So, I've been looking at a lot of suggestions for my mechanics system, and mulling them over. The current incarnation of the system is presented here, for comment.

DICE

1D12 is used for all task resolution
A number of D6's are used for damage resolution

TASK RESOLUTION
Core Concept: Players roll 1D12 for task resolution. The result of the roll is then compared to the relevent Character Attribute. If the result of the roll is lower than the Attribute, the roll is a success.

Margin of Success: The degree by which a roll succeeds or fails. This is determined by subtracting the result of the roll from the character's relevent Attribute.
EXAMPLE: A character has an attribute of 10, and rolls a 6. 10-6=4.
Therefore, the margin of success is 4.
When the Margin of success is zero, the roll is successful but has a complication. A margin of success of -1 or lower is a failed roll.

Complications: A complication occurs when the margin of success is zero (ie: the roll succeeds by the skin of it's teeth). Complications are generally minor problems that are usually more of an annoyance than a really major problem.
EXAMPLES: The character's gun jams, requiring that they spend
their next action unjamming it. The engine of a vehicle stalls.
Complications generally do not require much time or a roll to fix.

Critical Success: Whenever a natural (unmodified) 1 is rolled on the D12, a crfitical success is achieved. Critical successes are the same as regular successes, but generally have a better result.
EXAMPLES: Extra damage in combat. Skill check takes less time.

Critical Failure: Essentially the opposite of a critical success. Whenever a 12 is rolled on a 1D12, in addition to the skill check failing, some major form of complication also occurs.
EXAMPLES: Mechanical devices suffer a breakdown and must be
disassembled and repaired, requiring both time and a roll.

Opposed Rolls: When two characters come into conflict an opposed roll is called for. In order to resolve an opposed action, both parties roll for task resolution as normal. The Margin of success for each is calculated, and then the two numbers are compared. The one with a higher margin of success is the winner. Defender's win ties.

In any case, I will add more rules as I develope them. Right now I'm working on a cooperative resolution system. Comments would be greatly appreciated. CHEERS!!!!!

NEW STUFF

Character Creation

Character attributes are as follows:

Mental Group
Perception
Intelligence

Physical Group
Strength
Vitality

Athletic Group
Dexterity
Reaction

Spiritual Group
Psyche
Weird

Each stat begins at 4. Players then recieve 24 points to customize characters.

SKILLS

How They Work: Skills are devided into 2 tiers. Tier 2 skills are easy to learn, and may be used untrained. Tier 1 skills are diffcult and time consuming to learn, and often require special training. They may not be used untrained.

Sample Tier 2 Skills: Climbing, Swimming, Unarmed Combat, Armed Combat, Driving a car.

Sample Tier 1 Skills: Flying a jet fighter, Nuclear Physics, Genetics.

Skills do not have ranks, a character either has a skill or does not.

SKILL CHECKS: are made using the stat most appropriate for the situation. For example: A character in a quickdraw duel would use use his Reaction score, and would recieve special benefits for having the appropriate skill.

UNTRAINED SKILL CHECKS: Untrained skill checks may only be made with tier 2 skills. A player must roll UNDER his stat (ie: His margin of Success MUST be at least +1) in order to succeed. Thus, an unskilled character is not subject to Complications. They ar also not subject to Critical Success. Treat any natural 1's as normal successes. Untrained checks are susceptible to critical failure.

There is no accounting for different difficulties? So for example if I want to sneak on a gravel path and if I want to sneak on a paved road I would have the same chance of success? Seems weird?

Hi kevin,

The rules seem pretty straightforward and lite but as Chistoffer noted, some things are normally harder to do than others (although, anally speaking, the example given would be an Opposed Roll between the sneaker and the sneakee). :)

Another example would be say, climbing---no distinction is made between scaling a sheer cliff or climbing an oak tree. In the rules as written, the character would have an even chance of doing both, based entirely on his Attribute score.

Also, you do realize that there are going to be a _lot_ of criticals in your game. It's really not that hard to roll a 1 or 12 on a d12. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, but it is something to think about. In my experience, players enjoy the critical successes but get frustrated when their characters start bumbling around like drunken swordsmen. You might want to incorporate a second roll for criticals, perhaps something along the lines of if you roll a 1, you make a second roll and if the second roll is also a 1, you got a critical success. The same for failures. Something else that might work is degree of critical, based on a second roll of 1d6 (since you also use d6). 1-3 minor crit, 4-5 moderate crit, 6 super crit.

Note that both of these suggestions work but might be too clunky for some---many people balk at making multiple rolls for a single result.

