MUGS - Marginally Useful Game System

Mugs is a marginally useful role playing game. One character takes the role of GM, all the rest of the players play one or more player characters. You know the rest.

Actually, the idea for this game has been going around in my head all night. At this point, I just want to get it down. No real playtest, just dropping dice to check out the core mechanic. This is not polished text, I am simply trying to get it down in words so I can ask for some help.

BTW this game uses both fortune in the beginning, freeform traits and use any dice/any number of dice blackjack roll under resolution system which are harder for me to describe than most RPG systems.

Traits

All characters have a number (many for PCs, fewer for unimportant NPCs) freeform traits that can be used to describe the character, their motivation, an item, a relationship, anything that the player wishes to see expressed in play.

Sample Character (PCs are detailed to player's satisfaction)

Exegis the Torturer's Apprentice
The Torturer's Art 10
Interrogate Client 9
Avenge Father's Death 9
Intimidate Weak 8
Physiology 8
Knowledge of Rebellion 8
Born in Scrandarg (Northern Mountain Region) 7
Loyal to Master Erberus 7
Human Physiology 7
Chain Mail Armor 7
Elgar's Ring of Fear 6
Muscular 6
Wrap Wounds 6
Two Handed Sword 6
Perceptive 6
Lore of the Order of Torturers 5
Stay Awake 5
Silent Movement 5
String of the Scorpion 5
Torturer's Grip 5
etc.

Basic Resolution

Whenever the character attempts to do something with meaningful the player rolls as many dice as he wants. Almost any kind of dice will do. D4, D5, D6, D8, D7, D10, D12, D20, etc. (Certain sorts of dice - D2, Fudge Dice, averaging dice - may require GM approval.) Intent does not have to be stated before rolling, neither does the trait that the player wishes to use.

After the dice are rolled, if the result is higher than the highest trait that the character has (an 11 in the example of Exegis above) the character fails. The player then describes failing at something.

If the player does not automatically fail, the player picks a trait for which they have rolled equal to or under and describes how they succeed using that trait(but not describe the result). The GM assesses any bonuses or penalties. This is the total for the PC.

Now, the GM rolls dice. If her result is over the highest trait (or difficulty) of the opposition, the PC has succeeded by the amount they have rolled. If the result is equal to or higher than the player's original roll then the GM's character describes how he escaped using a trait that is higher that the PC's total. If GM's total is lower than the PC's then the GM's character or circumstance has reduced the margin of victory for the PC. Subtract the GM's total from the Players total this is the Outcome.

Outcome Basics

0 - Tie
1 - 3 - Small Victory
4 - 6 - Medium Victory
7 - 9 - Large Victory
10+ Complete Utter Victory

Narration rules based on victory will be provided later.

Example

Prisoner

Difficult 10
Spy 7
Dedicated to the Rebellion 6

Exegis is escorting a prisoner to his cell. He rolls 2D4 and gets a total of 6. He decides to use his Perceptive skill it is also a 6. So he gets a result of 6. Exegis' character says that he notices that his prisoner is carrying something. The GM decides to roll 2D6 (although she could have rolled a D10, D4+D6, 3D4, D30) since that would give the prisoner pretty good odds to beat Exegis' perception, but fairly small odds of failure in the roll of a 10 or 11). In this case, the GM rolled a 6 & 5, an 11. The prisoner failed (its highest trait was a 10). All 6 points can be applied to the outcome for a Medium Victory. The torturer found a secret message in the prisoner's hand (or a knife). If the GM rolled a 7 a narration could be made that using the prisoner's spy skills, Exegis saw something but after a search can't find it. If a 4 was rolled that would leave an outcome of 3 which could be narrated as having seen something, but it turned out not to be important (a love letter for example).

Extended Resolution

Extended resolution uses rounds. At the beginning of an extended conflict every character rolls dice, as many as they want. If they roll equal or under an appropriate trait they can narrate how they use that trait to gain an advantage in entering the fray (whether combat or debate or magical duel). The GM can give bonuses or penalties (as always) for creative description, good tactics or inappropriate trait use. Each characters score is their initiative. Highest initiative goes first. If a character rolls over their highest applicable trait, their initiative is 0.

Each character begins their turn by rolling the dice, picking a trait and describing an action. (Exegis rolls D6+D4 for a result of 6, he uses Elgar's Ring of Fear against the opposition, they must roll 6 or higher to shrug off the effect).

Each character gets one roll per round when they are active, and a roll every time they are attacked.

