Hey Forge,

Working on a generic RPG system and I've quickly learned that my ambition is asking a lot of me.  To quickly recap from an old post, my previous experience in RPG design is largely limited to coming up with lore for someone else's game on someone else's system.  The numbers on the chart under the picture of whatever I was writing about weren't my part of the finished product.

Well, now I'd like to come up with a system and I'm working on it.  I've got a few games that I'm ready to see realized, based on short stories and novels I've written, but before I can call them games, they have to be playable.  This time, the numbers are my part of the finished product.

So, I'm trying to develop a core mechanic for these games and I'm using the Step-Die Mechanic as the basis.  The benefit of the step-die mechanic is it's scalability.  I've read the pros and cons of step-die and this looks like it fits my needs.

Simply put, tasks have five degrees of difficulty:  very easy, easy, average, hard, and very hard.  Character skill has five degrees of proficiency:  unskilled, beginner, intermediate, expert, and master.  Success or failure is determined by die roll.  The die rolled depends on the character's skill d4, d6, d8, d10, d12.

On paper, the system works because if I'm an expert and I get to roll a d12 against an "easy" task, I should have a higher chance of success than a beginner who has to roll a d6.

Thus far, my problems seem to stem from integrating a stat system.  I've got the stats themselves, but the difficulty comes in determining the value of those stats and how they modify rolls.  When a strong character wrestles a weak character, even if the skills are similar, the stats should factor in.

The next huge problem in my system is handling contested rolls.  A very hard task has a low chance of success for anyone other than a master.  However, the difficulty of any task changes when you have an opponent trying to force a failure result.  This will be easier to solve when stats are figured into the game because all of our variables will be defined.  Right now I've got difficulty vs. skill.  What I need is ability vs. ability.

Problem is "ability", or how a characters attributes factor into the skill rolls hasn't been determined yet.  Reason being, I don't know how to weight the attribute values (stats) in the first place.

Any advice?

Before I forget, I should put out some of the ideas regarding stats that I haven't finalized yet, but which might be good.  I don't want to discourage a better way of handling this that may be out there, but I have put some work into developing stats.

Because my system is generic, player icons (whether they be dozens of "units" in a wargame, a single player-character, or something more vaguely defined like a "nation" or an "armada") may or may not level.  While I've got a leveling system, class system, crafting system, magic system, and the like, all of them are modular.  If a gameworld needs magic, there it is.  If not, then it can be taken out without any of the other systems suffering.  Magical combat, removed from the combat mechanic, takes nothing from the system other than what it contributes.  Fighting with magical weapons or against supernatural opponents, is possible without including the magic system.

The rules are dice-independent.  Contests may be decided with cards, dice, or just plain ol' storytelling.  Since I'm a storyteller at heart, the system views types of gameplay as methods of telling a story (taking the loose definition of storytelling as "narrating an event") and so different types of gameplay can be combined to the same extent that different storytelling elements can be combined.  Admittedly, it might not be a good idea to combine certain elements, but my goal is to make sure they work when combined.

So far, the game designs I've come up with where there are no gradient values within each ability level (characters are either unskilled, beginners, skilled, experts, or masters in any ability or skill and the outcome of a contest is predetermined by that level) work and even work with the incomplete character development module.

Think of it as a car where the wipers, lights, speedometer, and seat belts don't work.  The car still runs, but you don't want anyone driving it.  The game works if success/failure = win/loss.  The game doesn't work if there are varying degrees of success or different types of success.  When you're a swordsman trying to kill another swordsman, the system runs like butter.  When you're a swordsman trying to hit another swordsman, having to take into account their ability, armor, and intent to hit you, the system can't calculate that many variables.

But, based on what I got so far, seems like I'm on the right track.

Now, my best idea for stats is a 3d6, 3 to 18 scale.  This is because that gives me three degrees of each attribute "level".

4-6 well below average
6-9 below average
10-12 average
13-15 above average
16-18 well above average

Because I'm not sure how to incorporate this into contested rolls, I'm not married to it, but on paper it seems to work.

F Scott Banks:

One option might be to rank the attributes in the same manner that you have the skills ranked.

Ex.
Terrible (d4)
Below average (d6)
Average (d8)
Above average (d10)
Excellent (d12)

Even equipment can be ranked that way.
Then you can have each task based on all the dice available.

Ex.
Incredible Fred is wrestling with Teutonic Tammy
Fred has a Strength (d6) and a master wrestling (d12)
Tammy has Strength (d8) unskilled wrestling (d4) and a hidden dagger! (d8)
Fred rolls 2,10
Tammy rolls 3,6,7
Fred has the highest die.
Fred wins!

