I have read many of the threads on this site and have mined all I think I can from the discussions in the now closed G/N/S & theory forums and the gems hidden in the Actual-play & Play-testing forums.  I’ve read the provisional glossary, and a not small number of rather verbose, yet greatly illuminating, articles, and believe that I am now Forge literate enough to try to broach an idea that I’ve been working on and would like advice with. Also I apologize a head of time for the length of this post, there just was a lot to put in it.

It has been suggested here on prior threads in this forum and elsewhere that it might be possible and desirable to create a single truly universally functional system of rules mechanics that would span across all (or at least most) genres, settings/premises, and all coherent creative agendas to allow nearly limitless detail or innovative expansion in still functional and continuous play.  I seek this universal system for use in my games, and for some time now been working off and on a system that I believe does just that.

I am currently designing concise character sheets and writing up the complete rules in a format that will allow them to be playtested without my direct involvement. I’d like to have this done and distributed by the middle of next month (February), because at the end of that month I shall be leaving to spend the next 13+ weeks at MCRD (USMC boot camp) and I’d like to give the people who want to test it something to do while I am out of contact and until I return.  Because of my time constraints I am using this one thread to list a single outline/overview, with as much info as I think may be relevant, instead of several threads (that would just get lost) to explore each mechanic.  I know this initial post may be long, so if this is not kosher then maybe we can just limit it in scope to just about one or two areas.

My system is called “Game Operations Director’s Holistic Universal Gaming System” (GOD HUGS, or just HUGS), and is mostly traditional in style with character sheets, dice, a GM (or god/director) and players (actors); but in clearly delineating each authority role to avoid “the impossible thing before breakfast” I found that it could be played GM less (with players assuming or sharing the GM tasks); and playing using only the drama/fate mechanics may eliminate a need for dice.

I may be wrong in my assumption that my system is CA neutral or that might even promote functional convergence out of initially dysfunctional play styles (I hope I got my forge terms correct).  I’d appreciate some feedback on whether this seems an accurate assumption or whether my game seems solidly or incoherently supporting one or more CA (though at this point it may be a relatively minor assessment).

The other areas I’d like some constructive feedback is with the mechanics themselves, particularly the character growth/loss mechanics (which may be a new-ish preemptive solution to an old problem of unchecked exponential growth), and the resolution mechanics (both TR and CR options using the same fortune/fate or drama/fate mechanics), but feedback or ideas for the overall structure or other specifics are also welcome.

First my objective (as excerpted from the beginning of my rulebook):
GOD HUGS is modular: its rules of play are, at the core, references to real world equivalents over which the new rules of the setting would be applied as a template. The divisions and definitions of someone’s or something’s traits and abilities in GOD HUGS are, by necessity, somewhat arbitrary, likewise with the derivative “physics” that are based on them.  GOD HUGS seeks to hold a balance between ease and speed of play (arbitrariness) and accuracy (completeness of definitions) by holding to the standards of having accurate simulation of game physics in all cases that are logical and consistent with their real world counterparts within the standards of deviation set by their (the term‘s) definitions, and for ease of play: having those terms be clear and concise, and that the mechanics of play don’t require more than basic arithmetic skill to calculate ability or difficulty, also averaging with less than five terms in any such calculation, nor more than five separate dice be rolled to resolve any task or conflict.

Next, character traits and other character descriptors:
GOD HUGS uses a uniform trait system that directly equates a numbered trait’s number value to the number of dice available for a pool of dice used to determine the result of an action or scene (its standard resolution mechanic for TR or CR respectively).  Purely narrative traits (character name, hair/eye color, etc.) are only descriptively enumerated and have no effect on the mechanics outside of their use in the games narrative.  The core individual numbered traits and abilities are on a scale of 0-10, with 3 or 4 being average, and 10 being the natural maximum that can only be exceeded with situational modifiers appropriate to the setting (game world), such as drugs or black boxes such as magic/technology.