Pete

Thanks, guys. I've been experimenting with various ways to modify rolls, and the one I've come up with is a system of bonuses and penalties based on how favourable the conditions are. I'll post more on this later, but suffice it to say that as many different possibilities as I can come up with will be posted.

Go all opposed.

Twice in one day; the standard rants are paying off.

Mike

O.K. I freely admit that I have more than 1 resolution system in place. I'm fine with that. My purpose here was to create a system with the following properties:

1. Simple. I am a firm believer that a simple system is better for gaming. Unencumbered rules leads to less table talk and more getting done in a session.

2. Complete. I also believe tha a rules set must be able to deal with wide variety of situations including opposed and extended tests, as well as cooperative tests.

3. Easy to learn, and remember. This is another important facet. One of the main reasons that new gamers find it so hard to get started is that rules systems are too hard to learn. Older gamers may also shy away from a new system because they don't want to learn a new system.

4. Customizable. I'm trying to create a system that is easy to play around with. If you want a more refined combat system, fine. Make it up. If you want more detailed task resolution, go ahead and house rule it. Of course, I will be likely putting out supplementary material on these and a variety of other subjects.

I'm sorry, but intellectual arguements about whether a system has more than one resolution system are a little beside the point.

The rant is intentioned to address your exact design goals.

kevin671 wrote: O.K. I freely admit that I have more than 1 resolution system in place. I'm fine with that. My purpose here was to create a system with the following properties:

1. Simple. I am a firm believer that a simple system is better for gaming. Unencumbered rules leads to less table talk and more getting done in a session.

2. Complete. I also believe tha a rules set must be able to deal with wide variety of situations including opposed and extended tests, as well as cooperative tests.

3. Easy to learn, and remember. This is another important facet. One of the main reasons that new gamers find it so hard to get started is that rules systems are too hard to learn. Older gamers may also shy away from a new system because they don't want to learn a new system.

4. Customizable. I'm trying to create a system that is easy to play around with. If you want a more refined combat system, fine. Make it up. If you want more detailed task resolution, go ahead and house rule it. Of course, I will be likely putting out supplementary material on these and a variety of other subjects.

I'm sorry, but intellectual arguements about whether a system has more than one resolution system are a little beside the point.

Mike: If you were insulted by a statement I made, I apologize. I didn't mean to give any insult. As far as two resolution systems go, you'll notice that my system does not have a "difficulty number" mechanic. I felt that that was too complicated. What I'm basically doing is setting up a system as simply as possible while covering as many bases as I possibly can. This is my purpose for making the "opposed" system so similar to the "non opposed." As far as your rant goes, I really disagree that you need only one system. If you want to set a "target number" for opposed checks, that means you must figure out a way to account for the human factor during task resolution. Which means one of two things, either an arbitrarily assigned number to raise the dificulty with (which I disagree with) or you must calculate the new difficulty number based upon some statistic the character has. This is a lot more complex than what I had in mind. This also fails to account for the fact that the character doing the "opposing" doesn't really get all that much say in how the roll plays out (which I disagree with). What I'm trying to do here is create a complete system that is also simple and easy to learn and use. I am not trying to create a system that sacrifices any playability for the sake of simplicity. (which I feel a lack of an opposed system will do.) If you can outline a way to eliminate the oposed rolls using my system as outlined here, without bulking up the character creation process or slowing down gameplay or removing any of the randomness and human element, by all means, please do so. I would love to hear it.

Well, the reason that I can't make them jibe as you request is that lack of "difficulty" modifier that you mention. This is an unusual choice, but a bold one. Similar to what Jared did in InSpectres. There are only two solutions that I would advcocate. The first is to say that if you aren't concerned with the difficulty on "Unopposed" tasks then you shouldn't be worried on "Opposed" tasks. That's right, just don't account for the opponent. You roll, you succeed or fail, hit or miss, all independent of the "opponent". This is very simple and quick, and interesting in a lot of ways.

It is not particularly Simulative, but then again, neither is deciding that difficulty doesn't play into "unopposed" tasks.

The other option, my personal favorite, would be to drop the "Unopposed" rolls, and make them all "opposed". Just use the opposed mechanic for all tasks, assigning a "Stat" to the task at hand representing it's difficulty. Still pretty simple and easy. Just that one extra math step (the comparison) for each roll that would otherwise have been "unopposed". As always, I feel that this small amount of extra math that you'd deign to do in many cases anyhow, is worth doing for the simplification that brings in terms of having only one system (though I admit that in the case of this system it's so streamlined anyhow, that we're talking about small degrees of difference).

