifiers) and include Strength, Agility, Health, Intellect, Perception, and Bearing
Attribute modifiers range from 0-4, 2-3 ave. (5 with racial modifiers)...and I'm avoiding a 0-average range here
Skills range from 1-10, average 4-7 (or 14-15 with attribute modifiers)

For an uncontested task, resolution works by rolling 2d6 and attempting to roll under the attribute or skill + relevant attribute modifier, and aims for a MoS greater than the difficulty of the task. If a character rolls double 1s, that is considered a potential critical success and can add their current Willpower (likely ranging from 0-13, though being close to 7 on average) to their MoS if a successful Willpower check (2d6, roll under current Willpower) is made. This element makes "impossible" tests, possible. If a character rolls double 6s, that's a potential critical failure. The player then needs to make a Willpower check, to see if the character can avoid a fumble. If the roll otherwise would have been a success, a failed Willpower check makes it a regular failure. If the roll was a failure anyway, a failed Willpower check makes it a fumble.

The critical success element may become a Technique which needs to be "developed" (point-buy), depending on how the rest of the system works out.

If the character "ties" with the MoS necessary for the task (meaning effective MoS=0), then the character makes a check against their current Willpower. A failed check is a failure, and successful check is a success. This will essentially create an element of near misses and close calls.

For a contested task, both characters make the appropriate checks. The person with the greater MoS is the winner.

The reason this system doesn't work is for two reasons.

1) The mechanic doesn't satisfy part (c) from above. The average person has (basically) only a 50/50 shot at succeeding at an ability test. My original correction was to make difficulty modifiers range from -N to +N to give the average character a "boost" for easier tasks, but this ended up creating more problems.

2) The mechanic for an attribute vs. skill test just broken. One correction I had considered was to have a skill vs. attribute test be like an uncontested skill test where the character is required to attain a MoS greater than the targets attribute modifier. However, this ended up screwing over lower skilled characters more than I would have liked, as well as making things way too easy for higher skilled characters.

To What I'm Attached

Of course, I'm attached to parts (a) through (e) mentioned above.

I've grown rather attached to the not using a 0-average range for attribute modifiers for two reasons. I'm not fond of saying what is "average" in this setting, and as is, the system basically says that even a low attribute contributes to a skill test.

I've also grown attached to using dice as randomizers.

I'm not overly attached to the ranges I established for attributes and skills, though I feel that any less would make the differences between characters a little too blurry, and much more might be a little excessive. In the end, though, whatever works is important.

I'm also not overly attached to the 2d6 for the roll. I've actually been tempted to switch it to a 1d12. For one, the linear probability curve would mute the differences somewhat with contested checks, which would be a good thing. Also, it would make potential critical successes and failures a bit more common, which is not necessarily a bad thing. Of course, if the ranges for skills/attributes change, then I expect the randomizer would have to change to match.

In Conclusion

Help...please? :)

Well, there are quite a few assumptions that I don't necessarily agree are necessary to achieve your goal of ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances...but I'm going to bite my tongue on those and try to help with what you've asked for.  If you want to hear the spiel on the rest, ask.

I will point out that even in a system like you're looking for I highly recommend scrapping b) from your list.  Not only is it completely unrealistic (there is a great deal of training involved in how to "notice" things properly) its also throwing a wrench in the whole works...I can hear the puzzled response now...yes, this seemingly innocuous requirement is largely responsible for your road block.  Happily it can be completely scrapped without any negative impact to your goals.

Why?  Because Attributes and Skills are always going to give you headaches as long as you have them trying to do the same thing.  Having such a thing as "natural" abilities which use only attributes rather than skills requires Attributes and Skills to effect the game in the same mechanical fashion and thus headache city.

There are numerous reasons why Attributes and Skills doing the same thing causes headaches.  You've probably encountered many of them over the course of your design attempts (even if you didn't recognize the source) so I'll save space by not including them here (plus there are numerous posts on that topic already you can search for).

The solution...if you're wedded to having both Attributes and Skills in the game as seperate entities...is to make sure they do completely different things mechanically.

Some examples ideas:

1) Attributes set the speed (e.g. initiative order) that actions occur in.  Skill determines success
2) Attributes set the number of actions you get in a "round".  Skill determines success (so your chance to pick a lock would be determined by your lock pick skill, but the number of attempts you could make before having to give up would be determined by your Dexterity).
3) Similiar to #2 but a different spin, Attributes set the number of dice you roll while Skills set the target number for success (each did is essentially an "attempt" all rolled up into a single roll)
4) Attributes rolls determine success while Skill Levels determine the maximum possible degree of accomplishment (i.e. roll your observation attribute to notice someone sneaking.  A low skill guy "hears something".  A mid skill guy "sees something in the shadows off to the left".  A high skill guy "sees two thugs in dark clothes carrying .45s moving up on the left side" A really high skill guy "recognizes one of them as Jake Smith, and notices the other is favoring his left leg"
5) Attributes have no mechanical effect in the game at all but serve merely to set how much it costs to buy each level of skill.  It costs alot of character design points to buy a skill linked to a low attribute.  It requires fewer to buy a skill linked to a high attribute.  After that, everything is skill.

I (or others) could probably come up with a few more ideas, but I bet you could think of a few yourself.  I've built probably 100 different variations on Skill + Attribute systems over the years and one thing I've learned pretty conclusively is trying to have 2 different scores operating at two different scales perform the same role in the game mechanics (i.e. both contribute to chance of success for a task roll) is just asking for trouble.

Hopefully that helps.