The character traits generally follow an attribute, skill, merit format:
The core or primary Attributes are those broad category traits that are either inherent or take a long time to change (several years or more) they directly relate to the secondary attributes which are derived form them.  If any primary Attribute is ever brought to zero then all traits that relate to it are arrested and cannot be used in addition to any other trait specific effects that may happen.
The secondary Attributes are those common combinations of attributes or traits that need a separate quick reference or are derived from them but do not directly reflect back to them if directly modified by some other mechanic, amongst these secondary attributes are those that set the initial positions of the character’s health stats, the numbers of expendable action points for stressing actions & their rates of loss and regeneration per type.
The (common) ability traits are further divided into the core skill or knowledge and their specialties (specialties can initially have prerequisites like merits) and are grouped by general category (~30 traits in 3 groups).  Uncommon skills or knowledge is listed as merits.
Merits include all those minor and major nonstandard traits, skills, and abilities that are not enumerated elsewhere and can be numbered, narrative or both.

Core of the Numbered traits are the primary Attributes: (description/reference)
Build (rough size)
Brawn (muscle mass relative to ideal lean fitness)
Physique (flexibility and body coordination)
Dexterity (fine manual coordination)
Constitution (physical health and resistance to trauma/disease)
Reason (rough reasoning/logic skills, or general/nonspecific education)
Wits (reflex/speed of thought from perception to action, inclusive)
Resolve (mental health and resilience to trauma/disease)
Spirit/Ka (unconscious or spiritual health/toughness)
Secondary attributes are :
Strength (build + brawn; quick reference value & lift/carry levels)
Agility (Wits + Physique; - Build = Dodge, and + Strength + Stride = Speed)
Twitch (Wits + Dexterity; manual reflex)
Reach/Stride/Jump (Build based narrative values)
Wound levels (# boxes = Build + Constitution + Spirit/Ka; core body functions damage, 3 types of wound, all boxes filled as lethal & 0 action points = dead)
Scrape
Bruising
Lethal
Corpus (localized physical integrity levels specific to area, uses a paper doll graphic, uses the same wound types) (Items also have a Corpus (localized integrity) & Wound levels (overall general condition/effectiveness) that are tied directly to a 3 trait physical integrity resistance stat (Weapons have an additional stat that is the reverse of this): they are Slashing, Bashing, Piercing. They also have a quality (value) trait.)
Stamina (set of references for the rates of loss for each of the action points)
Casual (action 5-10 below current ability = 1/scene-hours)
Active (action at +/- 5 current ability = 1/round-minutes)
Intense (action 5-10 above current ability = 1/turn-seconds)
Rest (set of references for the rates of regeneration of action points, cannot exceed reference value)
Will, Endurance, & Stress (per full rest regenerate = current Prana score)
Prana/Qi (1/ full rest)
Action points: (additional points may also be burned to add one die to a pool)
Will (Resolve)
Endurance (Constitution)
Prana/Qi (Spirit/Ka)
Stress (Wits)
5 trait (general) Appearance & a 5 trait Reputation stat
Then merits/flaws, special abilities/traits, and specific reputations are listed along with their effects

PC advancement:

GOD HUGS runs a use based character growth system that allows dynamic knowledge, skill and ability evolution and even devolution without the need for arbitrary adjustments to reflect change based on equally arbitrary allotments (no XP here).  The rules are simple and fairly straightforward: for skills, knowledge, abilities, and their specialties, every separate use at or above its level/rank gains it 1 mark (includes book research & being taught, but can only gain one per scene or use, whichever is longer), on the 6 mark it goes up one level/die and with one 1 mark already down; every 3 months in game time (approximately) subtract one mark from each and every named skill, knowledge, ability, and specialty, if it does not have any marks to remove than it drops a whole level reverting at the new rank with only one mark (note that on average that it would take a year of disuse to drop a level).  For core Attributes (except Build which does not change through this method), every time a skill/specialty/etc goes up a rank one of the related attributes gains a mark (only one attribute and only one mark), on the 11 mark the attribute goes up a level with 1 mark, every year of in game time subtract a mark and if there are no marks the Attribute drops a level and has no marks at the new rank.

Resolution:

GOD HUGS uses both task resolution, for when actions are to be played out individually, and conflict resolution, for when players wish to speed things up or skip scenes or acts entirely.

