This thread serves as a reference for the Nevercast main thread.  Here, I'll be going over the actual in-game rules.  In particular, I would like members to make a critical analysis of the mechanics:
1.  Are the mechanics consistent, i.e. does each function within a subsystem rely on the same mechanical principles?
2.  Are the mechanics streamlined, i.e. a balanced complexity/calculation-time ratio?
3.  Are the mechanics dynamically balanced, i.e. is each option feasibly playable without creating a predictable pattern of best options?
4.  What would you do to improve upon any perceivable flaws in the above three checkpoints?
5.  Please remain objective in this thread.  I am not looking for personal opinions on what you like or don't like about the mechanics, only insights about their structural integrity.
6.  If there is an error not covered in the above three points, or if the language I use to describe the mechanics is unclear, please feel free to inquire about it.

For now, I'll elaborate on the following subsystems:
1. Core Resolution Mechanics  2. Skill structure and development  3. Combat

Core Resolution

Skill comparisons utilize a dice rank.  The better your skill in comparison to the competition, the lower your dice.  Start off at a predetermined base dice (usually 1d8).  For every level of skill above the competition, lower dice rank by 1 (1d6, 1d4, etc.).  For every skill level below, use 1 dice rank higher (1d10, 1d12, etc.).  Both sides roll (opposition only rolls if an action is used against you).  In order to score a success, you must roll within the range of 1-3.  1=critical  2=moderate  3= minor
It is possible for both sides to get a success, but usually factors such as "speed" will determine a success for the subject with the highest value.  Example: Kanu Gon is aiming in a general direction of his opponent.  His opponent comes out of cover to fire at him.  Kanu Gon receives an aiming bonus of -1 and a +2 bonus to his weapon's maneuverability.  His opponent suffers -1 maneuverability for having to change his position before firing.  Kanu Gon's skill is 3 and his opponent's is 4 (1d10 vs. 1d6, then modified to 1d8 vs. 1d6 because of the aim bonus).  Kanu Gon rolls a 3 and the opponent rolls a 1 (both successes).  However, because Kanu Gon has the higher maneuverability, he gets the shot off first and wounds his opponent, disrupting his attack.
Also, modifiers affect your dice rank after skills are compared, so if you have 1d6 and your opponent has 1d10, then your -1 bonus is taken into account.

Going off on a tangent with weapon attributes, these factors help to mold the tactical considerations for combat.  The numerical makeup of your weapon's attributes determines how effective it is in different situations.  For example, in a close range firefight where accuracy is hardly a limiting factor, it's best to have a weapon that allows you to shift position and aim very quickly, therefore it would be better to have a weapon such as a submachine gun rather than, say, a battle rifle that has a longer stock and barrel.  In a long range firefight, where a combatant is likely to miss his shot anyway, maneuvering speed isn't so important.  In that situation, it would be better to use the battle rifle because your accuracy penalties are significantly reduced, which actually improves your speed, in essence, by reducing the amount of rolls it would take to score a hit.  When armor comes into play, your characters have to make the informed decision on whether they want to sacrifice other attributes for superior penetrating power.  In a close range armored fight or with lots of cover, for instance, the choice to sacrifice for a higher caliber round would be fairly simple to make; the round may be able to punch through the car or a wall and give you a chance to hit your opponent that wouldn't have existed otherwise.

2.  Are the mechanics streamlined, i.e. a balanced complexity/calculation-time ratio?

It's similar to the Earthdawn system, but progresses in an inverted fashion.  I understand the point you're trying to make however, and keeping the dice system on the more complex end of the spectrum was a conscious decision of mine (the gradient of functional capacity granted by the system is greater than the calculation slowdown).  It's funny - when I actually made that post, I remembered what I said about the mechanics being streamlined, and realized that the disparity would get mentioned immediately.

Furthermore, I've also noticed the hit in handling time when it comes to modifiers.  I have a fledgling idea to simplify the process in the works, but I don't know if it's functional yet.  I'll update the thread once I figure it out.