Having more source of dice provides a more reliable result ( rookie with a sword, shield, training, armor, backup sword, etc...) while focusing on one stat/skill provide a better chance of phenomenal unbeatable success (master swordsman with nothing but a sword)
To keep it simple you can roll all the dice at once, and just look for the big number.

Is that kinda what you're looking for?

Hi Scott,

As I see it, you're raising two separate issues (please correct me if I'm myopic):

1. How do you handle PC vs. "Fixed Obstacle" (eg: Pick the Lock) as compared to PC vs. NPC contests.
2. How do you integrate stuff other than "skills" (which are your primary source of mechanical effectiveness) into resolving contests.

The good news is that #1 is super easy to solve, and you've got a plethora of proven games to back it up.  Ditch the idea of target numbers completely.  Every roll is contested.  Is the wall super-hard to climb?  The wall rolls a d10 (maybe a d12 if it's a demon wall!)  Your problem vanishes, and your system loses an extra pound or two.

The other good news is that #2 is just as easy.  You've got lots of cool ways to integrate other stuff into the resolution.  Maybe Stats, if they're numbered in the low range can represent "minimums" that come up on your dice (ex: Shooting someone with a gun is a Firearms/Dexterity action.  Firearms d8 with a Dex of 3 means that you roll a d8, but if the die comes up a 1 or 2, you treat it as a 3.)

There are other ways, like whoever's got the highest appropriate stat gets a free 'slide' up the dice ladder (ex: in your wrestling example, the character with the higher Strength would increase their skill by one die for the contest).

Hope that's helpful,
Darcy

Well, a lot of this is going to come down to how much weight you want to give to Attributes vs. Skills. Are you looking for a game that values innate talent over hard-core training, the other way around, or somewhere in the middle?

Will this hold true for all Attributes? By this, are "science" based Attribute + Skill combinations more Skill heavy, while "physical" based pairings more Attribute heavy?

From the looks of your second post, you're leaning very much toward Attributes mattering more than Skill. Just keep in mind that you're signaling to the reader/player that innate talent is more important than even "master" level Skill. In this world, training only takes you a short way. Either you got it, or you don't.

You've got a range of 16 levels of Attribute right now (3-18). One thing that immediately struck me is that, by your relatively low possible die totals (even master is only adding a 1d12), it would be easy to adjust your Attribute baseline down and keep your end totals nice and low (for quick head math).

Instead of this...

3-5: well below average
6-8: below average
9-12: average
13-15: above average
16-18: well above average

(note: I altered how you had it listed to incorporate 3, and added 1 to the average range.... I presume 3 was left out as a typo?)

Why not go with this?

-6 to -4: well below average
-3 to -1: below average
0 to 3: average
4 to 6: above average
7 to 9: well above average

Still, I think the next step is to figure out how you want your world to work out, *then* come up with a mechanic that fits this concept the best.... instead of the other way around, where you make up a mechanic and then have to alter your world-view to fit with what the dice are going to do.

Cheers!

-a-

Okay...here's a second shot at it.  Thanks by the way.  Without input, I'd have no hope of improving this.

I like stats being used as a baseline.  A character with a dex of 3 has no better chance of success (skill determines what die is rolled and the subsequent odds change based on that), but is assured that however bad his roll, it will fall no lower than 3.  This means instead of a bonus, or a way of guaranteeing a result, stats are more of an insurance policy against bad rolls.

A strong fighter doesn't have an advantage because his rolls are boosted by his strength, but rather because his failures aren't as costly as the weaker fighter.  In the same way lower skills limit the degree of success with fewer-sided die, high stats limit the cost of failure.

So, if you want to give a beating, learn to fight...if you want to survive a beating, improve the character's stats.

This takes us to Adam's suggestion of logorythmic rolls.  At least, that's how I immediately incorporated it.

If there are no target numbers, just contests, then all that's needed is the degree by which a roll wins or loses.  Instead of a target number, the contested roll is subtracted from the engagement roll.  The result is the result of the engagement.

*** Rolls ***

a fighter rolls a d8 against another fighter, who also rolls a d8 since they are of equal skill.  The attacker rolls a 5 and the defender rolls a 2, but their armor bonus means no defense roll falls below 3.

The result of the strike is a +2 success (5 - 3 = 2) which is a hit for the attacker.

+ 2 success means a "flesh wound" on that weapons wound chart.  A flesh wound is added to the defender's character sheet.

Having to defend a roll of 2 , the armor receives 1 point of damage.  That's noted on the defender's character sheet.

And...that's it.  Roll two dice, note the results, move on.

Because I love Firefly, I can't help but looking at step-die mechanics without thinking of the Serenity RPG system.

As you used the example of difficultly levels (DC) previously, I would assume you are familiar with the concept of raising or lowering the DC based on circumstances. Serenity RPG did much the same, but instead of raising or lowering the DC it raised or lowered the Die itself.

