SO, this is something I'm thinking of, and it's a combination of some things I've come across that I like. Namely, Donjon (by Clinton), Clockworx (by Jared) and Shadows (by Zak).

Here's the thing. I like in Shadows how you use the same roll for every conflict. You roll two dice, one representing success, one representing complications. Don't like how there is no definition to the characters inherent in the system.

I like in Donjon how successes equal facts that the player states which the GM narrates into the story. Don't like dice pools (mainly because I don't have bunches of dice).

I like in Clockworx how if you have a skill, it allows you to manipulate the player's number towards the target number. Don't like how it's a guessing game.

I have fudged those three into this:

In this game, characters are made up of descriptors that have numerical values 1-6.

When a roll is called for, the player rolls 2d6 vs. the GM's 2d6. Hig roll wins. The number that you win by equals the number of facts you get to state for the outcome. Whoever loses narrates the outcome, but has to incorporate the stated facts. GM has final arbitration.

The way skills come in is that if you have a relevant skill, you can boost your roll by the number in your skill, or reduce the GM's roll by that number. Or both. It would depend entirely on what one had in mind for the narrative outcome.

Example: Dave's character has the descriptor "Sneaky(3)". He wants to creep past a guard. The GM calls for a roll. Dave rolls a 6 and the GM rolls an 8. Normally, the GM would win with 2 facts to use to make dave narrate a failure. Something like, "the guard hears you", and "the guard has an itchy trigger finger". However, Dave will use his Sneaky descriptor to boost his roll to a 9, giving him one fact to throw at the GM, like "the guard is asleep".

What sort of flaws might there be with this mechanic. I'm not very good at math, but I know that with 2d6, you'll roll mostly 7s, so the descriptors really will matter in boosting your chances to succeed.

Please expose the flaws in this so that I might tweak it a bit.

Well, it seems like a decent mechanic at heart, though two things jump out at me. First, you say that when using a skill you can reduce the GM's roll, or increase your own, or some combination of the two. Mathematically, this doesn't matter, since you're only looking at the difference, right? Unless making the other guy's roll be less than zero does something special....

Secondly, sometimes you'll be having a lot of facts to narrate. A roll difference of even four will be pretty common (standard deviation on each person's roll is 2.4). If someone adds in a skill as well (and why wouldn't they?), it pushes it even higher. Now, this may not be a problem, but it seems a little awkward to have to name ten facts say, yet have no narrative control over how they're strung together. I can see you were trying to avoid the more standard "winner narrates" position, but maybe it makes sense?

Perhaps the winner could narrate, but the loser gets to incorporate a fact or two into it, depending on how muhc he lost by?

Sounds ok, I'd restrict descritpors a bit more. A 6 descriptor would almost ensure success, even if penalties worked like skills for the GM.

You could use, say 2D8,2D10, ect to get a bigger spread of results.

Search an Handeling Time: This may not matter to you, but I'm not a bit fan of universsaly opposed rolls. The reason is the GM has to be involved in every roll, thus you can't have multiple people roll what their doing at once.
However if rolls are fairly uncommon, only a few per scene, this is ok.
Another solution is in This thread.

Jasper wrote: sometimes you'll be having a lot of facts to narrate. A roll difference of even four will be pretty common (standard deviation on each person's roll is 2.4).

To clarify a bit:

Jasper, when I say you can use a skill to boost your roll or lower the GMs, I know it's the same mathematically, but the narrative explanation would be different. And I think reducing the other guy's roll below zero would be a "critical" which would allow you your facts AND allow you to narrate them.

I agree that a lot of facts will be going back and forth. Perhaps placing a cap on the number of facts? Like say, 6 maximum?

Damion, for the descriptors, a 6 is almost godlike in ability and is the absolute highest rating you can have. So the fact that that would ensure success is sort of the point.

As far as the universally opposed rolls, I only do that because I like to roll dice as the GM. I suppose target numbers would be just as easy. I intend for rolls to be used only when a conflict arises wherin a chance for failure would enhance the story, so depending on the situations that the characters find themselves in, there may be more or less rolls. As for people rolling their actions simultaneously, I don't see that being a problem. If they are all involved in the same conflict (same obstacle) then the GM would only roll once.

Stuart, perhaps this method of dividing would be a better way to limit the successes rather than just putting a cap on them. As for the 22% netting 0 facts, I assume that means the GM and player would roll a tie. That's why having applicable descriptors are important.

I'm thinking in cases of a tie, a 3rd d6 would be rolled for each side to break it.

Hi Colin,

Interesting thread. I like talking about this stuff.

I'm curious, though, about what sort of RPG context this system works for, in your estimation. I guess I'm looking for character, situation, that sort of thing, very briefly.

What would be going on, imaginatively speaking, such that this system is enhancing the fun?

Best,
Ron

Ron,

The type of game I'm thinking of using this with is the sort of game you'd run with Zak's "Shadows". However, rather than having the player state two possible outcomes, I'd like to use the mechanic in Donjon where you win with "facts" you are able to insert into the story.

I also would like for there to be some sort of descriptor system that would influence this mechanic. These descriptors could be anything, and as long as the player could give a plausible explanation for using that descriptor in a given roll, he could do so.

The type of role-playing I see this enhancing is a game where the focus is on narrative tension. The GM would have a loose story structure in mind, and the GM and the players would work together to reach the end of the story, using the resolution mechanic whenever there is opportunity for interesting conflict.

I'm not married to the particular mechanic that I've come up with. I'm primarily trying to think of a way to use Donjon's "successes=facts" idea without using a dice pool. Any suggestion on how I might be able to do that other than what I've got going already?

I've been teasing out this idea a bit and I like it lots. It has some interetsing implications so I thought I'd pick up this point.

Ron Edwards wrote: I'm curious, though, about what sort of RPG context this system works for, in your estimation. I guess I'm looking for character, situation, that sort of thing, very briefly.

Colin the Riot wrote: And I think reducing the other guy's roll below zero would be a "critical" which would allow you your facts AND allow you to narrate them.

Okay,

I've been thinking some more about this. I'm thinking I want to remove the descriptor mechanic altogether. Right now, I'm more into the way this reolution system engages the players independent of characters. With that in mind, how about this?

If you win the roll, the maximum amount of facts you can state is five.
Using something similar, again, to Shadows, each player would be given say, 5 tokens (including the GM). These tokens are what a player would use to manipulate die rolls. By spending a token, you can boost your roll one point.

The way in which you would regain tokens is by earning facts but instead of stating them yourself, you would turn them over to the GM. This would gain you 1 token per fact.

If there are few people playing, each person could actually get by with 1d6. If too many people are playing at a time, 2d6 could be used, and the difference between the player's and GM's roll would be divided by 2 to get the number of facts. If even more people are playing, 3d6 and divide the difference by 3, and so on.

Now, I'm still working out this token idea, but could this work? Maybe players could steal a fact from another player's roll by giving them a token? I think it might be neat if the players were somehow spending this currency amongst themselves.

Besides the addition of this token idea, the roll would still work the same. Player vs. GM, higher roll wins, with the difference representing facts the winner gets to state about whatever the roll was called for. Loser then narrates using the facts provided by the winner. GM has final say.

Thougts?

Don't want this to drop too low. I'd like to hear from Ron and contracycle again.