The default resolution mechanic is dice based and uses up to 5 d10s simultaneously which make up the dice pool (d6s can be used but they result in too square of a distribution for my liking, I‘d prefer d12s for the spread but they‘re uncommon with casual gamers).  On a d10, a 8, 9, or 0 equal a success (except on a chance roll where only a 0 is a success), and a 1 equals a complication, in addition 0s and 1s are re-rolled for more chances.  The dice pool is derived by adding all applicable (positive and negative) traits, abilities, & situational modifiers, and subtracting from that amount the difficulty of the task or conflict.  The difficulty is found by adding up all the required traits where common sense would assume that one could succeed at the task/conflict automatically with out complications, but for speed of play the director can approximate the number by fives (conditioned responses are around 10, common tasks around 25, difficult around 40, doctorate/professional level around 50).  If the dice pool is greater than 5 dice than assume one automatic success for every five over and roll the remainder for extra chances.  If the dice pool is 0 or negative roll a single chance die and for every negative 5 dice (ignoring remainders) gain an automatic complication.  A player/actor may choose to buy off complications by negating successes before declaring results (at a 1:1 ratio).  A single success is 100% of the intended and extra successes are an additional 25% effectiveness each.  Complications are director/GM toys (or the player‘s if GM tasks are shared) and are to be used immediately to generate drama for the PC, but may not be used by the director to directly nullify a PC success on a recent roll, nor may they directly damage the PC.

Finally the optional resolution mechanic: a player/actor may optionally take a dive and automatically fail a task or conflict with complications that they normally would have a positive dice pool to use in return for a drama point. A drama point may be redeemed for an automatic success in place of rolling dice (the other rules still apply).

Reiterating my main questions: Is this the type of universal system that people around here were looking for?  Is my system really CA neutral?  Do you foresee any problems arising from my character growth mechanics?  How about my resolution mechanics?

I can give examples of play using these rules or will clarify something if asked, but right now I need to go now and loose the next two hours of my life to PT.

Hello, and welcome.

The questions that spring to my mind about your system aren't actually about your system at all; they're about you. Because you're talking a lot about what "people here" want, and I assure you, any aggregate or monolithic opinion that you may have perceived here is entirely a figment of your imagination. There's no one united Forgey desire. Besides which, any creative project as large as a game design is bloody hard enough when you're trying to scratch your own itch, let alone when you're trying to see it through based on pleasing a bunch of people you've never even met.

So: never mind "people here" for a minute. What do you want? What's your play history like, what do you want out of your RPG experiences, and what sorts of itches do you want to scratch?

And, adding to Mike's "the most important question":

Why the name? It is long and convoluted, apparently in order to get to the specific acronym, and thus I would expect some specific connection between the acronym and the system specifics.

Could you pick up one or two aspects of the system, and compare them to GURPS or other similar system to discuss how your design is more universal and CA-neutral?

What did you think about the ideas presented in Ron's "System Does Matter" essay?

I left out the introductions for brevity, but since you asked:  I am 23 and just dropped out of college for the second time due to financial difficulty, and instead of reenrolling I enlisted in the Marines.  (Mostly because I wasn’t getting anywhere on my own, and I scored perfect on the ASVAB, qualifying me to have any job I wanted, amongst other reasons.)  I was one of those smart jocks that got pulled in by my more nerdy friends and fell in love with the hobby.

I wasn’t loving the published games themselves though.

There were parts that were great:
DnD has a great setting but everything else just doesn’t seem to work for me or any one I have played with (so I stopped, but some of them are still playing a game they‘re not really enjoying, talk about dysfunction);
The actual play of VtM was a lot smoother, but I didn’t like most of the metagame mechanics, nor many elements of the setting in which light narrative created hard rules mechanics that didn’t: make sense to me, add to the game, or even work all that well with how we played (incoherently nar-sim with equally incoherent gam-nar mechanics).  Essentially I liked the idea (setting/scenario) and some of its execution but hated the color, which was worse because it was almost impossible to remove. It was not so much the metaplot everyone seems to complain about, which I merely ignored, but the whole monolithic Christian mythos thing and how it worked out mechanically in game.  The nWOD is much better about this but I still don’t play without a lot of house ruling and some total rewrites in areas (tossing out the werewolf-Luna/spirit shaman thing, godlike mages, mechanically hardcoded classes: clans/aspects/paths/etc, the mechanics of ghouls, and I summarily junked all of promethean and will probably do the same with any future changeling as well, by the looks of things).

At of my friends’ suggestion I set out to write a new set of rules for a vampire, werewolf, mage, hunter crossover game that would eliminate the problems that we hated and streamline the play.  At the college I was running an open entry, open exit, classic dungeon crawl that stayed very solidly gamist throughout using my own blend of d20 fantasy with different damage/health system, no xp (no real standardized advancement system at all), & a action point based spell system.