Hi!
  Well, I guess you really need to stop and define what the "typical" test vs a 8 represents? Then either modify the required MOS (maybe even consider allowing negative MOS for simpler tasks) or the die roll to reflect other more or less difficult tasks.
  And for the record, I agree that you should have a skill for notice. Just because you can;t take a college class in noticing things, doesn;t mean it is not a skill...
  It sounds like you have a well thought out system, and this is just a hiccup, good luck man!

IagainstI wrote:
The Problem

I've tried designing using a roll-under, roll-over, Silhouette variant, D-D, and dice pool mechanics. So far, I haven't accomplished what I've set out to do. Just for example, let's say that attributes and skills both range from 1-10. Some elements I would like to accomplish are as follows:

a) There are automatic successes and failures.
b) There are no skills to represent natural abilities (i.e. no "notice" skill. Everyone has eyes and knows how to use them), and so this is handled with attributes.
c) A character should be able to accomplish a typical task (meaning no difficulty modifiers) more often than not. This especially going for an "average" character making an attribute test.
d) Contested checks may involve attribute vs. attribute (Strength for arm wrestling), Skill vs. Skill (two characters at the market bartering), and skill vs. attribute (one character is using a stealth skill to evade another characters perception).
e) In contested checks, there is always a chance for the underdog to succeed. For example, one character has Barter 1, another has Barter 10, while the Barter 10 character is most likely to succed, the Barter 1 should have a chance, even if it's a long shot that requires a critical success.

Ralph already addressed design requirement (b), so let me address requirement (c), the "typical tasks succeed most of the time" business. Now, I agree that many games take a rather bizarre approch to rolling for typical tasks; failure posp up way too frrequently, which not only seems unrealistic but also anticlimactic. It's an affront to reason and art.

But here's the question: if you want average characters to succeed at typical tasks most of the time, why are you rolling, then? Sure, you need to have a chance for an opponent to succeed even when facing a bad-ass, but that would be handled by a contested roll; in the cases where you have one character rolling against skill, you're going to get the troubles your having. Futzing around with the dice mechanic or the modifiers isn't going to help. Designers spend far too much time on this, but I will say to you what I have said before: dice mechanics are the least important part of game design.

I see two methods of elimiating the problem of whiffing rolls on typical tasks. One is well-known here: use conflict resolution instead of task resolution. Don't roll to see if you succeed in opening the lock or baking the cake, roll to see whether you or your opponent gets your way.

Now, if you want something more Simmy, here's the other approach I've been leaning towards (which can actually be combined with the first approach, but it can solve your problem on its own, too): don't roll to see if you succeed, roll to see how well or how quickly you completed your task. If you think about it, in the real world. most people can complete tasks they are capable of. especially typical tasks. The real question is how much time will it take them to complete those tasks, and how well did they complete it. So, make your roll determine whether they finished quickly or slowly, and allow other characters to block their task by completing their own tasks first.

If you were to take Ralph's first suggestion about making attributes indicate speed and make a few modifications, you could come up with something like the following:

• HIgher attribute goes first;
• Instead of setting skill modifiers or target numbers, the difficulty of a task sets how many "hit points" a task has, with typical tasks getting 6 hit points;
• If your 2d6 roll is below or equal to your skill, you do "damage" to the task equal to your attribute, or no damage if the roll is above your skill;
• Special situations and equipment, magical bonuses, and unusual talents add damage;
• On a successful roll, if the roll is doubles, add the value of one die to damage;
• If you really want to keep fumbles as an option, make a failed doubles roll do Will damage equal to the value of one die; ehen the total Will damage is equal to the character's Will, something bad happens and Will damage resets to zero.

There can be tactical options that let you temporarily add two attributes, but at a temporary reduction to another attribute or a penalty to skill. Also, as a final note, this setup keeps attributes in the same range as you described, but you might want to set average skill as 7, so that a character with an average attribute will complete a typical task in one turn 50% of the time.

Oh, I better add an example, to make it clear:

Your character Artifex is a thief with Agility 6 and Lockpicking 7. The GM mentions there is a chest in the room with a typical quality lock (6 hit points of quality.)

On your first roll, you get 4+6 = 10. That's higher than your Lockpicking skill, so, it takes you longer than one turn to pick the lock. If there is a threat in the room and you have to finish pciking the lock quickly, this might be bad, but the point is, you didn't fail the task, you just failed to pick the lock in one turn.

(If your first roll had been double 5s, you would take five points of Will damage. If your Will was only 5, this might mean that in a tense moment, you accidentally bend your lockpicks out of shape.)

On your second turn, you roll 1+2 = 3: success! You do 6 points of damage to the lock, opening it on your second turn.

If the lock was more difficult, maybe a devilishly hard 20 hit point lock, you would still need to do 14 more points of lockpicking damage to the lock. If your third roll against this much harder lock was 3+3 = 6, this is a critical success; you do 6 points + 3 points for a total of 9 points of damage.

Here's a resolution mechanism. Choose either an attribute or a skill that is relevant to the conflict. Or one of each if you want to allow that. Add the scores (not the attribute modifiers -- scrap those entirely) and that's your dice pool. Roll that many d6es. Count each 6 as a success.

The opposition -- and there's always opposition -- rolls its dice pool, too. Every 6 is a success. Most successes wins. Ties are just ties.

