I was wondering if you could help me with a percentile system. I need something snappy... simple which will not get in the way of anything. It's kind of like Unknown Armies a little, with some Fading Suns (what little I know of both systems). The mechanic appeals to me so... What I would propose is a system which goes something like this:

Attributes
Attributes are merely measurements of the character's ability in certain broad areas, common to all human beings. For example, Physical, Mental, Social, Spiritual etc.

Abilities/Skills
Abilities are what makes an individual character who they are. They are skills such as Brawling, Crafts, Athletics. Or maybe more specific, such as Basket Weaving, Daemonic Unbinding etc.

Character Creation (Vague)
Attributes
At this point players have a bunch of points to divide between their Attributes in order to outline their character. Perhaps the Attributes start off at, maybe 10. The range is from one (which would possibly be unhealthy/dead) to one hundred (woot/let's crush buildings with heads).

Abilities
Players now have skill points to distribute amongst either set skills, or a whole lot they have chosen themselves. The skill range is between 1 and nine. This portrays a character's level of skill in a particular field (for example: Athletics etc).

Basic Rolling (rolling under)
Okay. There are Physical feats, Mental feats and the like. A basic Attribute check works like this: two 2d10s are rolled. One does not declare the tens and units. Rather, the character tries to customize the roll to suit their score. For example:
- Jimmy rolls his Physical (35). He gets a 6 and a 1. '61? That doesn't sound good,' Jimmy thinks. So he reads it as 16. 'Neat-o,' he says. -

Fine. Simple. Now what if poor Jimmy needs to make a skill check? Wel, let us assume that Jimmy's character, 'Lem', is quite the street fighter. And his skill in Brawl is seven. And let us assume he rolled the same as in the previous example. Since it was a Physical success, Jimmy will now want to know how well he did. He rolls a lone d10. It falls gently from his sweating hand, bounces off the table's smooth, brown surface, spins a little and... a six. That's cool. He rolled under his skill level and got six successes. I'm not sure what the ratings will be, but bear with me (mmmh. bear).

If Jimmy had rolled a seven, it would have been a critical success. If he had rolled a ten, a failure. And if he rolled over his skill, but not gotten a ten, he still would have had one success. Sweet.

Now, what would have happened if Jimmy had rolled a 66 on his Physical check? He would not have been able to flip the result and would have failed. If he were attempting a skill, he would have had to roll a d10 to determine if his failure had been critical. If he got a ten, it would have been critical.

So that's it, friends. I know it probably has more holes than... uh, something with lots of holes. Here are my questions:

Does this sort of thing sound alright? I want it to be fairly generic.

Should I have levels of Failure, as I have of success?

What other pointers can you give? And to answer any questions you might have: I like mosts systems. They do what they're supposed to, for me; let a player roll dice and check stuff. There's nothing wrong with any of them. I'm just in some kind of system baking (mmmh) phase. :) Thanks.

b4d0m3n wrote: ...which will not get in the way of anything.

b4d0m3n wrote:
Abilities
Players now have skill points to distribute amongst either set skills, or a whole lot they have chosen themselves. The skill range is between 1 and nine. This portrays a character's level of skill in a particular field (for example: Athletics etc).

b4d0m3n wrote: Does this sort of thing sound alright? I want it to be fairly generic. Should I have levels of Failure, as I have of success?

b4d0m3n wrote: What other pointers can you give?

Andrew Martin wrote:

Have you considered simply measuring skill and attribute in percentiles? That would seem to me more "snappy", "simple" and "generic". And by not combining skill and attribute, the system will better match "reality" as it were. One could also leave out specifying attributes and skill names, and let the playing group decide on the important attributes, skills, relationships and so. This would allow the system to be more generic.

He means imagine sitting around the table with your friends and playing the game.

What's happening? Not just what are the characters doing, but what are the players doing.

When you imagine a player saying "do I notice anyone suspicious in the area", do you imagine yourself saying "ok make a roll", just describing what they do or dont see, checking your notes for the area, or even turning the question around and asking "I don't know what do you see...you tell me".

Play through a session of your imagined game in your head...literally, with all of the details. Don't just day dream in vagaries, but actually envision scenes. How did the characters get to that scene. Did you ask "where do you want to go next?" and the players answered. Did they stumble around shrugging and saying "I don't know, where should we go" until you had to prod them to the next scene. Or did you simply say "Ok next morning you find yourself deep in the Farren Woods...its dark and things have gotten suddenly quiet".

Get to the nitty gritty of the play, the individual dice rolls included. Who is calling for the rolls, you? the players? both for different reasons...what are those reasons. Actually imagine what a real session will look like. Not the idealized after action reports where everying is told in character and the rough spots are selectively edited out. But everything. Everything that went wrong, everything that went right, every moment that you said to your self...."yes...that's what I want play to be like"


Then start worrying about designing a system that will get you there. But if you don't have a destination in mind when you start designing...you're just wandering in the woods.

b4d0m3n wrote: Do you mean then that Attribute and Skill would be in no way connected?