Hey Forge,

I am in need of some help in designing a generic roleplaying system.  SInce I've never done this before, I might be a little off on what I need it to do, but off the top of my head, I'm trying to hit the following points.

Charactacter Creation:  This would include multiple races of varying abilities and construct for non-living and non-organic characters.
Melee Combat:  Because sometimes you just want to hit something.
Ranged Combat:  Because sometimes you just want to shoot something.
Magic:  Because sometimes you just want to manifest your will over the arcane forces of creation.
Tactics:  Because sometimes you want to bark orders.
Flexible Skill System:  Because sometimes you want to do something other than kill things (can't imagine why).

And, I'm sure there are other elements I'm not thinking of right now because every time I start thinking generic, I end up thinking of dozens of very specific role-playing scenarios.  Also I'm crap with designing dice systems.

Help me Forge.  You're my only hope.

- Scott -

*skzzzt*
Help me forge. You're my only hope.

What are your design goals for this game? Generic, sure, but what does that mean to you? One game that can, without more rules, do anything? Cuz GURPS is not that kind of Generic -- it's more plug-in-based.

What kind of game play do you want the game to produce? Generic doesn't mean flavorless.

The points you hit are a good start. Also consider what your rules do to help the players figure out what to do. We call it "situation mechanics" around here. You don't want your players making up characters and then going, "Uh, now what do we do?" and your GM -- assuming you have one -- going, "Uh, I dunno. What do you wanna do?" What kicks play into high gear so that everyone is guaranteed to have an awesome time?

Are you aiming for a simple and small set of rules or a large and complex set of rules? Look at games like The Window for an example of a very simple set of rules providing a generic system for role-play. More complex games like FATE offer more tools to the players and GM but FATE is still worlds simpler than GURPS.

So...

...based on what you've written so far, you're after a combat system with some skills attached.

The combat system should be capable of efficiently dealing with one-on-one conflicts as well as group combats (hence the need for tactical resolution). It should also incorporate mysticism and magic for maximum versatility in all combat situations.

I'm sure other people around here will bombard you with questions about player experience, character experience, power 19s and the big three.

While these are important ways to help understand the goals you have set yourself for your game, there are a hundred other threads which go into incredible detail with people picking apart the creative process.

I'll cull them down to what I think is the essence of the discussion...

Personally, I think you've picked a few good solid points to start designing a system from. But have you considered the experience you would like your players to achieve.

If they are just going to hack at monsters, or each other, then there are plenty of great systems that do this already. 

If they are going to be leading teams of adventurers against monsters, or each other, there are a couple of systems that do this as well.

So one of the first questions to answer is "What is the aim of the game?" quickly followed by "Why am I writing it?"

Without these two questions answered I'm sure you'll probably get a lot of blank stares from people around here.

Once you've have defined the "whats" and "whys", please post them and I'm sure a few more people will have some advice that akes more sense in the context of what you're trying to achieve.

V

Okay, I think I see how to shape this now.

The individual experience for the player would be in creating a single character and beating up on GM-designed characters as well as other characters.  While commanding armies and units is something I'd like to implement, it's more of a feature I'd like to make available.  It wouldn't be a core feature needed for the system to function.

Experience is tricky.  I'm thinking of using a point system where the skills "level" as opposed to the character all of a sudden waking up and realizing that they're a little bit better at everything.  I'm not trying to use a "kill for currency" option where more dead things equals more abilities and skills.  If I can implement study and training, that would be ideal.

The purpose of gameplay would be to create a niche in the gameworld, something that would get players coming back again and again.  After the farmboy grows up to save the universe (or rule it with an iron fist), I want to implement a gameplay system flexible enough that he can then take a chunk of the gameworld itself and play it as the character itself can be played.  Old characters can continue playing as rulers of distant lands, captains of vast space armadas, or some other third thing.

For example, an early build I was working on allowed players to command a crew of space mercenaries.  However, I was able to scale that system up to where the same players could serve as officers command specialized crews on a starship, or admirals commanding entire fleets of ships using the same system.  Developing magic is slow, so I went with technology instead.