Typical task has an opposition of 1d6. Harder tasks can range up to 12d6 or more.

a) Automatic successes: Any task that the GM just feels is easy enough to warrant not rolling dice.  Automatic failures: Any roll with no 6's.

b) No natural ability skills: Fine, use attributes. A skill by any other name...

c) Whiff factor: Chance of 1 success on 1 die = 17%, 2=31%, 3=42%, 4=52%, 5=60%, 6=67%, 7=72%, 8=77%, 9=81%, 10=84%. Make sure an average character typically has 4+ dice to roll and they're guaranteed to roll at least one success.

d) Contested checks: Handled fine by this mechanism. Strength vs. Strength --> two dice pools. Barter vs. Barter --> two dice pools. Stealth vs. Perception --> two dice pools.

e) Underdog: Barter 1 vs. Barter 10. Barter 1 guy rolls 1d6 and gets a 6 (17% likely). Barter 10 guy rolls 10d6 and rolls no 6's (9% probable). Barter 1 guy beats Barter 10 guy 1.5% of the time. Possible, but very unlikely.

Does that solve everything for you?

Holy hell, this is longer than my initial post.

There's been a lot of good advice so far...more so than what I've found on the net in the past week or so. I'll attempt to respond to one person at a time.

Valamir

If you want to hear the spiel on the rest, ask.

there is a great deal of training involved in how to "notice" things properly

Why?  Because Attributes and Skills are always going to give you headaches as long as you have them trying to do the same thing.

Some examples ideas...

Well, I guess you really need to stop and define what the "typical" test vs a 8 represents?

Now, I agree that many games take a rather bizarre approch to rolling for typical tasks; failure posp up way too frrequently, which not only seems unrealistic but also anticlimactic. It's an affront to reason and art.

But here's the question: if you want average characters to succeed at typical tasks most of the time, why are you rolling, then?

I see two methods of elimiating the problem of whiffing rolls on typical tasks. One is well-known here: use conflict resolution instead of task resolution. Don't roll to see if you succeed in opening the lock or baking the cake, roll to see whether you or your opponent gets your way.

If there is a threat in the room and you have to finish pciking the lock quickly, this might be bad, but the point is, you didn't fail the task, you just failed to pick the lock in one turn.

Hi!
  That was a rather glib answer to a serious question.
  What I mean is what is your definition of "typical"
  Aparently it is something that the average person with average training can only do about half of the time. Riding for instance, would that be galloping long distances? Show jumping? Certainly that would not be a test for trotting into town. So, what is the Mod for the trotting? Is it negative MOS required, die mod or no roll?
  Defining what is typical puts the needs of your system in perspective.

Some examples ideas...

I've actually used many of those so far. For example, Agility determines the number of actions in a combat round a character can take, and will also affect initiative. I used (3) for my Silhouette variant, and really liked how it worked, though my Silhouette variant had too many other problems. However, getting them to work for both attributes and skill tests has been impossible. The only one that wouldn't work is (5) as like I said earlier, many skills can be used with multiple attributes, depending on the situation. I have been toying with the idea of linking every skill to a primary attribute (as in, the attribute most often used), though that would probably only create more problems. For example, the stealth skill pretty much equally relies on two attributes. Sneaking around is agility, but hiding and tailing is perception.

IagainstI said:

Ok, so there's no attribute vs. skill tests. In fact, there's probably no attribute tests at all. There has to be a skill for everything. Like Dindenver said, just because you can't take a class in it...

What if there is no opponent? Like with baking a cake. It's not likely that I'd have some rival on the other side of the kitchen pelting me with eggs trying to mess me up. Sometimes it's just the character and the task at hand. You know, man vs. self.

Dindenver

That was a rather glib answer to a serious question.

When you say "getting them to work for both attributes and skill tests"...I'm not sure you understand me fully. 

My strong recommendation is to scrap the idea of doing both.

Meaning...if you decide to test vs. skill then you never ever ever test vs. Abilities...ever.  Abilities should do something completely unrelated to the odds of success on the test roll.

If you're abandoning these types of tests, how does my recommended mechanic fail to meet your requirements?

No set of attributes was ever going to serve as the safety net for resolving every possible task.

By the way, in case no one else has said it, welcome to the Forge!  We tend to use our real names around here.  What should we call you?

IagainstI wrote:
Dindenver

Oh, I understood you the first time. All I was saying was that I did try those ideas when I was trying to get the ability vs. skill element to work. I've already scrapped the ability vs. skill element, but I'm still going to use those ideas.

Ahh, I obviously didn't follow your response correctly.

Exactly. Though I feel that if I can't use attributes to affect the ease of developing a skill (like my example above with stealth, agility, and perception), having them provide a modifier depending on how the skill is used seems almost necessary. Well, maybe not necessary, but logical and realistic. Otherwise, my "arm wrestling" problem I described is only further worsened. At this point, the "arm wrestling" dilemma is my biggest concern.

Ahh...the classic armwrestling example...I'll make two points to this...the first is related to that spiel you've asked about.

1) Have you ever had a game experience where an armwrestling match was crucial to your enjoyment of the game...I mean really?  Not just that there was a funny interlude where the big barbarian challenged the dwarf over too much ale for a couple of coins while waiting in the tavern for the NPC show up...but an honest to god...Holy Cow...that was one of the most satisfying roleplaying experiences I've ever had moment...No?  Then why in the world would you even care...let alone care enough to make such situations your biggest concern?  Yes, I know armwrestling is just one example of the type of rolls you're talking about.  But seriously, step back a minute and think really hard about exactly why those types of rolls are even valuable.  Chances are you're exerting alot of effort for something that almost never makes a difference anyway.

