Hello all,

I have published the latest version of Pollies on my website.

http://www.simplephrase.com/pollies/

I included a Fudge-esque license thingy for the benefit of Gwen and any others who may wish to use it, as discussed in this thread.

Plans for the future include the following:
- Tweaks and tucks as more playtesting uncovers issues
- Better organization of the document including a TOC with hyperlinks
- Possibly a bit of sprucing up of the presentation (although I tend to favor very Spartan web pages. They're easier, and I'm lazy! :) ).
- Some form of character advancement

I would greatly appreciate feedback on several aspects of this endeavor:
- The game as presented
- The way I handled the acknowledgements as discussed in this thread
- How well (or poorly) I addressed the issues discussed in this thread

Thanks, all!
Ethan

All still looks pretty straightforward.

One thing does strike me, however. As you have it, the chance of a "Critical" success decreases as the player gets more competent, and the chance of a critical failure actually decreases with the increasing difficulty. It really is dumb luck, and it gets dumber as you get better.

Instead of these things happening on min/maxed rolls on both dice, a simple change that I could suggest is that any success is a critical success if roll is a success, and the opposing roll is a one. And vice versa. But even that still doesn't take into account the skill or difficulty (it just doesn't work counter-intuitively against them as I mentioned above).

So what I think would work really well with your system (though it's slightly more complicated) is to say that a critical success occurs when the player's roll is not only higher than the opposing roll, but four times higher. Thus, even a player rolling d4 vs d20 can score a critical success (1:80) with the same odds as before. But a player fighting against better odds will have a better chance of citical success. And the reverse would also be true, of course (if the opposing roll is four times as high as the player's roll, it's a critical failure [or critical success for the opposing party, if you prefer that perspective]).

What follows is the odds of your current system, and then the odds using the system that I've delineated above.

[code]Player Oppos. Crit Crit
Die Die Fail Fail Tie Success Success
20 20 0.25% 47.25% 5.00% 47.25% 0.25%
20 12 0.42% 27.08% 5.00% 67.08% 0.42%
20 10 0.50% 22.00% 5.00% 72.00% 0.50%
20 8 0.63% 16.88% 5.00% 76.88% 0.63%
20 6 0.83% 11.67% 5.00% 81.67% 0.83%
20 4 1.25% 6.25% 5.00% 86.25% 1.25%
12 20 0.42% 67.08% 5.00% 27.08% 0.42%
12 12 0.69% 45.14% 8.33% 45.14% 0.69%
12 10 0.83% 36.67% 8.33% 53.33% 0.83%
12 8 1.04% 28.13% 8.33% 61.46% 1.04%
12 6 1.39% 19.44% 8.33% 69.44% 1.39%
12 4 2.08% 10.42% 8.33% 77.08% 2.08%
10 20 0.50% 72.00% 5.00% 22.00% 0.50%
10 12 0.83% 53.33% 8.33% 36.67% 0.83%
10 10 1.00% 44.00% 10.00% 44.00% 1.00%
10 8 1.25% 33.75% 10.00% 53.75% 1.25%
10 6 1.67% 23.33% 10.00% 63.33% 1.67%
10 4 2.50% 12.50% 10.00% 72.50% 2.50%
8 20 0.63% 76.88% 5.00% 16.88% 0.63%
8 12 1.04% 61.46% 8.33% 28.13% 1.04%
8 10 1.25% 53.75% 10.00% 33.75% 1.25%
8 8 1.56% 42.19% 12.50% 42.19% 1.56%
8 6 2.08% 29.17% 12.50% 54.17% 2.08%
8 4 3.13% 15.63% 12.50% 65.63% 3.13%
6 20 0.83% 81.67% 5.00% 11.67% 0.83%
6 12 1.39% 69.44% 8.33% 19.44% 1.39%
6 10 1.67% 63.33% 10.00% 23.33% 1.67%
6 8 2.08% 54.17% 12.50% 29.17% 2.08%
6 6 2.78% 38.89% 16.67% 38.89% 2.78%
6 4 4.17% 20.83% 16.67% 54.17% 4.17%
4 20 1.25% 86.25% 5.00% 6.25% 1.25%
4 12 2.08% 77.08% 8.33% 10.42% 2.08%
4 10 2.50% 72.50% 10.00% 12.50% 2.50%
4 8 3.13% 65.63% 12.50% 15.63% 3.13%
4 6 4.17% 54.17% 16.67% 20.83% 4.17%
4 4 6.25% 31.25% 25.00% 31.25% 6.25%