I guess "generic" would mean "adventure" for me.  Some games seek to precisely replicate an experience, I guess this would be more of a way to reproduce fantastic experiences with "cinematic" results.  Death would come at the end of a long-drawn out series of misadventures or a few stupid descisions (which is a lot more than you get in real life) as opposed to one wrong turn or a bad choice.  The end result would be a series of experiences that shape the character into the type of character you see in action movies, who routinely pokes death in his cold, hollow eye.

As far as situation mechanics, players should ideally create a purpose for themselves in creating their character.  A character might be looking for an old enemy, a lost love, caverns full of gold, or their memory.  The GM should be able to present the characters with situations that allow them to further this goal.

To sum up the gameplay experience this is supposed to provide, I'm thinking rich character development punctuated with cinematic action sequences against a narrative backdrop created by the character's pursuit of their individual goals and the conflicts that arise from the GM and, where applicable, other players.

Sounds like you've got some solid ideas and you're open to suggestions which are two good starting points.

If you want to design a system from stratch, you can look to the systems that you've experienced and work out which bits of them you liked, then compare the aspects of various systems and see which ones mesh together well.

Otherwise I can thoroughly recommend John Kirk's "Design Patterns of Successful Role-Playing Games". It's a very theoretical book that looks at so many aspects of game mechanics that it can be a bit overwhelming, but most of my own ideas have evolved dranatically after reading through it a couple of times.

http://legendaryquest.netfirms.com/books/Patterns.zip

This goes into everything from skill theory, and patterns of experience acquisition through to combat mechnics, die rolling, and numerous other aspects of game design that you might not have even considered. There's some good bits at the back of the book that tie the theory into existing game systems so you can get a better feel for the theories and patterns described throughout the main body of the text.

[hr]

Oh, and by the way, don't shy away from specific role-playing scenarios. If you've developing a "generic" system, you would probably like your system to be able to cope with each of these specific settings and events. If you're finding that too hard, then just work on a set of core rules then add some modular components that address more specific concerns (this way a group can use the modular bits if they like that style of play, or they can ignore them if they want something a bit different).

Examples of modular components:
Morale rules to reflect the scary nature of battle and the horrors faced.
Magic rules (because some scenarios may be focused on a gritty "realistic" setting)
Tactical rules for co-ordinating groups
Vehicle combat rules
Etiquette and Intrigue rules (because even the most grizzled mercenary has to negotiate with his employers when taking on jobs)

There's no need to tie all of these into the basic system, because it can be a bit overwhelming for new players. Depending on the size of the game you're aiming to produce, your set of rules could present a couple of sample scenarios that present these modular rules in the context of a specific scenario.

Examples might include:
The characters are offered a job that is going to take various teams co-ordinating in different locations to be successful (eg. the planet-based team disarms the generator, while the fighters attack the space station once the shields are down), this becomes a perfect opportunity to describe the tactical rules.
The characters must storm an asylum to rescue a vital ally. This becomes a great place to introduce rules on insanity.

Just some ideas...

V

Thanks for the reference doc.  You'd be surprised how hard good documentation is to get.

Yeah, I've actually been shying away from specific scenarios, trying to keep them at arm's length until I get a solid foundation.  My work so far has been taking all of my really cool ideas and focusing only on the the common thread between all of them.  Of course, once I get a good, solid foundation, I'll be back to figuring out how long it should take a zombie bite to turn a healthy person into a slavering flesh-eating ghoul but right now, it's the basics.

Regarding the design system I've come up with thus far, I am focusing on the basics and intend to put aspects of specific games in as modules.  The best part is that GM's looking to throw some really different stuff in a game (zombie tactics where the big ones beat on the front door, and the fast ones clamber in through broken windows) can use the divergent modules and plug them into the core game.

So I'm going to read this book and we'll see what I can bring back to the table.