Thank you for your input, Devon.

Firstly, I wanted to say I really like what I've seen of Nevercast's rules and systems, but then again I liked the rules for your dark fantasy game, and it seems that both sets are pretty similar.

For clarity I think it might be better if bonuses and penalties are phrased as "+1 Dice Rank" or "-1 Dice Rank", with +1 Dice Rank moving you down one die size and -1 Dice Rank moving you up by one. It might be more intuitive to new players than figuring out what "a -1 bonus" is.

Nevercast originally had its own unique system, but I had gotten overwhelmed by the amount of crunch I had to work on.  In essence, the system used for the fantasy game was a prototype to see how I could improve upon the system, which ended up diverging into its own game because I liked it so much.  So I decided to restyle Nevercast's system altogether using the fantasy game's model, which is much more streamlined than its original set of mechanics.

In relation to the dice rank effects, I had a difficult time wrestling with how I would present the model.  It made more sense to me to represent smaller dice values as lower dice ranks, and in turn to measure bonuses as negative numbers to represent the scale moving downwards.  This, I believed, would help players to memorize the scale quickly (I personally memorized the scale very easily this way as opposed to the other layouts, but I cannot be sure if others will).  Furthermore, I may reverse the progression of weapon attribute values in order to follow suit with this logic.  If it doesn't do well in playtesting, then I will take your advice and alter the progression logic.

Grappling with Firearms Crunch
When I started work again on Nevercast, I realized that there was a big problem with handling firearms: it's a pain in the ass to account for every combatant's ammunition.  So, in order to avoid book keeping as much as possible while maintaining the integrity of combat, I've devised an idea to abstract weapon capacity.  This only made sense, as the system is intended to represent general tactics in combat rather than individual maneuvers; the fine details are simply narrative color.  Unfortunately, I will have to add another element to the system, but it is in my opinion that handling time overall will be reduced.

The concept is thus: each weapon has an abstract capacity value.  An assault rifle with a 20 round clip, for instance, may have a capacity value of 3.  The weapon will also have a capacity die per attack.  This means that single shot (i.e. firing shots one at a time rather than just 1 round for a full attack), burst fire and full automatic will have dice assigned to them.  So, when you attack in combat, you roll your attack die and your capacity die at the same time.  In the case of the assault rifle, the single shot may have dice rank 0 (1d4-1), DR 1 for the burst (1d4), and DR 5 for full auto (1d12).  When you score a success (roll of 1-3), your remaining capacity value is not reduced, but will be reduced by 1 if you fail and possibly by 2 for a critical failure.  Finally, I may have it so that a high weapon skill will increase your weapon's total capacity in order to represent your character's ability to conserve ammo better.

I know exactly what you mean regarding the difficulty of figuring out how to handle ammunition for firearms. When you're dealing with weapons that can only fire 12 "rounds" a minute like a Longbow, or "fire, spend 3 minutes reloading fire" weapons like breach-loading muskets then it's easy. But semi-automatic and automatic weapons? Not so much-I've run into that very same problem working on my own game. Right now I'm sticking with the "shadowrun solution" of charging a set number of bullets per target for short and long bursts, with a cost in ammo per unit of area covered for covering fire but I'm somewhat unsatisfied with it, as it doesn't capture the chaos of combat all that well.

As for your system for keeping track of ammunition, I think the only problem might lie with immersion-breaking flukes of the dice. If Tsu the mercenary is stranded in the middle of nowhere with diminishing supplies and he's harassed by a numerically superior but poorly equipped force of raiders, who he repeatedly rakes with burst fire from his assault rifle then my first question as a player (and probably Tsu's first question) would be "how many bullets do I have left?" and abstracting it makes it difficult to answer that question in a way that preserves immersion. Of course you can always just say that "you have a handful of bullets left" to emphasize the scarcity of ammo that Tsu's facing, but what if that ammo miraculously holds out despite the odds? It might be jarring to players for someone's character who has been established as having only a certain amount of ammo to be able to continue such a sustained rate of fire because the dice decree it.