2) Mechanically any of the above options I gave would work just fine even for this situation (and btw #5 can absolutely be made to work with calling on different attributes on the fly in game).  One example, I have a Strength of 5 you have a Strength of 3.  You have superior Armwrestling skill.  We each roll vs. Skill only...no modifiers from Attributes at all to the roll.  But you have to beat me 5 times and I only have to beat you 3. 

Furthermore, I'm starting to get concerned with the symbiotic relationship that may occur between skills. For example, if a character focuses on weapon skills, but not other physical skills, it would seem kind of odd. I can't imagine a character that can rock out with swords and axes and such, but can't climb a wall or jump across a 10' gap. However, as is, the system apparently allows this.

That's an artifact of thinking in terms of skills as discrete narrow entities.  Most gamers start off thinking this is a good way to do skills because it allows for things like "I'm good with a sword, but oh no, the GM took my sword away and all I have is this axe and I'm not so good with that"  They're right in thinking that this can be a potentially dramatic situation worth portraying in a game...but doing it by splitting sword and axe skill is really awkward in game (and especially for character creation) leads to all kinds of goofy things (like GURPS characters who are Doctors but don't know basic arithmatic) and ultimately isn't very realistic anyway.

Better is to think in terms of cultural and professional background.  Consider yourself.  Whatever it is you do for a living I guarentee you could list out 20-30 "skills" that are part of your job that you do pretty well.  If you were to make yourself as a character in an RPG...would you really want to list all 20-30 things on your character sheet...and then throw in dozens more for hobbys, background, things you learned at grandpa's knee, etc...?  I wouldn't.  But I bet if I asked you "hey Michael, what do you do for a living" you could tell me in 1 sentence or less...and from that sentence, we could get a pretty good idea of many of the skills you possess.

For instance take your arm wrestling skill.  You have a character with "Man-at-arms level 4" and "Garrisoned at Wycliff Keep" Level 3 written on the character sheet.  You want to do an armwrestling contest.  Is it reasonable for a soldier on garrison duty to armwrestle people...I'd wager that's a pretty common pass time...so you don't have an armwrestling skill in the game?  So what...just assume that knowledge comes with the territory of being a Man-at-arms and go with it.  Later on when the character is overseas and you want him to appraise the value of a barrell of ale he's being bribed with the player notes that Wycliff Keep was renowned for its fine ale and so any soldier stationed there probably has a good sense of the beverage...fine...instead of saying "you don't have the Appraise Ale skill you simply roll with "Garrisoned at Wycliff Keep" and move on.

Do you think someone trained with swords and axes should be able to climb a wall?  Then simply let them use their "Fighting" skill to make the roll and be done with it. 

If that's too loosey goosey for you...simply have 3 default skills that every character has...one for physical stuff, one for mental stuff, and one for social stuff.  Call em whatever generic phrase sounds good (like "Athletics").  Then there's always a skill to default to if nothing else applies.  Think being Athletic would help in a fight?  Fine then let the character make an Athletic test with success modifiying their Fighting test.  How many Tests can a character link together in this way...how about a number equal to their Agility...  So you mean I can charge in on my horse (riding check) out of the sun so my opponent is blinded (perception or tactics check), leap from the saddle (athletics check) and then attack my opponent (fighting check)...yup...if you have an Agility of 4 you can.  And every check I succeed on makes my fighting check better so I can basically customize my own special maneuvers without needing lists of feats and techniques and stuff...yup...works like a charm too.

That's just one option...but point being there are MANY valid workable alternatives to the long skill list. 

You asked about my Spiel...you can probably see the edges of it coming through above, but I'll get a bit more specific.  If you haven't done so already I recommend reading a bunch of the articles and stickies here (Mike's Standard Rants are especially useful for your purposes) and then start a new thread to discuss further.

In this game, PCs are essentially ordinary people who get swept up in extraordinary circumstances.

This is what you've said your game is about...fantastic.  Knowing what your game is about is the first step of a good design.  Problem is...absolutely nothing I've seen in the rest of the thread has anything to do with this.  How does your game portray ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances better than GURPS...or Hero...of Fuzion...or any of a dozen other systems out there that look alot like this (or heck systems that don't look alot like this like Fudge)?  If it doesn't...then why are you designing it?  Are you sure that's really what you're game is about?  Note...that's not an insult...just food for thought, and a standard opening for the Spiel.

Because of this, the mechanics need to be gritty and realistic, but at the same time, slightly heroic to give the PCs a fighting chance against various obstacles.

Do they really?  I can think of many games that do ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances REALLY WELL that don't even bother to blink in the direction of gritty and realistic.  Why do you think the two are tied together?  What do you even mean by "gritty and realistic" (two more vague game design terms are hard to find).

Part two of the Spiel usually moves into asking about what other games you've played alot of...and then into the really hard questions like "what do the PLAYERS do while sitting around the table".  and "what do you envision a typical game session to look like" 

Have you ever had a game experience where an armwrestling match was crucial to your enjoyment of the game...I mean really?

One example, I have a Strength of 5 you have a Strength of 3.  You have superior Armwrestling skill.  We each roll vs. Skill only...no modifiers from Attributes at all to the roll.  But you have to beat me 5 times and I only have to beat you 3. 

"I'm good with a sword, but oh no, the GM took my sword away and all I have is this axe and I'm not so good with that"

Do you think someone trained with swords and axes should be able to climb a wall?  Then simply let them use their "Fighting" skill to make the roll and be done with it.

If that's too loosey goosey for you...

If you were to make yourself as a character in an RPG...would you really want to list all 20-30 things on your character sheet...and then throw in dozens more for hobbys, background, things you learned at grandpa's knee, etc...?

