Hello everyone!

I’m trying to develop a SF RPG set in the not too distant future and in which the essence of what it means to be a human being is becoming increasingly more ill defined as nascent/improving technologies such as genetic manipulation, environmental engineering, nanotechnology, cloning, FTL travel, etc. change our very natures – physical, social, intellectual. Its working title is 25 Suns (the campaign setting is the area of space containing the nearest 25 stars to our own). At the moment I’m trying to come up with a task resolution system (which of course goes hand-in-hand with creating a character generation system). I want a simple system which can cover opposed and unopposed tasks, including combat. I also like the idea of floating rather than fixed targets coupled with a dice pool system. It’s at an early stage but this is what I’ve come up with so far. Any comments would be greatly appreciated.

1. There are no character stats. Players make PCs by distributing points between a whole range of areas such as Innate Abilities, Career Skills, Cybernetic and Genetic Improvements, etc. The important one for my question is career skills.
2. Players buy levels or ranks of skill in those career skills which best define the career choices of the PC. These ranks are Apprentice, Novice, Professional, Expert and Master. This will give a PC various levels of skill across various areas.
3. When attempting to resolve an action, the player has a certain number of d10 to roll according to his or her rank in the appropriate skill. (2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 as rank increases).
4. Each task will be attributed a difficulty rating by the GM. These range from Pushover to Impossible and each rating gives the GM a set number of d10 to roll (some with negative modifiers). In this way, ‘unopposed checks’ become opposed. I like this because it means there is no arbitrarily fixed target value: the higher number wins.
5. Also, it means that success can ALWAYS be measured in degrees rather than absolutes. The difference between the two rolls is your degree of success or failure.
6. Classically opposed rolls will be when one character attempts a task which a second character is attempting to thwart. Combat is perhaps the best example here.
7. Innate abilities (instead of stats I have descriptors like Strongman, Eagle Eyes, Feline Agility, etc) can affect the resolution of certain tasks if these innate abilities or inborn qualities relate directly to tasks which also require skill. Keen Ears coupled with Eavesdropping skill, for example. Thing is I don’t know whether to give this as a fixed bonus to the roll or to lower the difficulty level by one for each rank of Innate skill.
8. The other thing I wanted to do was to give PCs and GMs the option of using both gaming and narrativist outcomes. Each degree of success could have a gaming and a narrative table. Simply choose which one you want.

To recap, tabulated:-

Skill Rating #d10 Difficulty Rating #d10 (modifier)
Unskilled* 1 Pushover 1(-4)
Novice 2 Simple 1(-3)
Professional 3 Easy 1 (-2)
Expert 4 Routine 2
Master 5 Tricky 3
Complicted 4
Hard 5
Difficult 6
Arduous 7
Impossible 8

*Certain tasks will no actually require skill (climbing a rocks face, for example) but will benefit from such skill. These unskilled tasks give the player a single d10. Tasks which require skill (navigating a starship across interstellar space) cannot be attempted by unskilled persons.


Difference betwen 2 Description
-36+ woeful
-16 to -35 dire
-1 to -15 inadequate
0-10 adequate
11-25 good
26-45 brilliant
46+ astounding

What problems do you see? Any strong points? What sort of play is this likely to encourage? Feedback will be very greatly appreciated.

Simon.

Sorry about the tables! They came out all yuhhkhhh. Here they are again:-

1. Skill Rank & #d10 rolled
Unskilled 1
Novice 2
Professional 3
Expert 4
Master 5

2. Difficulty Rating & #d10 rolled (modifier)
Pushover 1 (-4)
Simple 1 (-3)
Easy 1 (-2)
Routine 1
Tricky 2
Complicated 3
Hard 4
Difficult 5
Arduous 6
Impossible 7

Would an existing generic system, like Fudge, White Wolf D10, Risus, D6 system or Fuzion be a better solution? At the moment, you seem to be designing a generic system, when there's all ready a lot of them available.

Don't know, 'cause I'm not familiar with those systems. Clearly, in an SF setting you'll need a more structured task resolution system, if only to deal with all the technical skills. What would you suggest?

How is the tast resolution done? Are you adding all the dice, or comparing individual ones, seeing how many beat a target value?