To make a comparison, it's like the first time you realized that by 5th level a Fighter in D&D can run around drenched in the fantasy equivalent of Napalm for minutes (with no penalties to actions taken while burning alive) before finally succumbing to the flames. It's like realizing that by 3rd level or so, a Rogue or Bard can with only a slight degree of optimization make a hated enemy stop in their tracks and say "You know what? I don't really care that you killed my family." with a single Diplomacy check. They're corner cases to be sure, but when something like them comes up immersion is broken. Just my experience though.

One thing I'd be really interested in hearing about is how you've decided to handle Abilities, the non-combat counterparts to Maneuvers. There are a lot of games out there that pay an inordinate amount of attention to combat without acknowledging that there are in fact ways of making other activities just as compelling and deep to play through. I'm really glad that you're exploring this design space, and I'd love to hear more about individual abilities for your various "non combat" skills. 

Hopefully I can calibrate the dice to make it seem like you're burning through magazines at a believable rate without actually having to account for the rounds.  In order to prevent ridiculous occurences of ammo conservation, the capacity values are generally low (value of 1 for a .45, for instance; you fuck up your roll, that's it - you managed to expend 7 rounds in the space of about 5 seconds), and the dice will almost always betray you in an appropriate range of elapsed time.  For example, your 20 round assault rifle has a capacity of 3.  The capacity die for full auto is 1d12, and since rolling 1-3  translates to 25% - or 1-in-4 - that means there's a decent chance you won't conserve any ammo at all and use all of your ammunition in 3 turns.  And then even if you get lucky a few times, there's also the chance to score a critical failure (expend more capacity than usual); a counterweight which should prevent characters from getting any abnormal amount of longetivity from their weapons.

On a side note, capacity will likely not be directly related to how many rounds the weapon has - this is to prevent large numbers, which leads to the book keeping I was trying to avoid in the first place.  If you have a weapon that holds a large quantity but also has a very high rate of fire, then the actual capacity value may be similar to a weapon with a much smaller magazine.

I got to say, I don't like the notion of rolling an extra die to compute ammo use. I don't believe it's lean, there is still some basic math with ever attack, and I'm going to get dice confused.
I can think of a solution or two for keeping track of ammo in the broad sense, but I'm at a lost as to how to compute it by the clip so you have realistic reloading intervals.
But between book keeping and a second sub die roll, I would vote book keeping. Maybe something like the battle rifle having 8 attacks before a reload, with burst fire using 2 attacks and suppression fire using 4. It's still bullet counting, but it's just a straight math and prevents the unlikely but possible infinite ammo commando that lays down multiple rounds of suppression fire without reloading.
Side thought, maybe have the users skill in firearms change the rate at which ammo is expended. For my example, a nub with a battle rifle will only get 6 attacks per clip and a vet would get 10 since they are more efficient at putting rounds on mark. might be just excess math though.

I look forward to more of your work, Ar Kayon

Alright guys, I took the feedback you gave me into consideration and conceived of a second idea.  The new idea is to keep the abstract capacity values, but that your ammunition expenditure is directly related to your attack roll, rather than introducing a new die.  Upon scoring a critical success, you waste less ammo as a result of your accuracy.  Scoring a critical failure on your attack means you waste an extra point of capacity.  Also, using different firing modes, such as full auto, will always use up a fixed amount of capacity in lieu of the capacity die.

Example:  Kanu Gon smashes through the door and unloads full auto on the poor bastard on the other side. Full auto uses up 2 capacity.  Kanu Gon rolls his attack and scores a 1, meaning he stops shooting after the guy's head explodes (in post modern times, nastier bullets are used to compensate for stronger armor), so Kanu Gon uses only 1 capacity because he stopped firing once that happened.