How does your game portray ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances better than GURPS...?

Note...that's not an insult...

Why do you think the two are tied together? What do you even mean by "gritty and realistic"?

"what do the PLAYERS do while sitting around the table". "what do you envision a typical game session to look like" 

Hello,

Before you start work on your Task Resolution system, can I urge you to consider having only opposed rolls in the game. I know you have already addressed this, but please let me put my point of view to you.

You have noted:

IagainstI wrote:
Well, there are many tasks that the characters will never need to roll for. When a character is rolling for a task, it's not just because there's a possibility of failure, but also a consequence. So the players never have to roll to tie their shoes. Why? Because even if they screw up, they can just do it again, no big deal. On the other hand. You could have the most pro-style stealthy character in the most optimal of conditions trip over his own two feet. And when that happens, there's consequences.

IagainstI wrote:

I see two methods of elimiating the problem of whiffing rolls on typical tasks. One is well-known here: use conflict resolution instead of task resolution. Don't roll to see if you succeed in opening the lock or baking the cake, roll to see whether you or your opponent gets your way.

What if there is no opponent? Like with baking a cake. It's not likely that I'd have some rival on the other side of the kitchen pelting me with eggs trying to mess me up. Sometimes it's just the character and the task at hand. You know, man vs. self.

Before you start work on your Task Resolution system, can I urge you to consider having only opposed rolls in the game.

IagainstI wrote:
Back in the day, I had a 2e D&D GM that was a total goit and would do stuff like that all the time. I already have a solution for that (and that's why weapons are split into Melee/Ranged categories). Basically, there is going to be a Technique that lets you use a portion of your best Melee skill for all melee weapons (and the same for ranged weapons).

Also, combat is going to be more on the tactical side (a grid map, miniatures, etc.), so differentiating between weapon categories is going to add more flavor and options.

That was a good idea, but not what I was looking for. I'm aiming for something a little less left to player/GM interpretation. The last thing I want is people arguing over rules and what a character should or should not be able to do in a given situation. Take D&D 3.5, for example. I played in a group a few years ago where people would argue over the rules somewhat often, which was actually kind of bizarre considering how comprehensive the system is.

You're absolutely right here. One of my hobbies is shooting sports. I'm great with a 1911, .357, and a Beretta 9mm, but I'm worthless with a Glock 17 (it's not a "comfortable" weapon, IMO). Actually, I'm more accurate with a Beretta .32 short barrel at 40 ft., (which is generally only good for self-defense and at ranges of less than 20ft.) than I am with the Glock at 20ft. (which has around three times the length between sights) Now most systems would just list pistols (or even firearms in general) as a skill. If I was going to be uber-realistic about it I'd have to have a skill for every type of firearm because "realistically" there is a difference. However, that would just be insane.

At the same time, I have to feel like what tasks the skill encompasses is are reasonable and related enough, while keeping the skill general enough to prevent from having an insanely long skill list. So if I was designing a contemporary setting, I'd probably have a skill for pistols, one for rifles, and maybe one for shotguns. Granted, I'm crap with a Glock, but if you put any pistol in my hand, I'm pretty sure I could handle it as well as the .357 or 9mm.

As for my system, I want my system to be able to handle all (reasonably expected) conflict with a contest of mutually exclusive variables (be it skills, attributes, or whatever) in a non-ambiguous manner.

Why do you think the two are tied together? What do you even mean by "gritty and realistic"?

I don't think the two are tied together at all.

I have to ask: I know I started this thread to winge on about my resolution mechanic, but after all we've discussed, is it even an issue anymore? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that at this point, it's more important that I define (or redefine) my resolution variables and have a clear method for their categorization.

If that's the case, I'm kind of back to square one, no?

I'm coming into this one a little late, but my 2c:

a) There are automatic successes and failures.
b) There are no skills to represent natural abilities (i.e. no "notice" skill. Everyone has eyes and knows how to use them), and so this is handled with attributes.
c) A character should be able to accomplish a typical task (meaning no difficulty modifiers) more often than not. This especially going for an "average" character making an attribute test.
d) Contested checks may involve attribute vs. attribute (Strength for arm wrestling), Skill vs. Skill (two characters at the market bartering), and skill vs. attribute (one character is using a stealth skill to evade another characters perception).
e) In contested checks, there is always a chance for the underdog to succeed. For example, one character has Barter 1, another has Barter 10, while the Barter 10 character is most likely to succed, the Barter 1 should have a chance, even if it's a long shot that requires a critical success.

Greg

Actually, those (a) through (e) criteria was for my "first incarnation" of the system. The discussion here has led me to rethink some core elements. My new core philosophy is outlined in (a) through (g) in Reply #15

Ralph

In writing this post, I realize that we are kind of discussing two seperate things which are almost one in the same. That is, system and setting. The reason why I think they are almost the same is because, in my perspective, the primary purpose of the system is to emulate the reality presented in the setting.

Also, the name of the system/setting is The Legacy of Rhei Dragoon (LRD).

What does tactical combat with weapon categories have to do with "ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances"?

There is no such thing as as not open to interpretation.  Do some searches on the Lumpley Principle to see what I mean.

Consider as an example a rule that has gives every skill 3 "background slots"...

Don't treat rules like a straight jacket to control and limit player actions...

Actually, I meant why do you think "ordinary people/extraordinary circumstances" is tied to "gritty/realistic"

Ralph

In writing this post, I realize that we are kind of discussing two seperate things which are almost one in the same. That is, system and setting. The reason why I think they are almost the same is because, in my perspective, the primary purpose of the system is to emulate the reality presented in the setting.