If I may say so, your basic bullet list of "stuff I need" seems rather far from "generic" to me--Magic? A distinction between combat and skills? Wha-?

It sounds to me like you'd do well to look at the Hero System (AKA Champions) for a baseline model of how to do generic right (IMHO). Anything which could validly be called a "genre convention" (i.e. Magic) is abstracted out of the system--it's called "special effect' ("Color" in Forgespeak). If you want a Wand of Magic Missiles or an AR-15, it's the same "Power" just with different mechanical tweaks (Limitations, Advantages) and different special effects.

Now, it seems you just need a dash of Hero combined with a new power or two to handle the concept of "groups of followers". Hero does followers, henchmen, sidekicks, squadmates, etc just fine. It also does vehicles and their combat just fine. It doesn't QUITE do "a mass of dude/vehicles" in combat as well... or, rather, it can do it fine, but the significance to the "main character" becomes more and more tenuous, as the skills one can bring to bear in such mass conflicts have minimal effect compared to the many instances where individual troop/vehicle powers and dice rolls have an impact. The "admiral" is basically a +1 or +2 modifier on some rolls (which is, IMO, realistic). Plus, it costs a boat-ton of Character Points to roll up Followers that are in any way effective and then use the "x2" Advantage to build up their numbers. (An old joke Hero character is Mr. Popular - a normal human whose 250 points goes into buying a normal human Follower [20 pts] and as many x2 multiples as 250 pts can get; in the end, it's billions of Followers--everywhere Mr. Popular goes, he commands the majority of people in the area [anyone not built on points, basically].)

Of course, this is a game design site, and so folks always want to make something all on their own, with their own touch or feel. To me, it sounds like Hero does 95% of what you want, and it's been in production for, oh, 30 years? Perhaps your design goals could be shifted a bit: consider learning Hero and then writing a supplement to it which deals with mass combats in a cool, Hero-esque way? Command "Powers," Vehicle and Followers Groups generation rules, etc.

Or maybe you could take Hero to the next level! MetaHero--a generic game in which it's not even assumed that a "character" is bipedal, humanoid, corporeal, sentient, or even existent! I actually tried to do such a "ubergeneric" system once, and it was fun in a navel-gazing kind of way. I actually used a points-build system in which you had to buy the components of your character's form piece by piece: each limb, sense organ, major cognitive ability, integument system, carapace/skeleton, overall compositional material... you name it. Based on how you bought those elements of being, you'd acquire various stats and increase them (or decrease them). And EVERYTHING in the system would use the same method--you could write up a rock, an intelligent plant (or planet), a crystalline being of pure emotion, a sentient odor... again, you name it.

Did I even get close to finishing? I'll give you a hint: how long is an encyclopedia?
;)

Anyhow, go your own way, but I think there's some excellent giants upon whose shoulders you could stand;
David

(P.S. For a sample of how I used Hero to inspire a "generic boffer LARP system", see my sig: GLASS, which is very different from Hero, now, because I shaped it and culled it to suit a boffer LARP's particular needs.)

I'm playing at rpg, I agree add to what is existing...

i like the sense of preference, a bowman builds up his skill so he can kill at a distance with minimal threat to his own life draw back he's progressively more prone to panic at close range; looses proficency with sword, harder to keep same skill level.

command / heros needs to be the same, rookies drain command; the more rookies the more distracted the commander... so distracted he gets shot :P

corruption / arrogance, a high skill character could miss because he'd not consentrating, tunnel vision a great commander makes a mistake but refuses to acknowledge it,

Interesting ideas error, but I'd likely be able to take my character's social or logic attribute and build a "command followers" system.  Since units under a player character's command would either follow orders or fail to follow orders, the system would be pretty straighforward.  The same attributes that determine how well a character can perform the tasks a player asks of it can be used to determine how well a minion can perform the tasks a character "asks" of it.  The actual command system is fairly simple.  Much of the complexity will come from developing orders for the minions to follow.

