Hello Forge, I'm new to posting here (used to view the posts ages ago, took a break when college got intense, and returned after graduation).  Anyway, I need some help with some innovation.  I'm working on a mundane sci-fi (sci-fi set in the solar system with limits on futuristic technology) that deals with topics such as archeology, Lovecraftian cosmicism, and struggling to find hope, dreams, and a place in the cosmos amidst what seems like certain insignificance.

The problem I'm facing deals with a core mechanic.  I have toyed with several ideas, and want to come up with something streamlined and innovative.  However, I don't want my rules to use too many "cogs" per se when on a few are needed.

I've tried variations on the percentile system that Unknown Armies uses, but most times, I just end up ripping off their system...something I really don't want to do.  I've also tried modifying the "3d20 system" that games like Neuroshima have thrown into the ring, but it always seems counterintuitive.

The bottom line is this: I want my game to flow with simple rules that reinforce roleplaying.  Characters should be able to receive bonuses for their stimuluses (hopes, fears, passions, etc.), allowing for players to keep in character more effectively.  I have some ideas I can elaborate on with the aforementioned systems.  I'm just so lost as to where to go with any of this!  I don't want this to be a huge post, so I'll field any questions anyone has...just right now any help would be fantastic.

I myself am creating a fairly simple system, the GeeX Underground Roleplaying System (GUGS). In it, I use only 2d6. Players will roll 2d6, add any modifiers from traits and skills, then compare their result against a difficulty rating (9 being the average difficulty). Rolling snake eyes constitutes a critical failure and two sixes is a critical hit. Critical failures are failures even if modifiers or spent experience raises the roll to more than the difficulty rating and critical hits are critical hits even if the resulting throw is a failure. In addition, players may also spend experience points to raise their resulting roll. When rolling for damage, players roll 1d6 and convert the result to a d3 roll. Each brawl attack, melee weapon, and ranged weapon has three levels of damage it may deal depending on the d3 roll. For example, a short sword has a damage chart that looks something like this:

d3 Roll            Damage
    1                        3
    2                        6
    3                        9

The system is not yet completely worked out yet, however feel free to use this as a base for your own core mechanic.

Klaus,
  Here's a couple of Q's for you:
1) Do you prefer task or conflict resolution?
2) In your game/setting, is it more important that a char succeed or is it more important why they tried?
3) Do you want success to be a measure of character effort or player effort? In other words do you want success tied to something the players do at a meta-level?

  And of course the classic 3:
1) What is your game about?
2) What do the chars do?
3) What do the players do?

  Good luck an!

Thanks for the response folks.

To answer your questions, Dindenver:
1) Do you prefer task or conflict resolution: I'm mostly concerned with conflict resolution for the core mechanics, though defaulting can certainly occur at the discretion of the GM (for example, if the character has a high enough notice skill, he/she may not need to roll because it just "makes sense" for them to see the thing in question).  I'd probably say 80% conflict, 20% task (for higher levels and defaults, etc.)
2) In your game/setting, is it more important that a char succeed or is it more important why they tried?: Generally, I feel it's more important that they tried something and the why is key.  If they tried something because of a stimulus/passion, then they should ideally receive a bonus towards success.  Of course, success is always fun, but the roleplaying towards that success should come first.
3) Success is a measure of player effort, especially because I consider the game to be a work of interactive group fiction.  The more effort a player puts into a character, the better the results.  When a player roleplays his/her character to the fullest, bonuses ensue.  If you take a weak approach to your character, nothing special will emerge.

As for the Classic Three, this write up should answer them...

The earth is no more and mankind has drifted into the outer solar system.  Here, as new societies take root upon foreign worlds, the collective consciousness of humanity confronts the challenges of its own significance. Inspired by hope, curiosity, and fear, mankind must come to understand its role in the universe as new worlds of science and wonder unfold.

In [insert game title here], players assume the roles of adventurers, explorers, scientists, interplanetary rogues, and vagabonds on a journey to understand their significance in the cosmos.  Each of these characters seeks to resolve his or her own obsessions, dreams, and motivations.  They learn (and sometimes choose to ignore) the transcendence they experience as they mature.  Often characters who are companions are brought into conflict with each others goals.  Yet through the force of will, characters must remain focused on their goals, or suffer the perils that the mundane will deal.  While most of mankind will remain subjects of their own suffering, characters in [insert clever game title] will in the course of their lives come to realize that in spite of odds stacked against them - against all humanity - their place in the universe is not necessarily as unsubstantial as it may seem.

[game title. etc. etc] is designed to be both a game and a work of interactive fiction.  The story's narrator – who guides the story forward and assumes the roles of all ancillary characters – serves to conduct the story like a symphony, cuing the introduction of parts and movements and maintaining the correct sense of time and order.  However, the story as a whole is built by the social experience that occurs between all players.  Within the guidelines that the rules of the game provide, players and narrators will both tell and experience the story at hand.

Hope that helps.  I can elaborate much more on my ideas if that helps anyone!

Thank you so much so far!

It sounds like a fluid dice pool system would work well for this game.  Maybe good roleplay and seeking one's hopes and aspirations adds to the dice pool (and/or increases the cap on dice that can be spent on one roll) while fatigue reduces it.

By the way, what does "defaulting" mean and what is the difference between task and conflict resolution?

You and I are at the same stumbling block: defining the underlying structures of the game so that a core mechanic may be chosen.