What does tactical combat with weapon categories have to do with "ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances"?

In short, not really anything. Tactical combat is meant to reflect the nature of reality in LRD. You're not going to win a fight by flipping through the air, chopping off heads like ninjas who have real ultimate power...just because you decided you wanted to spend ability points developing your skills in Flipping, Chopping Heads, and Real Ultimate Power. The world just doesn't work that way.

I'm not shooting this idea down, but I see some potentially serious balance issues with this mechanic. Basically, a player can find a reason to tie any two abilities together:

"The guy who taught me how to use a sword used to be a linguist who liked to fence, that means I can use my Melee (Swords) ability to decipher scripts."

"The blacksmith who mentored me used to be a scout in the militia. So I'm going to use my Craft (Blacksmith) Ability to sneak into the manor."

Furthermore, this is a classless, leveless system. As is, players can create characters that can use two-handed swords, be stealthy, and speak five languages...if they spend the points to develop these abilities. If a player wants a character who knows about ale from working at a garrison, that's fine, but they have to spend some AP on Craft (Brewing), or something like that.

Maybe I'm a cynic, but using a flashback mechanic makes me think of game sessions where people are arguing over which ties are reasonable, and which are not. Besides, (as an example) one of the people who taught me how to shoot is an electrician, but I can't wire a house. In fact, just the other day, it took me a few minutes to figure out how to properly use a battery tester from Radio Shack.

That's not my intention for the rules at all. The rules are only meant to simulate the reality of the game world. It's the game world that's meant to be limiting to the players. In D&D, Exalted, WoD, and so many other systems/settings I've seen, the world/setting is merely the PCs' "oyster". Theoretically, in Forgotten Realms, by level 20 or so, it's actually possible to kill a god, become a god, destroy the world, and live to tell the tale. At a high enough level, a character can roshambo with the Terrasque, and win.

With LRD, the PCs are not necessarily a pivotal element. Furthermore, while they have great potential, they don't have the potential to be the baddest MFs (I assume actually swearing is bad etiquette here) this side of the Bronx. In fact, if the PCs wanted, they could spend the entire campaign working at an inn, tanning leather, or making a living by other means, and the world will go on. Opportunities they pass up will be taken by others, and may be resolved differently because of this. LRD is very dynamic, with many entities which have their own agendas. The PCs are not children in a sandbox, but each are individual grains of sand.

The intended appeal of LRD is that instead of immersing the PCs in the world that's "theirs for the taking", they are becoming entities in an organic environment that is much bigger than themselves. They certainly have the potential for great things (technically more so than most characters in LRD as adventures are designed to give PCs opportunities), but they have to finesse their way through relationships that are varied and complex.

Sigh. I had a nice long reply ready to go and then my browser crashed. Anyway, to succinctly recap what I was trying to write:

1) How about having mind, body and spirit, and a derived ability from each pair (like hit points as a function of body + spirit).
2) If you have levels in mind, body and spirit, and then have the player define what and who the character is in those terms, this covers in "nature" a lot of rolls or resolutions, leaving a smaller number of abilities to be dealt with. Example:

Body: I'm a soldier
Mind: I'm fascinated by ancient history
Spirit: Outgoing, but morally conservative

My potential leadership ability (mind + body) is high, but I could buy an ability to make it higher. Or, I could have level X in body because I'm a "soldier", but I could be hell on wheels with a sword, and have +Y in swordsmanship. All the stuff that is neither a nature or ability is an unskilled use, and takes a penalty on the nature.

On the resolution system, take an average person, an average PC, and an expert PC, and set them easy, moderate and hard tasks. See if it works. Can an average person who has never picked up a gun (but has seen them in the movies) hit the broad side of a barn at ten paces? Can an average hunter do a called shot on a deer at 200 meters with a scoped rifle? Can a pistol expert like Jelly Bryce drop a coin from shoulder height, draw a holstered pistol and shoot the coin out of the air before it passes his hip? Then reverse it. How likely is Jelly Bryce to miss that broad side of a barn, and how likely is Grandma Moses to make that trick shot? (if you want a system where the expert can always blow it and the novice always has a chance of success). If your resolution system works at the extremes, there's a better chance it will work in the middle.

Greg Porter
BTRC

Ralph

Once again, I appreciate you keeping up with this thread. You've been a great help in getting me closer to my goal. With how long my posts are, I'm surprised that anyone would still follow it.

As food for thought consider that it is up to the players (GM included) to emulate the setting through their choice of narration...

What I mean is...why are ordinary people fighting at all?

1) who are these ordinary people, 2) why have they been thrust into extraordinary circumstances, 3) why are these circumstances interesting to players.

Problem?  Or extraordinary opportunity to get your players to buy in and contribute?

Why?  There's no game design law from on high that says that.

So one player gains some brewing ability for free...so what...every player has that opportunity to grab different abilities so where's the harm?

e.g. "any other player may, upon hearing the narration, veto this action by giving one of their own Drama Points (or a Drama Point in the case of Veto by the GM) to the narrating player."

In the absence of rules telling you how to arrive at an agreement as to what happens, and in the presence of rules telling you to feel free to ignore what rules there are, groups are left with nothing but pure social interaction to decide.

How player's narrate their character's actions, what is an acceptable narration what isn't, etc.

The great armies of the evil empire that overruns the village is a story of the world.  The PC's can do much about that.
.
.
.
One way to accomplish that is to simply tell the GM to design scenarios where the big bad is way too powerful for the PCs to take and provide smaller goals that are better suited to their abilities.  However, that's been done to death.