Player Oppos. Crit Crit
Die Die Fail Fail Tie Success Success
20 20 11.25% 36.25% 5.00% 36.25% 11.25%
20 12 6.25% 21.25% 5.00% 48.75% 18.75%
20 10 5.00% 17.50% 5.00% 50.00% 22.50%
20 8 3.75% 13.75% 5.00% 49.38% 28.13%
20 6 2.50% 10.00% 5.00% 45.00% 37.50%
20 4 1.25% 6.25% 5.00% 32.50% 55.00%
12 20 18.75% 48.75% 5.00% 21.25% 6.25%
12 12 10.42% 35.42% 8.33% 35.42% 10.42%
12 10 8.33% 29.17% 8.33% 41.67% 12.50%
12 8 6.25% 22.92% 8.33% 46.88% 15.63%
12 6 4.17% 16.67% 8.33% 50.00% 20.83%
12 4 2.08% 10.42% 8.33% 47.92% 31.25%
10 20 22.50% 50.00% 5.00% 17.50% 5.00%
10 12 12.50% 41.67% 8.33% 29.17% 8.33%
10 10 10.00% 35.00% 10.00% 35.00% 10.00%
10 8 7.50% 27.50% 10.00% 42.50% 12.50%
10 6 5.00% 20.00% 10.00% 48.33% 16.67%
10 4 2.50% 12.50% 10.00% 50.00% 25.00%
8 20 28.13% 49.38% 5.00% 13.75% 3.75%
8 12 15.63% 46.88% 8.33% 22.92% 6.25%
8 10 12.50% 42.50% 10.00% 27.50% 7.50%
8 8 9.38% 34.38% 12.50% 34.38% 9.38%
8 6 6.25% 25.00% 12.50% 43.75% 12.50%
8 4 3.13% 15.63% 12.50% 50.00% 18.75%
6 20 37.50% 45.00% 5.00% 10.00% 2.50%
6 12 20.83% 50.00% 8.33% 16.67% 4.17%
6 10 16.67% 48.33% 10.00% 20.00% 5.00%
6 8 12.50% 43.75% 12.50% 25.00% 6.25%
6 6 8.33% 33.33% 16.67% 33.33% 8.33%
6 4 4.17% 20.83% 16.67% 45.83% 12.50%
4 20 55.00% 32.50% 5.00% 6.25% 1.25%
4 12 31.25% 47.92% 8.33% 10.42% 2.08%
4 10 25.00% 50.00% 10.00% 12.50% 2.50%
4 8 18.75% 50.00% 12.50% 15.63% 3.13%
4 6 12.50% 45.83% 16.67% 20.83% 4.17%
4 4 6.25% 31.25% 25.00% 31.25% 6.25%[/code]

This does have the effect of making Criticals about 8 times as common overall (12.9% vs 1.7%), but this is mostly stacked in the unusual cases where the dice are highly disparate types. That's what I was going for, though.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: All still looks pretty straightforward.

So, as you get good at something luck becomes less of a factor? I can buy that. But it doesn't seem very Narrativist. Actually that's a non-issue, but we can say that what we've both been talking about is realism, both giving rational reasons why one might be a better model than the other.

But let's throw that aside for a moment. The only real question is how often do you want these different sorts of results to come into play, and when? Your system has "Dumb luck" or "criticals" or whatever occur when people are less skilled, and on easy tasks, and, in general terms, less than mine. My system has these things occur more often, and more when the stakes are higher. If you are going to have these sorts of results at all, then it makes sense to me that they are the sort of thing thats supposed to heighten drama. If so, then I'd think that it would be cooler to see these things more in high-stakes situations as dramatic outcomes, and to have them occur on one in eight rolls, as opposed to one in sixty.

But that's just how I see it. As long as it works for you as is, then great!

Mike

Well, per this discussion and some more playtesting, I've scrapped the critical/dumb luck rules. Margin of success is a tool available to the GM to interpret specific tasks. So if a character succeeds by 12, it's more impressive than if the character succeeds by 2 for example. With this in mind, I've also modified the system so that success is achieved when trait is greater than or equal to the difficulty. GM may interpret an exact success as desired.

Hi there,

I highly endorse this solution. Focusing on high-impact, low-probability "criticals" of failure and success is one of those habits of design which is very hard to shake, but on reflection, really isn't a very important or interesting aspect of role-playing, in most cases.

Best,
Ron