Every time a character has an Outcome go against them they receive Damage. Damage is not necessarily physical, it can also signify loss of face or position, anything that is detrimental to the character in the conflict. If on any future roll that number or under comes up, the character fails, the result is changed to 0. (Example if Exegis has a Damage of 3 every time a 1, 2 or 3 is rolled, it is now considered 0, just as if Exegis had over rolled and failed that way).

Everytime a character takes damage add it to the existing damage.

When a character's damage equals or exceeds his highest trait, they are out of the contest. Their fate will be determined by the winners of the contest.

Disengaging from a conflict is also a roll, but the opposition is allowed to make a "parting shot."

Further Rolling Aspects

Rolling the minimum possible (example 1 on a D10 or a 5 on 3D4+2D6) means that you can improvise a brand new trait at that level.

Possible Rule: Rolling the maximum possible (12 on a 2d6 for example) gives the character an advancement point regardless of whether they succeeded at the task at hand or not.

Possible Rule: Rolling exactly the number of the trait that you use in an extended contest assures that you will always get 1 outcome damage against the opposition regardless of their roll).

What do you do in this game?

Not much, yet. Right now it is more just a few interlocking mechanics slapped together, more of a concept game than a real game. I would like to get into a condition that I can position it like Risus or Clinton's Too Much Coffee game. Right now, I see it as a net-freebie concept game to feature some alternative mechanics. If I found a killer app, something that this game did particularly well, I might be tempted to develop it much further.

What do I want?

Right now, the only way a character can have an effect is to directly attack the opposition. I would like some way for other characters to be able to augment other characters outcomes. (Use your Distract Enemies to help another character's Longsword result for example).

Also, I KNOW that I haven't described this well. Because 1) my writing sucks and 2) I am using different concepts than I normally do. Please feel free to ask any questions, comment, critique or lambaste. All feedback is welcome on any part of the game.

(Edited for spelling and clarity)

My first idea for augmentation is this...

After you roll, if you decide not to use a trait to attack, but instead to help someone choose an appropriate trait and consult this chart while describing how your action and the trait will help the other character.

1 - 3 - Small Contribution (+1)
4 - 6 - Medium Contribution (+2)
7 - 9 - Large Contribution (+3)
10+ OH MY GOD! (+4)

These bonuses (like ALL bonuses) are added after the other player has rolled and picked a trait.

Of course, if you roll over your traits, there is no augmentation.

No more than 5 points of bonuses can be added on to one result (although multiple people could contribute to another players "bonus pool").

I am not sure I am totally thrilled with this. This is why I ask for your help.

BTW the game probably needs a better name too. Help.

There is something cool about this. Wait on the name until you have a better grasp for all the feel of this. But there is something cool.

I would simplify the rules like this:

(1) It's like blackjack. You want to roll as high as possible while avoiding some sort of limit; going over the limit gets you zero. You sometimes have a lower limit, and being below that limit also gets you zero.
(1b) There's also a lower limit equal to your
(2) Everything is an opposed roll. (Either against some dude or against the GM for abstract tasks. But if the GM doesn't want to roll, it's a zero.)
(3) Both sides roll, picking the applicable trait they're using (or none if there are no good ones, in which there roll defaults to zero). The higher number wins; the margin tells how much.

And from there, you could try putting it all a different way (if you have worries about clarity) , but I do like it. Some thoughts:

* how about calling Damage a Setback or Disadvantage? Then you have Temporary and Permanent Disadvantage (minor shock v. bleeding, or the non-combat analogues). These create a minimum above which the roll must be made. This could easily account for having players indirectly help (distraction = giving a temporary Disadvantage until the end of turn).

* You could have Advantage points (even of Temporary/Permanent nature), spendable to move the die result up or down. (You may prefer to use only Disadvantage chips in the system.)

* How about initiative is players act in order form highest roll to lowest roll (rolling whatever dice they chose), and applying that number on their turn to whatever action they choose?

* It would be easy to set the Damage equal to the margin of success, especially if it comes to represent abstract Disadvantage.

* For character creation, I would get a kick out of totally unrestricted listings of traits/levels, but any sort of point-based or otherwise restriction would work just fine.

* With optional rules: Advancement points and New Impovised Traits are really easy to get, if you're willing to fail for the purpose of getting really low / really high numbers.

* Negative trait invocations: you could rank negative traits on this scale (i.e. Drunkard 3), and allow the GM to use this for the task. In effect, using the player's trait against him. You could use a FATE-like incentives/cost system to encourage the taking of negative traits (e.g. before the roll is made but after the die is chosen, you commit to either resisting (paying the result) or giving in (earning the result), regardless of whether it keeps you from succeeding.)

