One of the central ideas behind the mechanics for Spiritus Mundi is that it can be used both as a normal table-top rpg and as a live-action rpg (larp). Because of that, I use the Karma resolution method, with the addition of luck points to modify them.

People add their attribute to their skill, and then compare. Each person has a luck pool which gets replenished at the end of each game. A luck point spent modifies the number by one point. Luck can only be spent before you find out what the other person's number is, so it's a gamble.

For example, John has +2 Dexterity, 4 Melee and he tries to take a swing at Marcus, who has +1 Dexterity and 4 Melee. John's final number is 6, Marcus' is 5, so John would normally win. However, each has five luck points. John had decided to spend 1 luck, bringing his score up to 7, but Marcus had decided to spend 3, bringing his score up to 8. Marcus wins.

One problem I can see is that if a person interacts with an inanimate object (such as picking a lock or climbing a wall), which does not have any luck, then he will be facing a normal number, one that he probably has a good idea about how good it is. For example, a person with Dexterity +1 and Lockpicking 5 will always open a lock that's rated 3.

Does anyone have any idea about how to get around this problem? Or is it not a problem for people to know whether they will automatically succeed or fail when entering situations against inanimate objects?

Does this look like a workable core mechanic, or is it too clumsy?

Bevan wrote: Does anyone have any idea about how to get around this problem? Or is it not a problem for people to know whether they will automatically succeed or fail when entering situations against inanimate objects?

Bevan wrote: Does this look like a workable core mechanic, or is it too clumsy?

It's an occult investigation/conspiracy game set in a modern low-fantasy world. Inspired by games such as Sorcerer, Illuminati, and Unknown Armies, movies such as Ninth Gate and Candyman, novels like Fouchaults' Pendulum and the Illuminatus trilogy, and the TV show Twin Peaks.

The game is supposed to be narrativist in style, with the rules subservient to the story. With the exception of the supernatural elements, the characters are normal people, and don’t exhibit cinematic prowess that defies the laws of probabilities (leaping between buildings, fending off armies of enemies, etc.).

I'm more concerned with the rules being streamlined and simple than realistic.

Streamlined, simple and realistic all point to, in most cases, people just being able to do stuff. For example, under normal circumstances I will always safely drive to work. I will always succesfully cook oven chips, and I will always win at Tekken...

I agree with the examples that you give, but the examples in question are pretty mundane occurences, which most games allow you to perform automatically anyway.

My question is, should the character always be able to pick the lock, climb the cliff, and dodge out of the way of the falling rocks? These are dramatic situations which allows a fortune-based game to have an element of chance and suspense through the player not knowing the outcoem. Does it weaken the game to remove this element of suspense?

I'm uncertain of how important it is to have inanimate challenges be varying in difficulty. I'm personally comfortable enouigh with playing a system that is largely Karma with minor Luck management (AE); I've added allowing players, once per game, to invoke a critical failure upon themselves in a good fashion. I reward 1 Luck for creative/challenging failures (and am free to withold them otherwise). Certainly, there should be some limited range of variance for inanimate difficulties (so a Lockpick 5 +2 Dex might always beat a Lock 3).

But other ways of adding this variance to inanimate challenges:
* flip a coin? (+1/+0)
* give the GM pool of Bad Luck to make inanimate situations worse; if such a situation is successful anyway, then award those points as PC luck points
* in a LARP, check the seconds hand on the watch; odd means +1 to the difficulty.

From what I knwo about lock picking, once you know how to pick one type of lock it's as easy as standing up. A way round it is for unfamiliar lock types you could add n extra difficulty of Say +1 or +2. but once they have opend that type of lock a few time. then their is no modifier.

I think this will wokr with most situations, even rock climbing (Yep tried that once never again). I knwo people who are mad enough to climb mountians, new mountians and types of face are always a challenge, but when doid you last her of it raining mauntain climbers. Accasionally one slips rarely one dies. When your skilled at something you useually never fail but will give up if the task is to hard. As most things are alogical proccess of tests untill you succed at the task. That sereis of tests is based in your past experience and training. so always may first times harder, but offer more XP for success.

Haveing LARPed a lot, I know how clunky cards of coin flipping can be. if hte system is not designed around them. at the end of the day you need something thats quick and easy to remember. and of course dose nto slow the game down.

One way you could introduce cards in to the game is this.

in stead of 5 luckpoints each player randomly draws 5 cards, Values on cards range from +1 to +5, The lower the bonus the shorter time it takes to fulfil that task so +1 could be 10 seconds +5 about 10 minutes. This would reflet things a bit better. However for combat each card is just worth +1, so you have a gamble as you may need a +1 for combat, but the card is a +5, the option take the damage and save the good card or risk the card. In a deck, Split it like so. 5% of cards + 5 10% +4, 20% +3, 30% +2, 40% +1. Makes the +5 cards a rare item. I think with the time element in their you also have more of a gamble.

The time mechanice coupled with the first try mechanic could make for an interesting combo. may be worth some testing.

This will add tension and make character nervous about things they have never done before, as the element of risk is greater.