I then had two games that I was working on but the redundancy was annoying me, especially, when you get down to it, aside from the window dressing of the setting/color, the games’ play goals were nearly identical.  Plus I wanted to also come up with & play my own versions of space cowboy, apocalypse/post-apocalypse, and superheroes, while only having the one system.  So I merged the two projects and tried to come up with a new name that accurately reflected my goals.  By this time I was already reading the Forge’s articles and trying out FUDGE, GURPS, and other supposedly universal games but came up disappointed with their approaches.  The girl I was dating at the time said she liked the overly silly and pompous provisional name and it has since stuck.  Though I can change it if enough people object.

For a while (the first two write-ups) I was still using the d20 system with drama pts as a default framework (mostly because that was what my players were used to), but on this fourth and hopefully final write-up I have switched to my new d10 system because I feel it performs better mechanically, and since I liked the many of the “complications instead of failure” ideas I integrated them into the resolution mechanic.

The new version has yet to be playtested because the place at the college that my college group would play at is being remodeled, and the group has since disbanded with a core few playing off campus. Further, the guy who’s house they play at is married to a girl I used to date, and there are few things I’d find more uncomfortable than hanging out with and at the house of a guy who knows I slept with his wife, especially if she is going to be there.  My other group, after house ruling the heck out of nWOD, is playing a kick ass narrativist silent hill game, with 2 GM & 6 regular players, that I wouldn’t dare interrupt, plus we meet so rarely as to make it unfeasible (only one or two days a month, and since I am leaving, I am no longer gaming when we hang out).  I have a local clique of friends that I sometimes game with but we mostly play board games or computer/console games and rarely RP, mostly because the two younger members (my good friend’s little brother and his best friend, both 18) have only really played WoW, final fantasy, or similar games, and they expect that kind of incoherence.  Also, they won’t play any of my games until they are finished.  Not that I blame them, because when this project first started (when it was only a fantasy heartbreaker) we were playing a lot, then I would come up with an idea, test it with in play, and after a while of constantly changing rules it stopped being fun.  So we stopped and now only play occasionally, with the addendum that the rules stay the same throughout, and I’m not the GM.  I know I abused the illusionist technique, because I followed the commonly given, but very bad, GM advice warned about in “the impossible thing before breakfast” and in all those illusionism thread.  Also there were a lot, and I mean a lot, of changes: traditional, to fudge, to drama, to D20, and that’s just the resolution mechanic changes.

Any how, that is where I am coming from and what I’ve done.  As for what I’m looking for:

What I wanted was a single universal RPG system that would work equally well in a wide range of game settings and situations (worlds), because I like to play in many divergent settings and explore a broad range of situations while there.  I also wanted to have the flexibility of using the same system rules for any CA the group happened to be following within their chronicle.  I wanted a system that was both consistent with itself and accurately would simulate and defend its principal assumptions, at least as far as a pen and paper RPG could.  Along with this also I wanted the game world/setting to be internally consistent, but I find that if the system is solid than game world is easy (slap on a template, and maybe adjust a couple numbers, and it‘s good to go).  I found through that many of the systems out there, while usually well tailored for their specific game setting, only supported a limited range of CA’s (usually only one intended and another unintended one called dysfunctional or incoherent) and still further limit greatly the range of actions a character could be reasonably able to undertake (the tailoring is very tight on many), or they do with out formalized rules at all for the subject/action either way, leaving such rules to be mitigated by the players/GM through the confines of the social contract.  I wish to avoid having to invoke the golden rules of RPGs (“GM fiat” & “if it‘s broke, house rule it”) ever in a game, as it disrupts play and treats the symptom, not the problem, causing later problems or at least allowing more of the same type to arise.

In order to make the system universally applicable, some core underlying assumptions had to be made.  I made those assumptions out of what I know works, and then by personal preference where there were multiple working choices.  The choices I made are:
Anthropomorphized characters and their traits for both PC & NPC, even blatantly non-human characters, because of the impossibility for the human player to do otherwise. (This is the reason I removed any traits that would directly correlate to the commonly listed intelligence, wisdom, and charisma traits. Currently there is no universally accepted standard of measuring Int/Wis/Cha in the real world to compare with, and players usually RP the character’s education or status stereotype instead, so I put in what is actually used and eliminated the clutter)
Real world physics/mechanics as foundation/source of game physics/mechanics (same reason as for the anthropomorphized characters, namely keep causality, even if a-linear)
A low level of  arbitrariness mitigated by ease of play: Gritty/hard over soft/fluff (personal preference & eminently more practical/fair; attempts to realistically simulate the expected events & effects, with out needing to resort to deus ex machina GM fiats, or other extraneous sources for event resolutions)

I’m not looking for a monolithic group opinion, but the diverse and often contradictory opinions of the often colorful individuals that populate these forums.  The “is this what the people here want” part was referring to the people who, in prior threads, stated to the effect that this was possibly a desirable thing for them, and would support someone else’s project if it came out (they weren‘t willing to attempt it on their own).