Ah well, as V pointed out, supplements can go into greater detail on any particular gameplay type.  I don't need to develop rules for battles between star cruisers in order for the system to work.  I just need to develop a working system that will allow me to do that later.

I read through 5ER and there are a lot of things I'll take from it but I won't be using the system whole.  The main reason would be the way I intend to distribute the game but there are also things we'll be doing that HEROES doesn't allow for.  I have to make sure that the system I use will support the specific gameplay types I intend to later distribute.

Although the framework I've come up with thus far looks like it will be compatible with other systems.  I was able to playtest a battle between two spanish galleons using 5ER as well as my own stripling rules.  Basically, I rolled every "event" in the battle (generic term, but that's how I'm thinking) from the ships struggling to maintain position against the wind and the surf (terrain modifers), to the range of the cannons and damage caused to each vessel, to the boarding parties fighting on the slippery decks of the damaged ships, down to the captains of each ship fighting "swashbuckler style" all over the ship.

Okay...the last one wasn't exactly realistic, but I wanted to test my "cinematic" combat rules that let players get creative with their pummelling rather than standing toe to toe and rolling.  The swashbuckler duel rewarded players for getting crazy with the fighting.  A lot like a game of "horse" in basketball, players took turns choosing outlandish places to fight, rolled for their "footing" on the crazy terrain (standing on a cannon, balancing on barrels of rum, swinging back and forth from hanging ropes, etc.), and then rolling the standard skill contest to see who won the swordplay "event".

Again, maybe it's not innovative, but it was cool to see that what I've got so far actually supported not only the game we set out to play, but something we tossed in while we were testing.  I owe a lot of that to you guys for letting me know the standards set by the systems mine will be compared to.

Right now, I'm using a template system because the bookkeeping of character creation is beyond me.  The gameplay defines what characters I need and I make a character sheet specific to that type of gameplay.  Not exactly "genric" unless I'm willing to formulate my template creation system and let players design their own characters based upon the needs of their own games.

Hmmm...that last part was either crazy or brilliant.  I'm not sure which, but my track record would suggest it's crazy.

Hi!
  Sounds like you know what you want. You may want to be extra careful that your rules are balanced such that they work in each genre (Crusaders to WWII Soldiers) and that if chars from each genre meet each other they expected results will usually occur (Spacemen almost always kills the caveman for instance).
  I noticed on your "to do" list that Social interaction is not really listed. Even in a hard boiled adventure game, there needs to be clear rules as to how Intimidation works. And quite frankly one of the biggest deterrents to effective social problem solving in "traditional" RPGs is the lack of social mechanics. Some of the most loved characters of those classic adventures are the kind of character that can charm his way out of any situation (think Han Solo or Bolbo). If your players can't emulate those characters, your "adventures" may end up very flat...
  Anyways, good luck man!

Social contests are tough and have been slowing me down, but I know how I want them to work.  Granted, that's a long way from having a working system, but at least it's a goal to work towards.  So far, I'm handling social rolls in much the way a debate is handled.

Unlike combat, which usually follows the last man standing rule, social interactions are varied.  Intimidation plays like combat where the loser of the contest is determined when one player can't continue (when you stop talking and start nodding, I've intimidated you into doing what I want).  Bluffing plays like a perception roll, no different from detecting a trap, but using social modifiers instead of mental stats (are you savy enough to realize I'm full of it?).  Charm follows the rules for magic rolls, the target tries to resist until I've exhausted either my tactics (can't repeat yourself when you're trying to be charming) or your resistance.

It's clunky in practice, but it's smoothing out.  Also, different social tactics can counter each other.  You can fight bluff with intimidate since, in the end, the loser is the one who buys the other character's story.  Doesn't matter if the character is shaking their fist or batting their eyelashes, it's who buys the story.