* In unopposed tasks, you could represent the challenge by (a) giving temporary Disadvantage tokens to the player for the task, or (b) invoking the negative invocation if there was one. Barring these, you could assume a roll of zero.

* The margin-of-victory scale and your traits seem to be based around 10 as the more-or-less maximum. (I suppose with epic characters notwithstanding.) Is this what you have in mind? It might be nice if you had some counterbalancing affect to having very large skill numbers - so that folks could assign whatever number they wanted, at their own peril - but I'm not sure how to go about doing that. (Maybe the negative-invocation as above.)

* One other thing to keep in mind is: optimal play in terms of die selection. That is, although there is richness in having players essentially constructing their own adhoc probability curves as per situation, there is always a superior strategy for someone trying to get some number X. (As you say, d2s are a bit dangerous in this regard, but then d4s are still susceptible.) You have to be comfortable that there is usually a relatively "right" answer for a given situation, in a sort of gamist way, and that both the player and the GM are commited to finding the most optimal die combination. The players will attempt to collectively metagame about the best die combination, while the GM is required (for fair play) to always use the best possible die combination, and may be attacked if he uses a particularly weak strategy for one player while not favoring the others.

This game being cool isn't dependent on the ability to use whatever sort of die pool you want. You could standardized the construction of a die pool to keep things within the realm of sanity. (So you could use, say, a d10 or two, and up to 4d6, but no d2s, and so on. Alternately, guidelines for GMs as to what dice are recommended could be helpful. The construction of the communal die pool could be part of customizing the game for the setting.)

Dev, what is your rate? I am ready to hire you to write this now! You certainly seem to have an intuitve grasp of the system without playing it. A few points:(anyone is welcome to respond)

1) Damage was just a place holder name, I like your suggestions for replacements though. I particularly like Disadvantage since it would allow me to have another pool called Advantage.

2) I considered allowing the initiative roll also be the value for each player's first roll in that round. I still might do it. It is just so far from what I/most roleplayers are used to. This is definitely something I will test as soon as I can get some actual play. What are the down sides of doing it this way?

3) You said "It would be easy to set the Damage equal to the margin of success, especially if it comes to represent abstract Disadvantage." Explain. I am not sure exactly how this is different from what I am saying, though I sense that you intend something different?

4) Character Creation: A few ideas:

Standard Character Generation:
Starting characters get:
1 trait at level 10
2 traits at level 9
3 traits at level 8
4 traits at level 7
5 traits at level 6
As many traits as they want at level 5 or below.

Random Character Generation:
Roll 20 traits using any dice against a value of 10. If you roll higher than a 10, you don't get that trait

Level Based Character Generation:
You get as many traits you want at any level as long as it is at or below the cap level as set by the GM. A 10th level character would have traits running from 1-10. The GM may opt for no cap.

Template Based Characters
Characters would use one of the above characters generation methods, but they would only have access to traits available that are listed on templates. Templates are simply a list. They may be of traits that define a species, an occupation, a culture, a membership in a group, etc.

Improvised Characters
No set traits until it is time for the character to use them. The player then writes down the trait and gives it a score based on one of the above methods. The player cannot spend any advancement points until the character has at least 15 traits above level 5. At that point, the character is complete and can start advancing normally.

Do you like any/all/none of these character creation options?

5) You said: "With optional rules: Advancement points and New Impovised Traits are really easy to get, if you're willing to fail for the purpose of getting really low / really high numbers." I am examining this as an incentive to risk failure or a low roll. (Although it is perfectly feasible to succeed and get advancement points this way as well.) Does it imbalance the game in any way I am not seeing? These advancement features basically take the place of the "participation" points that you might get in other games.

6) Negative Trait Invocations: Here I really do think you were looking over my shoulder since this was a rule that I had in mind, but did not state in my original summary. I had an idea that every time the GM rolled against a trait that the character recieve an advancement point. Most traits however can be used either way (as a positive or a negative). Your GM may roll against your Drunkard trait when you are trying to impress the queen or avoid a quick nip in the bar, but you may roll on it when you want to identify a type of alcohol or carouse with the Viking raiders.