1) How about having mind, body and spirit, and a derived ability from each pair (like hit points as a function of body + spirit).

If you have levels in mind, body and spirit, and then have the player define what and who the character is in those terms, this covers in "nature" a lot of rolls or resolutions, leaving a smaller number of abilities to be dealt with.

My potential leadership ability (mind + body) is high, but I could buy an ability to make it higher. Or, I could have level X in body because I'm a "soldier", but I could be hell on wheels with a sword, and have +Y in swordsmanship. All the stuff that is neither a nature or ability is an unskilled use, and takes a penalty on the nature.

On the resolution system, take an average person, an average PC, and an expert PC, and set them easy, moderate and hard tasks. See if it works.

Hmmm...

1) Natures are balanced with each other so that one is not necessarily stronger than the other.
2) Abilities are balanced in their scope, so that none are necessarily more useful (generally) than the others.

3) Natures and Abilities accurately affect the laws of the universe in LRD.

On the resolution system, take an average person, an average PC, and an expert PC, and set them easy, moderate and hard tasks. See if it works.

Testing the stats isn't an issue at this point. When I get to that, I can handle it, no problem. What I'm more concerned with at this point is that how I'm resolving conflict properly uses the elements involved in its resolution.

4) The mechanic for resolving conflict properly utilizes the elements of Natures and Abilities.

5) There is a way to compute the various derived statistics (carry weight, action points, Willpower hps or equivalent, etc.) using Natures and Abilities in a logical manner.

Greg

Well, before I start:

Looking over what I just wrote, sorry if I seem a little critical. If I'm going to get labeled, I'm a "simulationist", which is probably not the best type of person to critique a system catering to a specific genre.

Unless the plot and genre is so narrowly defined that GM's and players are railroaded down the track, there is always the possibility that a GM might stress combat more than exploration more than puzzle solving more than character development.

And I have to disagree with you on conceptual grounds. The dice mechanic and testing of stats represents how the laws of the universe in LRD work. A munchkin-esqe example: If the laws of nature (game mechanics) are such that even schmucks can succeed on occasion against a vastly superior foe, no general would ever show his face on the battlefield.

Your resolution mechanic defines the way reality works, and to some extent how it is perceived within the gameworld.

This seems at first glance to involve combinations or permuations of the Natures and/or Abilities, which I thought you said you tried and didn't like.

Sounds like you're on the (or a) right track. One thing to remember:

At this point, I don't have to go into detail as to how the dice mechanics affect the probability curve, you obviously know all that. What I realize is that for the rank 0 guy to have a chance at all (no matter how small) against the rank 12 guy in a contested check, the range of the randomizer has to be equal to or larger than the range of the variables being tested.

Greg

To maintain the "lucky hit" effect, this spread also has to cover the lower end person having the maximum possible negative situational modifiers, and the higher end having the maximum bonuses.

That is, just as you can have automatic success thresholds, you should have automatic failure ones.

Making the lucky hit possible without fudging over the total modifier range (not just skill ranks) is going to be hard. And, depending on your level of realism, remember that while conflict may be several rounds, combat can be "bang! you're dead", so one lucky hit is all you need...

"for a skill use with no voluntary negative modifiers (like called shots or movement), a roll of (insert best possible roll) is always a basic success, regardless of any other penalties or situational modifiers."

What I'm saying is that a modifier that drops your chance to hit by 50% should drop a 100% chance to 50%, and a 50% chance to 25% (not 0%).

I know it sounds like a "cheap and easy" solution, but is there a better way to handle the issue without bogging down the players or GM?

Not sure it is something you want to get bogged down in at the moment.

The problem I've seen is that with linear modifiers in a bell-curve (i.e. XdN) system, small modifiers have no real effect at the high end, and a disproportionate effect at the low end.

If I'm rolling 3d6 and trying to roll at or under my skill of 8, a +3 to my roll is absolutely devastating, while to a person with a skill of 18, they can ignore it.

I tried to minimize this by using a multiple d6 system and "keep the best 3".

If you normally roll 2d8 and you have a bonus, you might roll 2d10 instead, or if there is a penalty, you roll 2d6 or 2d4. So, even if you are god's gift to marksmanship and roll 2d12 normally, a three die type penalty drops you to 2d6.

Side note: Do you have any opinions on limiting environmental factors using Nature? I do see this as being potentially unbalancing as it would have much more of an effect on combat than conflict, though I'm not entirely certain myself.

You know, I really wish I played Shadowrun back in the day. That's one system I feel like I missed out on by not playing. Is there an OGL for the Shadowrun mechanic? I would like to learn more about how that works.

Side note: Being that Natures have such a small range, I'm almost tempted to make them static. As in, the players can't improve them though play. What they are "born" with, is what they get, in other words. That approach might even support certain metaphysical elements of the setting...

A limit based on Mind or other abilities makes the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Have you considered the merits of a threshold system like Shadowrun? NdX, but each dX is counted separately and compared to a target number.

And if it is a moonlit night, or foggy, or whatever, you can rack up modifiers of far more than the normal skill spread.

Player A has a Firearms Ability of 6 and a Body Nature of 4. He rolls 6d8, and adds up all that he rolls under 4. So, he rolls a 6, 2, 1, 8, 4, and 1. The 6, 8, and 4 are discarded leaving the 2, 1, and 1. The 2 is 2 under, and both 1s are 3 under. Adding it together (2 + 3 + 3 ) nets the character an MoS of 8.