Swordsman A has a sword and a skill of d8, so he rolls a d8 on his attack. Swordsman B has a sword, a skill of d8, and a lancelot (a small sai-like "sword" specifically designed for dueling, used to "catch" your opponent’s blows), so even though he has a skill of d8, he has favorable circumstances that increase his die a step to d10. That system also worked in circles, so a d12 would increase in step to a d12+d2.

Such a system is less forgiving than Cunkle's suggestion, as the player still only have one chance to roll well, but you might be looking for something like that.

However, as for your specific revision; I don't like charts. Indeed, I hate them. As you have so far described it, your system is very straight forward (you have even combined "attack" and "damage" rolls, which is good), but charts are almost the definition of not being straight forward. Why not just say that the "+2" is damage and leave it at that? If it is a flesh wound, players will recognize it as bare damage. I don’t see a real need for a chart, so why not cut it out?

Tolson's point about the charts is well-made, they complicate matters.  However, step penalties from my experience of the Serenity system are awkward to calculate and implement quickly.  You lose some of the realism by cutting situations like that duel out, but the stuff runs much smoother.

Other than that, make attributes fixed values and skills dice types, all against a fixed DC.  That way, someone strong always performs to a certain level in a brawl based on his size, an academic always has a chance of figuring out a puzzle based on his innate intelligence and so on.

All's well and good until an NPC is involved.  In something like an armwrestle a simple contested roll (attribute value + skill dice) is all that's required as it's a test of the same ability.  However, trying to ram down a door or make it hold is a different matter; the one trying to make the door hold has an advantage based on the door's solidity and so on.  So add a bonus to the defender's dice roll to increase the attacker's DC to break the door down.  Whether this is in the form of another dice or a flat value is up to you, but it makes circumstances function as easy bolt-ons to characters' actions, all mediated by the GM.

Yeah, I think I confused "wound chart" with "wound tracking".  Referring to 2 damage points as a "flesh wound" is the GM in me talking.  When gaming, I try to avoid telling players, in terms of plain numbers, what has happened to their characters.  This is because I ususally fill the scritch of pencils on character sheets with descriptions of the rousing battle taking place.  I tend to "describe" the results of finished rolls while others are still rolling.

The player needn't reference charts or lookup definitions where simple numbers would suffice...sorry for the confusion there.

Wound tracking in this game is different.from looking up things on a wound chart.  This is because the wound system is a formula derived from the character's stats.  When marking wound results next to the character's "fitness" (a stat derived from strength and endurance), simple counting will tell a player not only how healthy they are, but how effective they are in battle.

Here are the player's conditions, I think you'll recognize the pattern here...

Death = Start working on a new character, this one's gone.

Mortally wounded = Character cannot take combat action, can perform simple actions with successful will check.

Critically wounded  = Character performs skills one level below proficciency and character must win a will check to take combat action.

Wounded = Character penalized -2 to all rolls.

Injured  = Character penalized -1 to all rolls.

Hurt = Character performs normally.

Fine = Character performs normally.

There are secondary "conditions" that depend on the  game being played (poisoned, enchanted, hacked, haunted, possessed, etc.), but these are the ones that track overall health.

Wound tracking is pretty simple.  Character's have a base Damage Threshold of 7.  When a character of average endurance receives 7 pts of damage, he drops a conditon level. A char with above average endurance gets +2 and a char with well above average endurance gets +5 (over average, not over above average).  Also, the "conditioning" skill increases the base damage threshold further.

Ah, I am glad that players don't have to reference a chart to see how damaged they are.

I know that your wound system isn't the original topic (your step-die mechanics), but if I might make a few comments?

As presented, it looks like "Hurt" and "Fine" are effectively the same status in game. Thus, why have two categories?

To my understanding, a wound means that the end result of a roll is -2 but that a critical wound reduces the step of the die used (say from d8 to d6), correct? But does a critically wounded individual still receive the -2 to the roll? If not, then it seems actually slightly better to be critically wounded (provided one is fairly sure one can overcome the will check). Perhaps it is just me, but it seems like I would rather have my die reduced by a step than to have -2 to the roll. A d8 that goes to a d6 means my max range is reduced; a -2 penalty, however, lowers both the maximum and minimum numbers rolled. As such, you might want to consider switching those two.

~Joel

Yeah...I think my terminology is getting me in trouble again. 

You shoulda seen how active the big name designers were in my first posts on the forge.  It wasn't so much that I had big and interesting ideas as it was that I was absolutely murdering the GNS terminology.  I don't think anyone used Narrativism as incorrectly as I did.  I think my problem was the same as everyone else's...I wanted the theory to mean what I wanted it to mean and anything other than that, including what it actually meant, sounded wrong to me.