Also, a character can switch tactics mid-event.  A character can run out of charming things to say (in this case charisma works like "mana" and can run out) and start bluffing.  Although a failed bluff will end the event whereas a failed charm or intimidate can be rolled again until the character gets tired of trying or the target caves in.  Basically, if I catch you bluffing, I know you're full of it and you fail to convince me.  If you fail to charm me, you can buy me another drink and keep at it.  If you fail to intimidate me, you can give me a shove and see if I man up.

That's the difference between the social interactions I've got so far.  Bluffing is pretty much free.  Intimidation requires you to risk your reputation (unless you're the type of character that would gladly cave a skull in...which adds a lot to an intimidation roll since there's little chance that you're bluffing) because even if the target responds to that social interaction with violence, you started the fight.  Being charming can be expensive in a literal sense since maintaining a conversation with someone who doesn't want to be bothered can require deep pockets, expecially when trying to pick someone up at a bar, get someone to take a bribe, negotiate a mercenary fee, etc.  Charm is usually applied in financial interactions and failures here can hurt your bottom line.

It's clunky so far, but it works with a lot of GM intervention.  Granted, that's a long way from working since any ruleset can be forced to work with arbitration, but the arguments seem to stem most from whether or not a character is bluffing, charming, intimidating, etc (since an extended social event might allow a player to attempt all three) and which stat is being challenged in the attempt (perception=bluff, willpower=intimidate, reasoning=charm). Rather than results that make no sense or don't work.  Big, dumb barbarians can function using intimidation without a lick of social grace.

The playtest was a feast held in honor of a party of adventurers who saved the kingdom.  Every adventurer was invited to break bread with the gentry and, in some way, increase their reward through conversation alone.  The thief simply picked pockets and fiched silverware.  Surprisingly, the half-orc barbarian was able to get a job training the king's elite soldiers in ambush tactics despite being functionally illiterate.  The paladin was given a requilary to take back to his church for preaching a sermon during the festival.  The ranger made out like a bandit and scored a reward well beyond what I was willing to give on good roleplay alone when they convinced the king to give them an exotic beast from the palace zoo.

It's a good thing this was a playtest because a first-level group with a trained battlecat would have been difficult to balance in further adventures.  Although we do keep the playtest character sheets.

But I've got three social interactions so far, and everything else seems to be a variation or combinations of what I've got so far.  Seduce=charm+bluff (she ain't gonna do all that stuff she's promising).  Presence=intimidate+bluff (he's not that confident, but his men can't know that).  Lie=bluff+intellect.

And so on.

It's not smooth and it's not interchangeable yet, but it hasn't been overlooked.

A few ideas, take them or leave them.

I like coherent systems where the same type of rules apply to numerous situations. This way you don't have to get your players to learn a new subset of rules to play a new part of the game. Instead I prefer the players to simply used a new adaption of the rules their already familiar with.

Part 1
Combat in most roleplaying situations essentially has three modes: Unarmed Combat, Melee Weapon Combat and Ranged Combat.

Part 2
You've indicated that you'd like your social interactions to have three modes: Bluff, Intimidate and Charm.

Part 3
In combat you are basically striking at each other until one either gives up, falls over or picks up some reinforcements.

Why not combine these into a single game mechanic?

In Unarmed Combat you tend to have more control over a situation, your hands are guided by more precise thoughts. This could reflect the bluff system, specifically targeting your opponents social weak points and coercing them to your way of thinking, or sneakily causing them to do something that you want.

In Melee Combat you up the ante by bringing in weapons that cause quite a bit more destruction, but often at the expense of accuracy and delicacy. This overkill factor is more like like your intiomidation attempts, where you simply try to overpower your enemy into doing what you want (whether this be to run away, or otherwise).

In Ranged Combat you have a limited number of shots, but you can often do called shots and are at less risk of being damaged unless someone else is aklso using ranged combat. This can be like your charm rules, where you are spending a limited number of resources to bribe your victim, and in most cases they'll have no idea what you are trying to do unless they have charm as well. 