- Lovecraft: In his stories, characters found their role in the universe (lunch) and defied it, seeking to create their own role. Whatever mechanic is used, there should be some hope of accomplishing unlikely things, of standing up to near impossible odds. Not only that, but it should not be pure luck that makes it possible (nor should it be massive character abilities). Lovecraft's heroes faced unspeakable horror thanks to their righteousness, but I think that you need a different approach: mystery.

- Mystery: both Lovecraft and archaeology imply a mystery to be unravelled. Characters should never be sure of how close they are, so neither should the players. Target numbers should be kept concealed. A mystery is more than something hidden, it has clues. Clues work horribly when they're found through random rolls because one bad roll can conceal a necessary clue and make the scenario unwinnable. When the clues are collected, though, they should reveal a method of winning that could not have been otherwise attempted.

- Vastness: humanity has grown beyond its homeworld, but the universe is still vast on a nearly inconceivable scale and so is time. Whatever mechanic is chosen must usable for huge things as easily as small ones. This is easier than you might think. Sliding scales can be as simple as 1d20 + bonus (skill/attribute/whatever), with the bonus going as high as needed, and all items at that scale having a bonus that is 10 above or below that. Another simple method is the step scale, as used by Palladium (SDC/MDC) and early edition Shadowrun (personal and vehicular levels of damage).

Eso-Terrorists, by Robin D. Laws, is a must-read for the GUMSHOE system mystery mechanics.

Whoops, forgot to include the link to Eso-Terrorists. Here it is (and I hope this works right as it's my first time posting a link in the forge forums): http://www.dyingearth.com/GUMSHOE/Esoterrorists/.

Gal,
  Sorry for the late reply,
  Basically, Task Resolution is 90% of the games you played. You roll to see if the task succeeds without any regard to why you are rolling or what impact the roll has to the overall story being told.
  Conflict resolution is supposed to be rolling for to see if your character's intentions are fulfilled. It is supposed to be rolling on a larger scale and more can be accomplished using this mechanic in a single roll. A good mechanical example of Conflict Resolution is DitV.
  The classic example of Task vs Conflict resolution is this:
Player A wants to find a clue as to what the BBEG is doing, so he can stop him more effectively. He breaks into the BBEG's lair and goes to break into the safe. Up until this point, Task vs conflict is identical. The pklayers work together to tell the story and different characters do different things based on teh needs/wants of the players/story.
  Then, in Task Resolution, the GM calls for the player to roll to open the safe. The gaff that Conflict resolution tries to solve is that, the roll is based on how hard it is for that char to open the safe. Not on how important the contents are or how important it is to the players/story. So, if the safe is empty and there is no clue or if the safe is packed with enough information it will take the characters a year to decipher it all, its still the same roll. So, think about that, maybe Player A has a low Safe Cracking skill and he feels that there should be a clue there (even if there isn't), he might blow all of his luck/fate/whatever points in a hope of finding that one clue that might let him thwart the BBEG. But maybe the GM put the clue in the trash can by the desk in front of the safe, or in the fridge, because one of the players always raids the fridge on a heist, or whatever. But the safe is empty. No an enormous effort has been spent, but there technically should be no payoff. Or what about the opposite. The clue is in there, but the players just had a fight and spent all the luck/fate/whatever points staying alive, and now no one can open the safe. How can the story continue if the clue cannot be found?
  However, when the player says, my char wants to crack the safe, the GM says, why? And once it is determined that the player is looking for a clue, then Conflict resolution changes gears and the roll is based on whether there is a clue in this scene and how important it is to the GM/Player that they find it or not.
  Now, I am not saying Conflict resolution is always better than task resolution or vice versa. Task resolution can help the players stay "in character" aqnd can be more rewarding for a grittier game. And conflict resolution can be more fun if the players want more say about the flow of the story or if the stories being told are more about larger conflicts and less about if Character X moves 10 feet or 15 feet per round.
  As to "Defaulting" I think he is referring to "Not rolling," but I am not sure...

  Sorry about the late reply, let me think about your answers just a little bit more and I'll suggest a mechanic that might help. In the mean time, check out TSoY and see if you like it.

Hey all,

    Thanks for the replies.  As of this moment, I think I may have stumbled upon an idea that I like quite a bit.  I'll post a new thread with the mechanic once I solidify my ideas.

~Klaus

Thanks for the info, Dave.  I have Trail of Cthulhu coming in the mail, and what you describe as conflict resolution seems to match my (albeit sketchy) understanding of the GUMSHOE system.

Klaus, I once played around with the idea of a post-apocalyptic space opera sci-fi game that your post reminds me of.  The premise was that the players were the drifting remnants of "humanity" at the very end of time, countless aeons in the future.  By this time, humans were a rare species that had changed much over the ages, becoming ageless, bloated husks of their former selves, lifted through the low gravity of half-disabled starships by robotic anti-grav appendages.  All other life in the universe had disappeared and most of the humans had transcended, in wait for the imminent collapse of this universe and (hopefully) the creation of the next.  Those few who remained drifted amongst a contracting universe that is literally packed with human trash; powered-down space ports, scrapped starships... like a sinkhole of massive, dying stars and the remains of the entire history of humanity.

The remaining humans craved this rare drug "spice" that allowed them to remember their life (most humans were over a millennia old but couldn't remember anything about what made them humans).  The experience point system was therefore based on eating spice and "remembering" new abilities and skills.  Spice was rewarded as EXP in traditional RPGs (aka fight a pirate, take his spice... solve a puzzle, find the spice).  I never could figure out "the point" of the game, though, so I put it back on the shelf-of-shame of unfinished games.

Anyway, I always get the itch to design space RPGs, so if you'd like any help, let me know.