Maybe I should stop trying to apply the glossary before I've got the idea out there.  Here's how damage works in the game...

After an exchange, damage has been applied to both players.  I say players because the damage is applied across the entire character sheet, not just to the body of the character.

I like the swordsmen, so we're gonna keep using them.  In fact, I'm gonna give 'em names.  Rosencrantz is an above average (L4) swordsman using a steel rapier(W3) and a small copper buckler (D2).  Guildenstern is his beginner (L2) student, using the same equipment.  Both are wearing leather dueling vests (A5)

Rosencrantz rolls 1d10 (expert skill) vs Guildenstern's 1d6 (beginner skill).
R=7 / G=4  R. wins by 3
Rosencrantz beat Guildenstern in a contest of sword skill so now his weapon will roll 1d8 (W3 rapier).  Guildenstern's buckler (D2) will roll 1d6 against Rosencrantz's sword, penalized by the difference between their skill rolls.
R= 6
G= 5 -3 = 2
R's weapon hits for 4

4 x 3 = 12 Damage points.
Armor doesn't roll, it just subtracts from damage.  Guildenstern's leather (A5) vest subtracts 5 from 12 and Guildenstern takes 7 Damage.

"Wounding" comes from tracking damage.  A character can take damage until a target number is hit (this target number is on the character sheet so it doesn't change much) and then their condition worsens.  I'm actually still up in the air with regards to how this works so any suggestions would be appreciated.  Also, the

I don't think you're going to be able to do it that way either, I'm afraid.

"A character with a dex of 3 has no better chance of success (skill determines what die is rolled and the subsequent odds change based on that), but is assured that however bad his roll, it will fall no lower than 3."

So, what happens when your Attribute (baseline) is higher than the maximum you could roll? If your Dex is 7 and your Skill is 1d6, you get a 7 automatically, right? If this is the case, and you keep your Attribute range as 3-18, with the master Skill level affording you a 1d12, as soon as you have an Attribute of 13+, Skill doesn't matter. At all. So, a Dex 13 guy with zero Skill could *never* be hit by a Master Kung Fu expert, with a Dex of 12.

Following your thoughts that the Attribute is your baseline (you can never roll less than your Attribute), why not just go with an add system? Add your Attribute (as full value, modifier, whatnot) to what you roll? You can keep it a system of contests, and never use set static difficulties. When the PC tries kicking in the door, the door simply rolls back. The difference in totals is still your effect.

If you still want to stay away from a straight add system, you could use the Attribute as a source for a modifier. Something like:

Attribute: Bonus
3-5: -2
6-8: -1
9-12: +0
13-15: +1
16-18: +2

This is pretty straight-forward, although still flawed in my book. Why? Because there's no real difference between a Dex 13 and a Dex 15, except that if you are buying your Attribute up by 1 level, going from Dex 15 to 16 means hitting that max +2 bonus. And even here, there'd be no point in buying Dex 17 or 18, because the bonus is the same as 16.

Now, you could always modify this kind of a chart so that things are worth buying up to the max level, there's slightly more gradient between levels, and so on. Like:

Attribute: Bonus
3-5: -2
6-8: -1
9-12: +0
13-14: +1
15: +2
16: +3
17: +4
18: +5

If you don't like using negative modifiers, you can make it:
Attribute: Bonus
3-5: +1
6-8: +2
9-12: +3
13-14: +4
15: +5
16: +6
17: +7
18: +8
Since you are considering ditching set difficulty levels, and going contested, it really doesn't matter what the end numbers are; what matters is the difference between the two sides of the contest.

Remember, the more weight you give the Attribute, the more you are signaling to the player that Skill means less. Really, though, we can muck about with mechanics all day, until one "fits" what you are trying to find. It will be much easier to pick a mechanic solution when you fill in parameters like:

How much do you want Attribute to matter, vs. Skill? Is it 50/50, 30/70, 70/30?

How much variance do you want in a given performance? Can a player rely on doing within 30% on most any roll? Example: Weightlifting. Does the bodybuilder bench 200lbs every time, no questions asked? Does he bench 200lbs, +/- 10%, most of the time? Is there *any* chance of him suddenly benching 300lbs? *Any* chance of him getting stuck at 150lbs one day?

Do you want any "interesting" performance variances, depending on skill or level? For example, does *everyone* have a 10% fail rate, or does the super-expert marksman miss the target less than 1% of the time? Does an unskilled person screw up *at least* 25% of the time?

Do you ever want my grandma, under any circumstances, to outbench the body builder? Do you ever want my grandma, under any circumstances, to be able to punch the Kung Fu Master in the head? If so, under what circumstances?

Help me out a bit here. What do you want to happen in your world?