7) One possible way of handing unopposed tasks is to give the universe an unalterable trait of Difficult which varies according to the task at hand. I guess I imagined all tasks as opposed by something. When swimming across a river, the character rolls his, say Swiming or From the Lake District trait while the river might simply be statted out as

Dark River: Difficult 6

or maybe as:

Dark River: Eddies 9, Sharp Rocks 7, Fast Current 6, Man Eating Fish 4

8) The choice of a 10 scale was somewhat arbitrary since I gave starting characters a 10 (based on what would give characters the most interesting die curves). I am thinking that normal human maximum would probably be about 20 (i.e. they could roll a D20, 2D10 and would never overshoot). Epic legendary Paul Bunyan type characters might have a Strength in the 30 range.

9) As for the you can choose any skill at any level idea, maybe make the active player take damage for rolls a certain number of degrees below the trait that he is using. Example: Hercules wants to lift the boulder (Heavy 20) he rolls his Strength 50 and comes up with a 32, he can lift it, but must take 8 damage for being that many beneath 10 under the trait. I never really considered having truly unlimited trait values, but that is a slightly math heavy way of handling it.

10) The metagaming aspect of the dice system is something that really appeals to me. The system does award player competence at picking the right dice to throw, plus it gives the system more of a gambling type feel, success feels more like a result of player choice since they might choose a riskier roll that has a higher average of success vs a guaranteed success with a lower average success level. On the other hand, the system could be percieved as overly gimicky, but I think it fits the fortune in the begininng mechanics fairly well.

I am open to suggestions/help from any and all.

2) I considered allowing the initiative roll also be the value for each player's first roll in that round. I still might do it. It is just so far from what I/most roleplayers are used to. This is definitely something I will test as soon as I can get some actual play. What are the down sides of doing it this way?

3) You said "It would be easy to set the Damage equal to the margin of success, especially if it comes to represent abstract Disadvantage." Explain. I am not sure exactly how this is different from what I am saying, though I sense that you intend something different?

4) Character Creation: A few ideas:

5) You said: "With optional rules: Advancement points and New Impovised Traits are really easy to get, if you're willing to fail for the purpose of getting really low / really high numbers." I am examining this as an incentive to risk failure or a low roll.

6) Negative Trait Invocations:
I had an idea that every time the GM rolled against a trait that the character recieve an advancement point. Most traits however can be used either way (as a positive or a negative). Your GM may roll against your Drunkard trait when you are trying to impress the queen or avoid a quick nip in the bar, but you may roll on it when you want to identify a type of alcohol or carouse with the Viking raiders.

Dark River: Difficult 6

or maybe as:

Dark River: Eddies 9, Sharp Rocks 7, Fast Current 6, Man Eating Fish 4

9) As for the you can choose any skill at any level idea...

8) The choice of a 10 scale was somewhat arbitrary since I gave starting characters a 10 (based on what would give characters the most interesting die curves). I am thinking that normal human maximum would probably be about 20 (i.e. they could roll a D20, 2D10 and would never overshoot). Epic legendary Paul Bunyan type characters might have a Strength in the 30 range.

10) The metagaming aspect of the dice system is something that really appeals to me.

Folks,

I am sorry for the numbered lists, it makes it easier for me to keep track of my points.

1) I am not sure how often people would roll over all their traits. Especially early on in an exchange. Players (unless they have severe "damage") will always have some options. A character with a "damage" of 9 and a top trait of 10 may only be able to use that trait. But they would probably choose to roll a 3d6 or a 4D4 and come up with a 10 much more reliably than they would if they just rolled a D10. I think on initiative roll especially, there is an incentive to play it safe (i.e. don't roll any dice that might result in a roll over). I could be very wrong about this, and even if I am, it is a result of player choice.

2) What do people who roll over in combat do? Anything, really, narration rights are absolutely free, I suggested the narration of a failure of some sort, but I don't really see why they couldn't narrate any other sort of action. It is just that the action doesn't end up contributing anything to the overall success or failure in an exchange.

Possible narrations for your stereotypical knight character:

Sir Kenneth - Long Sword 11, Loyalty to the King 10, Protect the Innocent 9, Plate Mail Armor 9, Code of Honor 8, Love God 8, Joust 8, etc.

Sir Kenneth is deep in combat with a group of infidels and rolls 3D6 knowing that he might be able to maximize his use of the long sword (strong likelihood of a 10 or 11). He rolls a 13. He could narrate anything:

Thrusting his Long Sword at the head of the infidels and missing

Thrusting his Long Sword at the infadel and hitting (but all the infidel needs to do is narrate why it doesn't hurt him, a roll over is simply a roll of 0 which can be countered by simple narration).

Changing position (maybe pick up some situational bonuses later if the narration is particulary clever, but the GM need not acknowledge that since the mechanic has said that).

Temporarily retreating to reassess the position.

