I currently work on something thats more setting than actual system, and here is a thought that i need to share and have a few questions about:
The idea is to have a conflict resolution influenced by character advantages/disadvantages.
A character is defined by 'Traits' that can be either an advantage, disadvantage or either depending on a given situation.
A few example what these Traits could look like:
- Good eyesight
- Good driver (motorcycle)
- Bad driver (car)
- Speaks and writes Russian
- Knows how to hack computers
- Exceptionally tall
I made these up on the spot so they are not really thought through... Well now to put those Traits into use an easy example:
The character with the above Traits is looking for clues about a secret project in some office which he just aquired access to. So the GM sets up a value how difficult it should be to get some information, and now the player tries to roll over this value with his dice, lets say a d6 (which would be the same for every roll).
Since having a good eyesight helps a lot and the computer is locked with a password, these two advantages grant him a bonus on finding usefull information. The GM decides that his good eyesight just gives him a slight advantage (+1) but beeing able to hack computers really helps a lot, which means he will grant a +3 for that. As long as the player has any good explanation why a certain Trait should be usefull he should at least be allowed to add +1 for having it to his roll. There could be some sort of agreement process between player and GM. So well, after the player and GM know which Traits are an advantage the player rolls his dice, adds his bonus (in this case +4) and compares it with the Difficulty given by the GM.
Depending on the difference between the Roll and the Difficulty the GM decides the outcome of the whole situation. The player succeeds quite well and finds his secret information in some encrypted part of the computer or he fails and cant find anything because he isnt even able to get access to the computer (or getting access doesnt help because he can't find anything).

Now to my questions:
Are there any games out there that have similar systems?
Is it a good idea to let the GM decide what happens or should the player do that (or should it depend on the outcome of the roll)? I mainly ask this because i got no real experience in games that give narration rights to players when it's about the actual outcome of an action, so you might easily help me out here by sharing experiences.
Do you think a game based on that idea would be 'good' or fun to play? (from GM and player perspective)

Thanks,
Chris

This style would certainly be fast and conducive to narration-based gameplay.  Personally, I have a severe animosity towards narrative task-resolution modalities (too simple), but if you can make fun narration mechanics that don't seem arbitrary, then generalized resolution methods actually enhance the experience.

I fully anticipate vigorous resistance from the members here against my previous statement.

Since you brought up the subject of narration rights, I'm only assuming that you want to focus on narration.  If that is the case, then I would much rather see your ideas on narration mechanics than task resolution mechanics.  In that respect, I think giving players narration rights is the best solution for this type of play.

To give you an example of what I mean, check out Sebastian Hickey's Hell for Leather.  So far, it is the best representation I've seen on this style of gaming.

While I mostly agree with Ar Kayon as far as certain narration-based mechanics, I think these mechanics could actually become pretty complex depending on how much GM responsibility the players are given.  I like the overall system, and the traits you used in your example seem like they could make for interesting in-play arguments over what should get bonuses (the system has to be constrained enough to stop those arguments from getting out of hand though, maybe delineating GM powers could help with that ). 

Is this for a realistic setting or a more fantastical one?  In the case of a non-realistic game world, I can see a whole field of mechanics (and maybe even some sort of parlor game) developing around "can I use this trait to do this?"  Is that a goal of the system?

Personally, I think this game would be more fun from the perspective of the player, but only because the GM will have to make tough calls about traits quite a bit depending on what people pick.  Is it constrained by the session's set up?  Does the list of traits evolve/expand as the session goes on, or based on success/failure?

FetusCommander wrote:
While I mostly agree with Ar Kayon as far as certain narration-based mechanics, I think these mechanics could actually become pretty complex depending on how much GM responsibility the players are given.

FetusCommander wrote:
I like the overall system, and the traits you used in your example seem like they could make for interesting in-play arguments over what should get bonuses (the system has to be constrained enough to stop those arguments from getting out of hand though, maybe delineating GM powers could help with that ). 

FetusCommander wrote:
Is this for a realistic setting or a more fantastical one?  In the case of a non-realistic game world, I can see a whole field of mechanics (and maybe even some sort of parlor game) developing around "can I use this trait to do this?"  Is that a goal of the system?

FetusCommander wrote:
Is it constrained by the session's set up?  Does the list of traits evolve/expand as the session goes on, or based on success/failure?