Sounds more workable to me. I also like the tie in of skilled operators conserving ammo without any extra math being required. Kudos on that.
I forget, are special powers/magic/crazy future tech in the Nevercast setting? If so, having a similar set up for such special powers may be good book keeping. More skilled characters can do more with less, but can burn resources faster to get better effects.
hmmmm...
I see potential for that being a core mechanic of any action that has finite resources either in game, or on a meta level.

On a different topic, have you made examples of non-combat skill checks and abilities?

There aren't special powers or magic in Nevercast.  But yeah - I'm sure there are other things in the game I could abstract out in this manner in order to smooth things over and get the players/GM more into playing than micromanaging.  This, of course, provided that the integrity of the simulation is not compromised.  Who knows - maybe it could work for money or equipment.  I certainly would like to keep this door open if you or anyone else has ideas on how to abstract out any numerically *hard* values or resources. 

Also, sorry about glazing over the inquiry you made earlier about character skills.  There are a lot of fun things I want to do with non-combat abilities, but I haven't compiled a list yet.  First, I'll post an overview of how skills work so everyone can follow along, and then I'll post a rough draft of abilities I've come up with.

How will your system handle screw ups? in D&D terms, the fumbles.
I could see a hard core vet going down when a dud round stops his battle rifle from cycling. Is there anything to mimic this in game? It would seem odd to have it a function of the dice used (as in only possible when rolling a 10 or higher, so only on d10 and d12)

I've taken a cold, hard look at the dice rank setup adopted by Nevercast.  It worked perfectly for my fantasy game, but firearms changes everything because a lot of aspects are based heavily on chance.  The dice rank system fell apart when I looked at situations when a character goes up point blank range for 1d4-1 attack die and simply cannot critically fail. 

This is a sobering reality, but I can think of several alternative methods where the same outcome concept (sans the critical failure oddity) is possible.  I just need to figure out which will be the most streamlined. 

sorry for breaking your game :(

I was doing some thinking on your critical failure conundrum. Currently your skill system is just that, a skill system. The non-skill based chance of mechanical failure in a firearm is outside the scope of the skill mechanic. It would stand to reason that a much better method of dealing with this probability is to add an additional mechanic, loathsome as that may be for clean game design, rather than rework the skill mechanic to accommodate.
Unless you want a critical failure possibility for every action, like kung fu master slipping in mud or 1337 computer haxor pulling cord out by accident, in which case a new mechanic may be in order.

Barring that, you may want to have a fire arm failure rate that gets rolled every time an attack is made with a gun. A shitty firearm, poor ammo, or lack of proper care could boost a failure rate into the double digits on a percentile, while professionals that spend serious money would have failure rates in the sub 1% category. Rolling percentiles wouldn't be unwieldy, but it would be far from elegant.
The problem i see is that well made and well maintained firearms have issues far less than 1% of the time currently, and your dice mechanic is poor at dealing with such small percentiles, hence a d100, or better yet a d1,000 (3d10). Such low probability could be glossed over as an 'It just doesn't happen' to the combat focused characters, but I know you like simulation to much for that.

Take note that the combat system does not simulate blow for blow mechanics.  On the contrary, a combat action is actually a series of actions based upon a generalized tactic.  So, when you fire a weapon, you are more than likely to squeeze the trigger several times within a combat phase. 

However, I have conceived of an alternative dice rank method.  In this model, the success/failure target numbers aren't fixed.  Instead, one die is used for everything, and the target success ranges are based on the dice rank.  The die I used for this model is a d100.  I like the d100 because percentile dice seem to fit a futuristic motif, in my opinion (a combat scanner may take your firing stats in training and then model your chances as a percentage, for instance), and I also like the evenness of numerical progression.  So, DR 0 could have a 50% success rate; perhaps the critical success being 90-100 percent and moderate success being 75 to 89.  Critical failures could be set at 5 percent for every dice rank.  Perhaps for firearms, an effect roll would be required after that, but a roll would only occur for 1 in 20 combat actions for an individual character, rather than once every combat action in your proposed model.  And even then, a weapon malfunction may not occur as a quality weapon would require a high roll (if the weapon is so good that failure is 1 in 1000, then rolling 99-100 on the failure die would model that, if my shitty math is correct; the initial die is 1 in 20, so I multiplied 20 times 50: the average number of rolls it would take to score a malfunction on the failure die).