Given that table in the first post, it seems an like adding all dice. It would also fit with the fact that the highest skill (5 dice), still has a chance to fail on the simplest task (d10-4). Though just barely, and a very unlikey outcome. The "feel" for a likely success or failure should be good with such a system. I would expect a Profesional to handle a non-complex task most of the time. However, the amount of math might not be appreciated by everyone.

That's what I wanted: no absolute certainties with task resolution. While 5d10 will nearly always beat 1d10-4, I like the chance that it could fail. Anyway, to answer your question. The GM rolls his dice, the player rolls for the character. The difference between them is the degree of success/failure. The thing I'm trying (without much success!) to do is to translate these degrees into gamist and narrativist options. To be homest, coming here has been a revelation: I'd never heard of G/N/S before, but while I never actually experienced a simulationist type (do they exist?) I recognised immediately the other two. Thing is, in any group of players, your gonna get a mix of types. The way G/N/S has been generally discussed assumes that they are mutualy exclusive. In a single peson, OK. But in a group you'l always find a mix. Which is why I'm trying to translate the degrees of success/failure into optional outcomes (G or N) which the player can choose. What do you think about this?

When it comes to GNS, I'm afraid I can't be of much help. I haven't played in a true Narrativist game, so I'm not sure what kind of decisions a player could make for a better story. I have focused on letting the players be able to describe the details of their actions (and a dice mechanic that allows for easy translation from number to description). Its a kind of narrate-by-numbers method.

For your system, I think that a simple outline of gamist rewards versus narrative ones would be sufficient. Then let the players choose on the fly. For example, an astounding attack could mean huge amounts of damage, extra points for subsequent skill development (or bonus dice for future encouters), or the ability to turn a standard attack into a much cooler manuever, such as disarming the opponent and holding a blade at his throat. But for more mundane tasks, like picking a lock, I don't see what a narrative choice would provide (excepting the situation where picking a specific lock is critical to character's survival/goal/motive - but every lock that needs picking can't fall in this situation, can it?).

Thanks for that! I've never played a narrativist game myself, either. Though I'd love to try it out. What you said is spot on: combat seems to lend itself to narrative better than "mundane" tasks. But in a game where the player has a choice to follow the game rules or wing-it by narrating, that perhaps isn't such a problem. And in an SF setting, some of the more mundane things can be quite spectacularly narrated. To take your lock picking example, imgaine a successful attempt to bypass a sort of semi-intelligent security system with the character having to reason with the system! The player could describe some marvellous stuff there. What have you funds best in the games you play, by the way?

I like the Levels of competency (Apprentice etc) idea alot, mainly cause I doing something similar (there are no original ideas anymore are there? lol j/k) One thing that I question is the leels of success. For most actions it is a Do/ DO not kind of thing. One idea though might be modifiers based on what your going to do.

example:

Player- "Engines are dead. Gonna try and repair them."
GM: "Ok to get them to half speed you will up against 3d10. Three-Quarter Speed: 4d10. Full Speed: 5d10"

HEre, the level of success the Player WANTS determines how difficult the task is.ie I want to shoot him vs I want to shoot him in the head.

Of course Either xploding dice or Criticals for rolling all 10's or all 9's adn 10's.

Hope this helps

SMH
ADGBoss

ADGBoss wrote: One thing that I question is the leels of success. For most actions it is a Do/ DO not kind of thing. One idea though might be modifiers based on what your going to do.

simon wrote: Don't know, 'cause I'm not familiar with those systems. Clearly, in an SF setting you'll need a more structured task resolution system, if only to deal with all the technical skills. What would you suggest?

Hi Simon,

Maybe it's time to back up a little and get some terms and things nailed down, so people can help you out better.

#1: "Narrativist" doesn't mean winging it. It definitely doesn't mean "no dice" or "no mechanics," which is how some people mis-interpret the term.

#2: If you're designing an RPG at all, then understanding Fudge and the other systems that Andrew mentioned is necessary, basic research for you. Almost all of them are available on-line for free.

I think you've begun your task about seven steps too far into the process. We shouldn't even be talking about dice and target numbers, at this point. We should be talking about what sort of interactions people will have while playing the game - are they struggling to keep their characters alive in the face of danger? Or is "character death" not really an issue, and the real issue is seeing what humanity really is? Or maybe it's more about revelling in all the cool details and in-game history?

Let me know more about that stuff, and check out some of the systems that are already out there - you need to do that - and we'll keep going.

Best,
Ron