Similarly, you can apply a kind of "social hit point" or morale score to help keep the system streamlined with the combat mechanic. Reducing the social hit points some of the way might cause penalties to resist further social actions, and might make it harder to initiate social actions (much the same way thatregaular hit points make physical actions harder to perform). A player could choose to fight socially until they've lost their last social hit point (in which case they may lose permanent status, or something like that) or they could tactfully retreat once it looked like they were losing the argument.

Neither combat nor social interaction need to follow a "last man standing" rule, but I think you need the option to be available. From a social perspective, there are plenty of movies where one of the characters realises that they simply can't win the argument and they give in completely to their opponent.

You may argue that no-one can die from losing an argument, but I refer you to countless death-row inmates who'd beg to differ.

V

Hi!
  I think your social mechanic is neat, but you might want to evaluate whether it accomplishes your goal.
  Let's turn it the other way. What if combat was determined by arm wrestling? Using your system, a character with high social stats and high social abilities could lose an argument because the player was not a good debater.
  One way you can go is to let the players make their rolls using the normal mechanics and then give the loser penalties if they don't do what they are convinced to do.

I think I'll be stealing the combat idea.  The three rolls work and while it's a bookkeeping chore to use three different rolls, if it's always the same three, it gets simple quick.  There could be more than three rolls, but these work and should be hung onto.

Manipulation Roll:  Used when exercising quick precise action or thought to reach a solution or compromise.

Force Roll:  Used when attempting to overwhelm or overpower an opposing element until it is removed from the equation or removes itself.

Will Roll:  Used when attempting to resist an external influence or when influencing an opposing element.

I tend to use rolls when there is a chance of failure.  While not a fan of table lookups, I can see where, from a design standpoint, it makes more sense than turning everything into a roll.  If I can sum up all contested rolls into these three (I might get lucky and work uncontested rolls into the equation) then I can leave the dice down to a minimum and most other numbers can be predetermined.

Fighting ability (a fight is over when a combatant can't fight rather than when they are dead) should be used to track combat.  A player can drop from exhaustion, their wounds, or lose the fight based upon set rules.  I doubt many fights will end with a referee's descision, but the option for outwitting the opponent is there as well.  If everyone on this narrow bridge is in the fight, then knocking an opponent off the bridge counts as winning the fight.  In that situation, trying to stab the guy to death makes little sense.  Also, the big, lumbering warrior is at a disavantage against the nimble rogue.

Yeah, it's possible for someone with high social stats and high abilities to lose a social contest if he doesn't use those abilities.  There are three abilities and if his opponent has a higher social stat than him, he'll lose.  A noble has high social skills, but can fall for the gypsy's slight of hand or a peek at her clevage.  The fast-talking huckster can be bullied out of his reward by the local sheriff (although any adventurer that can be intimidated into taking a smaller reward might be poorly designed).

The system works the way it's supposed to.  Any high stat can overcome any other high stat.  A weak magic user can be easily beaten.  A dumb warrior can be easily beaten.  The mage can simply be beaten up.  The warrior can be tricked.  There are skills that provide defense against contests that exploit a character's weakness as well as skills that provide advantages in contests that rely on a character's strengths.   

Please don't kill me but... the first thing I think about a generic rpg is ... what? another one?

Well, the world certainly doesn't need another generic RPG, but I need to make one in order to design future games.  I'm not trying to do what others have done before.  This isn't the D&D or GURPS killer.  This is simply a homebrew system that allows me to design and play the types of games I want to play in the type of way I like to play them.

I could run down the long list of RPG's this system is intended to support, but it's simpler to just design the core ruleset rather than running the same rules over for review every couple months or so.  That way, it'll be easier for the community to provide support and the new games will need less explaining on my part.

There are people who will fight both sides of this argument.

Some will say "Work on a generic set of rules so that you can focus on a specific range of settings later."

Others will say "Clearly define and tailor each set of rules to each setting so that the rules give a more immersive experience into the setting that you've devised."

It's like the old FORM vs FUNCTION discussion that gripped the industrial design community during it's birth in the earliest parts of the 20th century, then cascaded out through the rest of society to become a cliche.