You know, if you were to declare that you were doing this split for reasons of drama, I'd buy it. That is, if your philosophy is that only "opposed" situations are dramatic enough to merit "difficulty mechanics" and the extra math that comes with them, I'd have to accept that as a well considered decision. I'd still disagree with the choice of solution, but I wouldn't say that you hadn't at least come up with a decent reason. IOW, it would pass the rant criteria, FWIW.

Further, if you were to change the dichotomy from Opposed/Unopposed to something like Dramatic/Color, where you only used the "complicated" system for things that were really important, and the ssimpler one for everything else, I'd be right there with you all the way.

Mike

I'm going to be including a "difficulty mechanic", but instead of the "roll against difficulty number" mechanic, the difficulty will be a modifier to the roll.

Example: My player wants to use his super high tech laser pistol that he just broke out of the box to shoot a "baddie" who has just popped out of the woodwork. It's loaded, coked, the safety is off and it's ready to rock. Unfortunately, this baddie is a little smarter than the average bear. He's standing behind a tough little peice of cover, making him harder to hit. So the stat that we are applying is Reflexes. The player has the skill: Ranged Combat (Energy weapons). The player has REF 10, which means effectively that he needs a 10 or lower to hit. The cover modifies the ROLL, adding (for argument sake) a +3 to the roll (in other words 1D12+3). Now the player needs to roll under 7 to succeed. Of course, the person he's shooting at gets a defensive roll as well.

All of this said, I don't see how each task can be opposed by something. Say you have a person throwing darts at a dartboard alone. He is under no pressure to succeed, and gains no benefit either way. How do you qualify opposition in this case? The purpose for my opposed roll idea is to provide a method for dealing with DIRECT opposition (meaning that a person or a computer/android/insert whatever you want here is actually trying to prevent the roll from succeeding), as opposed to any kind of metaphysical opposition.

kevin671 wrote: All of this said, I don't see how each task can be opposed by something. Say you have a person throwing darts at a dartboard alone. He is under no pressure to succeed, and gains no benefit either way. How do you qualify opposition in this case? The purpose for my opposed roll idea is to provide a method for dealing with DIRECT opposition (meaning that a person or a computer/android/insert whatever you want here is actually trying to prevent the roll from succeeding), as opposed to any kind of metaphysical opposition.

Darts is a Stamina test? It never seemed that exhausting to me. Is it to resist the copious amounts of alcohol drunk while playing?

Kevin,
Its not that the dartboard is 'resisting'. The role made by the other party is meaningless, in same way that the dice you roll and the modifier you have are meaningless. All that matters is the net result.

The dart roll is easy, with a difficulty of 5, and the D12 rolls 7, a MoF of 2. You roll your dice with skill 8, and get a 9, Mos 1. You pass the attempt by 3. Opposing the roll with a difficulty of 5 is the same on average as opposing the roll of with a mod of 2, except that always rolling opposing dice the keeps standard dev. consistant, not varying between mechanics.

The flip side of the coin is having no opposed rolls at all. In combat, for instance, rather than each party rolling a D12, you apply one person's skill as a mod to the other party's action. That is, if 7 is average, then a skill of 10 would be a mod of -3. Jimbo, skill 8, attacks Pux, skill 9. Pux's mod of -2 reduces Jimbo's skill to 6. If Jimbo rolls 7+, his MoF is Pux's MoS. If Jimbo rolls 5-, succeeds.

Jeremy

Mike: I see what you are saying, but it sems to me to be a lot more complex than what I propose. I don't think that the dartboard should get a roll, simply because it bogs down the system with rolling that I see as unnecessary. The way I have it set up is such that there is a minimum of rolling going on for all parties concerned. One of the main failings I've seen with many RPG systems is that there are just too many dice rolls in an average turn. That is what I'm trying to do away with. Yes I realize that it is possible to create a system that has only one resolution system, and yes I realize that such a system could be a very uncomplicated one. I don't want to go into difficulty numbers and all of those things, because I fell that if I do so that the system will be more complex. The complexity comes into play not with the roll itself, but rather with the complication of calculating the difficulty. My concept for assigning diffculty is going to be a lot more hollistic. In the exaple I listed above (the guy with the fancy new laser pistol), the GM simply decides how much cover the target has and then gives it a number that he feels is right. Of course, I'm going to include a set of guidelines for how to assign penalties.

Nipfip: I am trying to do away with set difficulty numbers altogether. I just don't want to bog down the GM with calculating difficulties. In my system, he just picks a penalty number that seems fair and sets that out as a modifier to the roll. Simple, but effective.

Kev,

Your example gives the player a mod of +3 to shoot someone. So there is a modifier in there.

If you shoot at someone with a with high reactions, 10 say, he would roll his dice and on average succeed by 3.5. What I'm suggesting is get rid of that roll, and just modify the shot by 3.