The only trouble i see from such a mechanic is having to keep a chart handy for your success brackets. It was nice in the multi dice mechanic knowing that 1= Major Success, 2= success, and 3= Minor success. The dice took all the thinking out of it, which is nice.
All and all that is a small price to pay, and makes for less rolls so hopefully it doesn't complicate any other matters.
Given a larger, non-changing numeric range to work with, will you keep weapon and equipment stats effecting the 'skill' number to calculate DR, or will you have them be fixed % that apply directly to the roll?

Also

http://anydice.com/

this should be helpful

I've made some alterations to the proposed method in order to streamline the process.  To start, the actual numerical ranges of success and failure are now uniform throughout every dice rank (so no matter what, scoring a total roll of 55 is always a minor success).  Instead, dice ranks introduce a fixed modifier of +/- 10% to your roll (this is to prevent mucking about with un-rounded numbers because none of the subsystems delve into such fine granularity for that to be necessary).  For example, dice rank 0 has a 50% chance of success.  Dice rank 1 adds a modifier of +10% to your roll, whereas DR -1 introduces a -10 percent modifier.  Therefore, it's extremely easy to determine what each dice rank means without having to consult the manual (-2 DR...aha, it means -20 percent modifier!).  To reiterate: a uniform gradient of progression, no changing dice, and no changing target numbers result in a quicker rate of calculation than the original Graduated Dice Method. 

Not to mention it also solves the initial problem of weapon failure independent of skill.  It appears that, thanks to you, I may have created a much better core resolution system because you broke it.  This is exactly the kind of end result I was hoping for, and exactly the reason why I specifically asked for an objective assessment rather than an opinion of taste.

That begs the questions-
1. Is it possible to have a DR rating of 10 or more to give you over 100% success? If So what does this mean for your game? Auto success with no roll? chance of super critical?

2. Is it possible to have a DR of -10 or more to give you a negative percentile? If so what would this mean for your game?

3. Will success brackets be even or will they be skewed so minor and regular success happen more often than critical?

And something that i've been meaning to ask for a while is what is a major, regular and minor success? What does it do mechanically for me? Are results just made up on the fly prior to the roll?

horomancer wrote:
1. Is it possible to have a DR rating of 10 or more to give you over 100% success? If So what does this mean for your game? Auto success with no roll? chance of super critical?

3. Will success brackets be even or will they be skewed so minor and regular success happen more often than critical?

And something that i've been meaning to ask for a while is what is a major, regular and minor success? What does it do mechanically for me? Are results just made up on the fly prior to the roll?

Skills
In Nevercast, characters are predominantly defined by their makeup of skills.  Skills not only represent talents and practiced abilities, but also various aspects of physical and psychological makeup.  It is for this reason that skills are organized amongst three interacting tiers.

Tier 1: Category (Discipline)
The largest tier, a skill category represents your overall ability within a broad discipline of related skill groups.  Your level of Discipline measures how composed and confident you are when practicing under varying conditions.  Thus, a “Discipline Roll” is used whenever a significant amount of stress is placed upon a character during a challenge of skill.  Some examples of a skill category would be “Combat” and “Social Interaction”.

Tier 2: Group (Aptitude)
A skill group represents how well you can execute any of the individual abilities the group consists of.  Your Aptitude level measures forcefulness, timing, and speed of application.  The “Aptitude Roll” is used whenever you make a skillful action in response to any significant challenge.  Some examples of a skill group would be “Firearms” and “Personal Combat” within the “Combat” discipline.