Do you choose the style of the setting first when designing then tailor the rules to that?

Do you choose the core of the rules, then apply a gloss of surface texture and setting to make it all look nice?

I think you need a balance, and this goes back to the modular components I mentioned earlier.

If you have a good solid foundation, you can always add in the modular component that really give the setting it's tone and unique dynamics. These modular componets should be where all the quirky rules are placed, because some people will like these concepts and others will despise them. I like to think of it as a sliding scale from fundamentals to ephemera.

(The terms I've used below I've come up with on the fly to illustrate my point).

Fundamentals = The core parts of the system that everything else revolves around. A simple conflict resolution system, a character generation system and maybe an experience system.
Solids = Things that apply to most games, but are an expansion on the basic fundamentals. Combat or Social interactions as subclasses of conflict resolution, Overcoming wounds (or Health point/level regeneration), etc.
Liquids = Things that really start to narrow the focus of your game. A magic system, fear and morale mechanics, character goals and motivations, etc.
Gases = Very specific concept for a certain setting or play style. Specific mechanics for long term school-yard bullying, specific effects of poisons and diseases, vehicle combat rules, etc.
Ephemera = Non-mechanical flavour effects. These are the background details and colour/flavour text found throughout the books that give ideas on how certain things should be done. They are really designed to get the player in a certain frame of mind when in the game begins.

Plenty of people will argue where certain concepts sit on this sliding scale, but you should get my point. The higher up the list, the more integral is is to a generic system. The further down the list, the more focused and interesting these rules can become. In my opinion, a generic system should focus on the Fundamentals and Solids. Any optional rules should be in the Liquids and Gases (this includes modular components that are especially appropriate for specific setting types). Fundamentals are the essence of function and define the workings of the system at its most basic level; while ephemera are the essence of form and give the system it's memorable surface qualities.

I don't say one of these is worth more focus than the other, but rather that you need to consider all of the aspects of the design if you want a successful and coherent game. Too much focus on the Fundamental side gives a dry read that doesn't entice new players into the world. Too much focus on the Ephemera side gives a quirky setting with no real depth, you might play once but you may not want to try it again. A quick look through many of the home brew systems out there will show great examples of both these extremes.

Anyway...enough rant for now.

I hope these thought might have given you some ideas.

V

Sorry about the delay.  It happens occasionally as I've got to actually apply all these ideas and then test them to make sure I'm doing it right.

I actually applied both theories to flesh out my ruleset V.  I came up with all the contested actions like combat and made a single ruleset for contested actions.  Then I came up with variant rules for specific types of conests from arguments to cooking competitions.  From that, I got my stats.

A little longer and we'll see if this works.  Once I'm satisfied it'll float, I'll put it up here to let you all put it through it's paces.

Thanks for sticking with me.  I've got the die mechanic down.  It's very simple, utilizing a basic 2d10 roll because I like the probabilities and can build on it easily assuming that very high and very low rolls are rare, while slightly above average rolls 11,12,13, are commonplace.  Granted, it's far from innovative, but it works.

The next thing that I'm having a hell of a time tying down are the character attributes.  I mentioned that when we're testing, we pretty much just make the character sheets we need for the adventure we're running.  Because I suck at complex die mechanics, the main focus was making sure that 1+1 always equalled 2...and keeping the die mechanics simple.  However, now that the numbers are obeying their human masters, we need to clean up them character sheets.

I'm trying to find a common thread among the actions I ask of the characters in the skills, talents, and feats they're given.  In general, there are three basic stats Speed, Body, and Mind, but different games break those general stats down in different ways.

Any ideas for all-purpose stats, or at least the ones I absolutely can't leave out like strength?  Until then, our method consists of coming up with as many skills as possible and tying them to common character attributes.  When we run out of skills, feats, spells, and abilities to assign, the we'll just look at which attributes are carrying most of the load and just cheat out the ones that don't quite fit.