Like the title implies, for the last several months I have been wondering if my CR system is overly complex. That is, I would like CR to take up about as much time as in most common Role-playing games on the market, but I have attempted to achieve this by having fewer conflicts that each take a little more time. As that most people here are quite experienced on both sides of the playing table, I was hoping that some people might have some general thoughts on the system, how to streamline it, and make it more enjoyable to players (and GM).

For Twilight of the Gods (a game where the player takes on the role of their own divinity in a mythological setting, with the intent of creating their own myths) I have implemented (or, I did about 2 years ago) a limited resource system in order to mimic that the divine characters must expend their power in order to forge the world and affect the lives of people. This took away a bit from the heavy emphasis that is often inherent in diceful games (take the d20 system) and stressed resource management. Unfortunately, a straight resource system rids the game of chance, which as a player I have always found a wonderful addition. With a strict limited resource system, a character with 10 points to expend will always be at a drastic disadvantage against a character with 11 points to expend, especially if CR is determined by simple comparisons.

As such, I implemented two concepts: Soft limits and dumb luck.

Basic stats (Might, Mind, Form, and Speed) in twilight of the gods serve only as limits for how much effort a character can put into an action. Say a character has a Might score of 5 (average human being score), then they can only place 5 energy points into the action from their resource pool. If they truly want to, they can actually allocate more points, but anything over the stat limit is inefficient (a player must expend 2 points of energy for every 1 point added to their effort total) and it hurts them (going over a stat limit causes 1 point of damage to the character… I particularly like the implication of god thinking so hard that they hurt him/herself).

Luck is just that (actually, it is a 5th, unique, stat, but that is besides the point). Indeed, it is generally the only dice role in the game (sometimes percentages are needed, but only for minor things). The exact luck mechanics are still being worked out, but essentially a player roles two d10’s, one representing good luck and one representing bad. If, on either, a 0 is rolled, then that is taken as a 9 and re-rolled (the result then being added to the 9. If it comes up as a 0, the same thing happens again). Afterwards, the totals of good and bad luck are added together and the result is added (or subtracted) from a character’s expended energy pool. As such, even if there is no way that a god could actually overcome an obstacle; dumb luck could save the day. Basically, it seems like any action is the result of skill and luck. Skills are far more reliable, but as they say, a thousand monkeys at a thousand typewriters…

A character’s skill in a certain action can added bonus energy, and thus the final CR equation looks something like:

Effort Expended (if EE is > than related Stat, subtract Stat from EE and player must pay this amount in addition to EE) + Skill bonus (if applicable) + Item bonus (if applicable) + Good Luck (where GL equals a randomly generated number above 0) – Bad Luck (where BL equals a randomly generated number below 0) = Final Energy Output

That final Energy Output is then compared against an opposing action (say two gods are in a test of strength against each other, the FEO would be compared and whoever had higher would win). Additionally, it could be against a general difficulty (it takes X amount of energy in order to raise the ocean floor and create a continent, for example).

Perhaps I am just being paranoid, but this seems really complex for actual play. Unfortunately, the game still isn’t ready to be reliably tested yet the CR system would be so much easier to fix now (if it needs fixing).

Thank you for spending the time to read.

~Joel

Hi Joel

There's some cool ideas you have.

My experience bringing TOTSG to playtest left me with these ideas:
* before you've playtested, it's way more important to work out WHAT you want your game to do that HOW you want it to do those things. A LOT of the 'how' will change, but if you don't know what you're aiming for, it can be way hard to know what changes are going to give you the best shot at getting there.
* know that before you've playtested, you don't have a game. You have a bunch of 'wouldn't it be cool?' ideas on paper.
* playtest early. The earlier the better. And do it with real other people so you can watch what makes them go 'huh?' & what makes them go 'wow...'. Be ready for some suprises.
* don't get ornate until you know what you want your game to do, and that the fundamentals you already have in place actually deliver them. Really.

Regarding resolution rules in general
IMO the complexity & feel of your resolution is way more important than its specific mechanics. There are infinite mechanics that can deliver a given level of complexity, or a particular feel. Once you know what you're aiming for, you can play with the mechanics until you get it right.
Complexity is important because it dramatically affects the pacing and focus of gameplay.
What do I mean by the feel of your resolution system? The way it ties back to character concepts -> player rewards -> the kind of play it drives.

Regarding your resolution rules specifically
It does seem somewhat complex, but not (on paper) unbearably so (although I may not be the best person to ask about that, since there are folks here who've played way more different games that I have). For what it's worth, the questions I'd be asking about a resolution system for my pre-paytest game would be:
* How does it contribute to the style of gameplay I want my game to be about?
* How does it reinforce the character concepts I want my game to be about?
* How does it reward the players in cool ways?
* How does it push the pacing of gameplay in the direction I want?

This means I'd first have to know:
* The style of gameplay I want my game to be about
* The character concepts I want my game to be about
* What I think are cool rewards for the players in this game
* The pacing I want for gameplay in this game

I hope it goes good!

Just as an impression: To me, the only thing that feels overly complex to me about the system you put forth is the 2, opposed, both exploding dice. If you can reduce that to 1 exploding die or 2 normal opposed dice somehow, I think you'd be perfectly fine.

An easy way to avoid using exploding dice on the 2d luck roll is to treat 0s like 9s plus you ignore the other die result.

So a roll of good 6, bad 9 would net to bad 3.
But a roll of good 6, bad 10 would net to bad 9. 

Essentially this is the same as having an open ended roll for the 10 that "just happened" to roll a 6.  So its still random...in the sense that sometimes being open ended will make a big difference and sometimes it won't...but it doesn't require an additional roll or additional math.

In the event of tied 10s...either they just negate each other...or something really really big happens...like a new diety / monster / demi-god is spawned or something.