Currently, the biggest itches I am looking to scratch when I RP are the exploration of the setting, scenario, and characters; but I’d like the ability to enjoy an additional thematic focus when game events arise to generate a theme while still allowing the same freedom to abandon it if I choose.  If I choose to explore it the theme that arises could be overcoming adversity or something equally antagonistic, wherein the challenge is the theme, and, for a period thematically appropriate, the main focus could be on the challenge.  I guess my main desired focus is the exploration of the role being played, its setting/situation, & the scenario the character is in.  I have always felt, the plot and themes should ultimately be character driven for any sort of coherence and not the other way around (which to me seems very pathetic and boring).

Although the essay is no longer all that current, I agree with Ron’s assertion that system does matter and with many of the observations he made, but I do not agree with the conclusions he seems to have made from them, nor his suggestions that such a thing is impossible just because the common models are inadequate for the task.  I am supported in this assertion in the wealth of threads that argued over this very thing, from which I got my idea for convergence.

Essentially you design a system that is functionally behaves the same under each motivation.  I think I did it, by using two mutually exclusive resolution mechanics for intended actions being challenged (player chooses one or the other), as well as allowing and supporting both TR and CR with the same mechanic (TR for those scenes that a player wants to explore, and CR for those fast-forwarded through), and revisiting and clarifying the GM/players’ authority: The player controls the PC’s intended action; the GM controls the world, complications/events, & other NPCs (may use static values for quickness); the mechanic used resolves the action and sets the results (succeed/fail, and # of any complications).

So using the example of an average PC vs. NPC fist fight at a bar.  First, the player states that they want to play it out (TR) and then they state their intention, “My character slugs the drunk in the jaw.” Second, the pool is calculated and the #& type of dice are found (this is always done, because of the automatic successes or complications that can arise) & an endurance point is burned for the attempt. Assume the pool is at three dice (+11 total attack - 7 defense -1 target size, reach is normal @ 0).

The simulationist/realist would roll the dice to simulate naturally random chance, to accurately reflect the world without any fudging.  And she gets 3, 9, 5. One success (the nine).

The narrativist would skip the roll and instead burn drama points to get their level of intended success. She burns one for one success.

The gamist would either roll or burn drama pts based on the metagame strategic value of doing so (is it a hard roll, how many drama pts held, etc.). He decides that he likes his odds and rolls the dice for 4, 7 , 8.  One success (the eight).

The end result, though, works out the same and we can go in as much depth as we want.  They all have one success and no complications so they get their intended action as the result, and the other guy gets slugged for a fixed amount of damage based on the PC strength and weapon.  In this case 8 Str + -10s/+0b/-50p weapon for 8 points of bashing damage to the NPC‘s jaw, which after checking the paper doll finds the corpus at 5 boxes which all get filled with scratch and then three of those are upgraded into bruised which also saps 1 of the drunk’s endurance points (unless he elects to lose 1 pt of initiative, if any set of action points reach zero he‘ll have to expend the other action points just to stay conscious), temporarily gains -1 to each the grace & fair appearance traits until healed (healing costs 10 endurance a downgrade), etc.

To use CR, instead of TR, works the same way except successes cost five drama points.

It is hard to compare/contrast my system with much of the others out there because as far as I know my mechanics are a new growth out of the detritus of the old.  For example vs. GURPS: aside from the fact that they both use a fortune resolution mechanic with multiple dice and have a large number of enumerated traits, there aren’t enough similarities to do a fair comparison.  They both look chunky at the outside but at least mine speeds up and has somewhat less math.

I hope that helps generate feedback.

And now I have to leave for more PT.

Don't tell anyone at boot camp you are a gamer and remember to keep your mouth shut. Just some advice from an older Marine.