Tier 3: Type (Knowledge)
A skill type represents your knowledge and technical proficiency of a specific subject within a skill group.  Developing skill in a specialized sphere of knowledge will grant your character the ability to use “skilled maneuvers/techniques/abilities” during a challenge of skill, which may provide situation-specific advantages.  Furthermore, Some examples of a skill type would be the “Unarmed” and “Grappling” specializations of the “Personal Combat“ group. 

Developing your Skills
The only tier you may directly influence is the Knowledge classification of skills.  After a certain period of time, you will earn points to distribute amongst skill types, based largely upon your profession.  Thus, skills within your field of expertise will naturally develop at a quicker rate.

In order to develop your Aptitude, you must allocate points to both the skill types within that skill group and auxiliary skill types within related groups.  For example, in order to develop Personal Combat, you must allocate points to individual modes of combat, such as Grappling, as well as individual skill types within the Physical Fitness group of skills.

In order to develop a Discipline,  you must role-play your skills, in which points awarded will be based on how challenging, stressful, or realistic the situation is.  When you earn points in this area, you simultaneously earn points in all Aptitude groups within the discipline.

I've done some new work on the mechanics.  Combat and weapons have been fleshed out more.  In the following posts, I will go over the major aspects of the combat system: battle sequence, battle grid, ranged combat, close-quarters combat, and weapons and armor.  Some information may be redundant, but I still wanted to compose everything together for the sake of clarity.
The discussion remains the same: examine the integrity of the mechanics, including resolution speed, consistency of rules, logic of rules (is it necessary, or can it be done better some other way?), and clarity of language.

The Battle Grid
I've examined the pros and cons of working with a grid against working without them.  Nevercast combat is predominantly based on small-arms combat, and upon constructing combat models, I've come to a few realizations:
1. Grid cells are usually 1 square inch; much too small for firefights that can occur at several hundred yards away.
2. Having a grid as an inherent part of the system means that grids have to be used, which is limiting.
3. Grid maps themselves can be too small to encompass the entire firefight.
4. I can't turn my living room into a huge battlefield.
So, after playing with my plastic army men on my computer desk (the machine gunner took an excellent position on top of my coffee mug and mowed down the oncoming attackers) and examining spacing structure, I've decided to go gridless for Nevercast combat, in which a ruler will be used for determining distance.  I feel that a ruler will not be cumbersome with this system considering that range increments are relatively large (half a foot to a foot).  This means that there should be many instances where distance/movement/spacing can easily be adjudicated without the need to use any tool for measuring.

The Battle Sequence
In Nevercast, combat time is not separated by individual turns.  The reasoning behind this is that individual turns make it difficult for me to accurately model how events might play out in real time.  So many things are happening all at once during combat, so why not try to emulate that chaos in a structured manner that doesn't make the GM go insane?

So, within a combat round, actions are resolved by an order of operations.  Take note that all of these actions are occurring at generally the same time, but their resolution is dependent upon the complexity of the action.
1 - Command.  When characters give out short instructions to other players during combat, that occurs before everything else plays out.  This is an extremely important aspect of combat because players are not allowed to coordinate their tactics outside of the game world.
2 - Movement and Positioning.  Next, all combatants that intend to move or position themselves (e.g. to move out of cover to fire) do so.  During this time, it is possible for other combatants to reactively attack them, which is akin to D&D's attacks of opportunity.  Even moving out of cover can elicit a reactive attack if an opposing combatant is aiming at that area.
3 - Ready Action.  Any combat action that is immediately ready occurs at this time.  So, if you plan on shooting after you just got out of cover, that action occurs here unless if you are taking your time to aim. 
4 - Prepared Action and CQC.  If you took the time to focus your aim, the action of shooting occurs here.  Hand-to-hand combat exchanges are also resolved during this time.