I do see problems with this mechanic though, which is the same for any dice pool mechanic I can think of. Critical successes become much more common, and critical failures are too rare to consider (or more common if it works like Storyteller's botch mechanic). With this particular mechanic, it can also be a little math heavy at higher skill levels. However, if I use a mechanic where each die can only provide a single success, I have the problem of not having a large enough MoS range to tweak with the various modifiers possible in combat.

One thing is not quite clear to me: why do you have a combat mechanic that is completely different from the rest of the system?
It implies a certain focus on combat. You should come up with numerous extended conflict resolutions or use a single one for all of them, if you do not want to focus on combat.

Oh, and for the record, the people in the Dark Ages didn't consider the world flat.

You may be onto something here, but I think there are too many steps:

What about setting up the threshold for "success" as being a certain number of "roll unders"

This system would give you automatic success thresholds...automatic failure thresholds.

It's kind of lonely here in this thread now. I seem to have driven away all the narrativists (they're very shy around numbers). Maybe I should drop off this thread and see if they come back...;)

One thing is not quite clear to me: why do you have a combat mechanic that is completely different from the rest of the system?

Oh, and for the record, the people in the Dark Ages didn't consider the world flat.

OTOH, with a 2d6 + Nature + Ability mechanic, the MoS range can be from 3-27+, which is more wiggle room for something as detailed as combat.

btw, I hope you don't see me as being argumentative. The debate is rather helpful as it has helped me better understand the elements that work, and better adjust the elements that need work.

It doesn't seem to be kosher to be trying to minimize the spread of fixed modifiers, when you have a 1-15 spread in the "fixed modifiers" of nature & ability.

And there is always the "self-examination" phase, which is where you ask yourself "How accurately can I simulate this reality with my level of game design skill?". Anyone who feels confident that they can model 1% granularity (a percentile dice system) is either kidding themselves or a helluva better game designer than I'll ever be.

What is the minimum useful level of variance you think your system should have? 3%, 5%, 8%, 10%?

For any given combination of skill and tasks, a real-world success curve is generally a half-bell curve shape, starting at a peak of 100% chance and trailing off to effectively zero chance.

Part of tense situations in Shadowrun might have been trying to make that key roll against a difficulty of say 11, where you rolled a handful of d6, kept the 6's and rerolled them trying to get a 5+ on the rerolls.

but the question remains as to whether it will be the same curve shape for both novice, intermediate and expert skill users?

And here I thought I was the being the argumentative one... Since I really know nothing about your world or what your design has gone through in the last 2 years, I'm just tossing out mechanics ideas and design philosophies in the hope that it will steer you towards what you are hoping to do, rather than my ideas of what is a "good" system. Speaking of systems, another possibility is the "table", a grid of "skill/nature total" cross-referenced with "modifiers" to get the "to hit" number. This allows you to generate any success curves you want, including proportional modifiers, but it requires the table for all skill use. You can add color coding too. It has its plusses and minuses, like any other resolution system.

Still, the slow-fast-slow dropoff would only apply to a character attempting a task that is essentially beyond his/her ability and having a large enough pool of positive modifiers to make the task quite probable. At first, the modifiers wouldn't help so much, but if you lump enough on, the character starts to have a real chance at success, but then at a certain point, it the benefit of the modifiers peter out.

Since I really know nothing about your world...

Speaking of systems, another possibility is the "table"

I was using a typical firearms hit probability as my model, where you start at zero range (100% chance to hit) and go down from there.

It's really quite tricky to set up a simple resolution system that lets a novice hit something at point blank without making experts too expert at long range,

The extremes of a skill curve are where things break down.

But, as I said, this is just something to keep in the back of your mind, not a mandatory design goal.

Well, you probably won't like this, but here it goes anyway...
In normal situations, d6-d6 is the roll. Each factor that favourably increases randomness increases positive die. Elements that eliminate negative effects reduce the positive die. Elements that reduce positive coincidences reduce the negative die. And things that increase adversial randomness increase the negative die.

So, for example, shooting someone is d6-d6. If it is foggy, d6-d8. Quite dark, d6-d10. Multiple enemies in dark, d8-d10 (might hit well, or not, pretty random).
Armwrestling would be d3-d3 or something like that, because it isn't very random. Lottery is d100-d100.

I have very simplistic systems here (you can get some inspiration there): http://s14.invisionfree.com/Tablets_of_Dleinr/index.php?showforum=9

I was just looking at Dream Pod 9's "Core" system and it has a threshold/success system that you could look at the curves for. It seems like an "NdX, keep best 1", but then each maximum die roll (in their case, 6's) counts as an extra success.

Example: I'm rolling 5d6 against a target number of 5. I roll 1, 3, 4, 6, 6. I keep the 6 and get 1 extra success for the second 6. So, I get 2 successes.

This might be a be coarse in the granularity, but the concepts involved might be worth looking at for an "NDX best 2" or similar system.

The system also rates skills as x/y, where X is your level, and Y is your depth of knowledge. A 5/1 would be a whiz at a narrow field, while a 3/3 would be a less skilled generalist in a broader aspect of that field. Like say knowing how to shoot one type of gun vs. a lot of types of guns.

Greg Porter
BTRC

I was just looking at Dream Pod 9's "Core" system and it has a threshold/success system that you could look at the curves for. It seems like an "NdX, keep best 1", but then each maximum die roll (in their case, 6's) counts as an extra success.

This might be a be coarse in the granularity, but the concepts involved might be worth looking at for an "NDX best 2" or similar system.

The system also rates skills as x/y, where X is your level, and Y is your depth of knowledge.