I don't think I've met a player who would be confused by; the range is medium +1, and the tgt is very skillful +3; total tgt modifier +4 (player thinks, ok I need a 4 or less).

If you want to remove unecessary rolls, get rid of the opposed ones.

Jeremy

Yes, I see what you're saying......but I much prefer to make "opposed" tasks that little bit more random. I don't like players sitting there thinking "O.K. I need to roll a 4 or lower to beat this guy."

All too many times in RPG sessions I have had players get way too cocky about how skilled their characters are. The calculate exactly how high the roll is that they need to succeed at a given task, and they base what they do on that. What I'm trying to do here is encourage a little more "strategic though" on the part of the player. Instead of about thier probability for success determining thier actions, I'm trying to force them to think about ways to improve thier chances for success. Randomness works well here.

Hey, :)

kevin671 wrote: I much prefer to make "opposed" tasks that little bit more random.

kevin671 also wrote: I don't like players sitting there thinking "O.K. I need to roll a 4 or lower to beat this guy."

All too many times in RPG sessions I have had players get way too cocky about how skilled their characters are. The calculate exactly how high the roll is that they need to succeed at a given task, and they base what they do on that. What I'm trying to do here is encourage a little more "strategic though" on the part of the player. Instead of about thier probability for success determining thier actions, I'm trying to force them to think about ways to improve thier chances for success.

The reason I don't want to have all rolls opposes is that I don't believe that "the task itself" can oppose someone doing it. This is where the difficulty modifiers come in. I don't want some poor GM sitting there trying to set a "stat" for the task to roll under...some people are good at this type of thing, others are not. Bottom line: I'm going for a measure of simplicity, not so much simplicity as to drastically alter my vision. I do see the point of having one task resolution system, but in this case I feel that it would actually end up further complicating my system.

BTW: I'm removing the Extended and Cooperative Task resolution systems, because I just realized that they are not necessary.

Hi, :)

Hmm... Well, before I start, I would like to make perfectly clear that my opinions are just that: opinions. They shouldn't even have the strength of suggestions. They are opinions. Nothing else. That said...

kevin671 wrote: This is where the difficulty modifiers come in. I don't want some poor GM sitting there trying to set a "stat" for the task to roll under...

BTW: I'm removing the Extended and Cooperative Task resolution systems, because I just realized that they are not necessary.

Explain to me how coming up with a 'task stat' is harder than coming up with a 'difficulty modifier'. And if it's a matter of guidelines, guidelines can also be given just as easily for both.

BTW: I'm removing the Extended and Cooperative Task resolution systems, because I just realized that they are not necessary.


Can you expand on this?

Hi, :)

Ok, I understood your point about how coming up with modifiers might be easier (and thus faster) than coming up with the 'stat', which presumably would have to encompass the whole difficulty of the task.

kevin671 wrote:

BTW: I'm removing the Extended and Cooperative Task resolution systems, because I just realized that they are not necessary.

Can you expand on this?

What would you like me to expand on? Do you want to know what the systems were going to look like?

I'm not sure what the systems were going to look like. They were "in development" when I decided I didn't need them. I just realized that my initial concept for cooperative tests offered little benefit for individuals attempting to perform them.

I realized that such systems were largely over-complicated, so I have done away with them. If a GM must, he can break larger tasks down into smaller components, assign them to different characters, and call for rolls from each player. Seems simpler that way, rather than doing a buch of meaningless calculations.

Just to let everyone know: I haven't forgotton about the forge. I've been busy. Between work, and designing my game, I've been really busy. I hope to be posting something soon.

So I editted some new stuff into the initial post. Take a look.

Ouch. Actually, Kev, please don't edit standing posts ever again, except for (say) spelling or something like that. It renders all the subsequent posts meaningless, and the Forge is very much dedicated to preserving the dialogues and counter-arguments as they occur.

In the future, just post the new stuff or revised text (all of it, even) at the end of the thread, or start a new one.

Thanks,
Ron

P.S. No blood no foul, you're not being spanked or anything. But them's the rules, from now on.

Sorry, Ron.....Didn't realize that. I'll do that in the future.

Kevin, you should maybe consider writing a new posting about it. I feel reluctant to go and comment anything since I don't know what comment belongs to what version.

Ya....I'm gonna be starting a new thread.

How can I link to the new thread?

If you're thinking about writing links that link to an article, you simply copy the url and paste it into the bbcode link tag.

It would look something like this in the editor:
here is goes the text you want to put a link on

If you wanted to make a link that displayed your old thread if someone clicked on it. The whole "http..." is simply copied from the article url.

O.K. The new thread is here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3897