Says quick prayer to his God before the last onslaught.

etc.

Essentially, a 0 level narration has no mechanical impact on future actions and requires no response from any other participant, though the GM may narrate to maintain verisimilitude if desired.

My question, does this work? Again, I am not sure how often roll overs will occur. Or rather that player's who risk rollovers know the risk they are taking. I am dying to see how this occurs in actual play.

3) "Damage" so to speak is always a matter of your successes vs their successes. Although, individual weapons can have trait ratings at well that can be rolled against or used as augmentation bonuses on other rolls.

4) I love FATE btw! Adding lifepaths to this system would be fairly simple because they often result in a pyramid style structure of my standard method. I will definitely get some guidelines for a lifepath system goin. I also like the idea of pulling out the traits of a short narrative as in the Pool and Hero Wars, good if the simple listing method or templates are not inspiring enough to creative players.

5) I was thinking of making advancement expensive for campaign style games (with additional points handed out for achieving goals etc) but cheap for one shots. So yes, someone can roll a D4 for everything, but they do it at the expense of being effective in the game. And an improvised trait of 1 is really not that useful, this was more of a way to encourage funky, different narration and give a bone to those who manage to roll a 4 on a 4D6. Again, at most this will ever be is an option, it just adds color to the game "I failed, but I really feel that I learned something" or "I remember to my youth in the woods when I studied tracking with my uncle Festus for a Tracking of 1."

6) The player's rolling the dice MEANS that a particular action matters and is meaningful to the player. If an action isn't that meaningful, there is no need to roll for it, just narrate it. But a player rolling the dice should signal to the GM that he should provide some conflict or adversity.

7) On the other hand, I LOVE your Risk Chips idea for advancement/penalties. I wanted to stay away from gambling mechanics with this game (because I have done them in the past and they usually work better in terms of design elegance rather than actual play) but I do like this a lot.

8) Yes, I do plan for everything to have the ability to be statable. Equipment, organizations, geographical features, etc. That is why I want to get my augmentation guidelines in place that way a ninja with his Disappear Into Shadows 8 can take advantage of the Skull Grotto's trait of Dark Shadows 6 for some kind of bonus. Similarly I think that the Driver 6 should get a point or two bonus for Smooth Suspension 8, though rolling directly on the smooth suspension should be an option as well so that Driver 8 can get something for a Smooth Suspension 6.

9) A fully fleshed out version might have quite an extensive guide to dice rolling techniques. On the other hand, if I didn't include it, it could be seen as a metagame type of reward for player's who have had experience with many sort of additive dicing systems. My guess that is someone who has played GURPS, D6, Fudge and D20 would have some slight skill advantage in this game over someone who has only ever played D&D simply becuase they are used to handling more different types of probability curves.

10) I actually like the idea of Fudge dice hitting the table with all the rest except that players could end up throwing down way too many dice to flatten certain rolls and because it leads to chances of a negative result (which isn't really a problem, just add it to the opposition's score, but it definitely strikes me something at the player's discretion, not the designer's).

Thanks again for the help, I know I didn't address every point, but I will try to get back to some of the loose threads later. In the mean time, feel free to address any point.

I would like to see some other opinions on this. Anyone?

Mark Johnson wrote: 1) I am not sure how often people would roll over all their traits. Especially early on in an exchange.

3) "Damage" so to speak is always a matter of your successes vs their successes. Although, individual weapons can have trait ratings at well that can be rolled against or used as augmentation bonuses on other rolls.

7) On the other hand, I LOVE your Risk Chips idea for advancement/penalties. I wanted to stay away from gambling mechanics with this game (because I have done them in the past and they usually work better in terms of design elegance rather than actual play) but I do like this a lot.

8) Yes, I do plan for everything to have the ability to be statable. Equipment, organizations, geographical features, etc. That is why I want to get my augmentation guidelines in place that way a ninja with his Disappear Into Shadows 8 can take advantage of the Skull Grotto's trait of Dark Shadows 6 for some kind of bonus. Similarly I think that the Driver 6 should get a point or two bonus for Smooth Suspension 8, though rolling directly on the smooth suspension should be an option as well so that Driver 8 can get something for a Smooth Suspension 6.

10) I actually like the idea of Fudge dice hitting the table with all the rest except that players could end up throwing down way too many dice to flatten certain rolls...

Sorry to be so long to get back here. I have been trying to write up the rules in a more concise and readable form. I feel that the ad hoc presentation of the rules in the original post has discouraged folks from responding to this thread. Regardless, I am getting great feedback from Dev and it is definitely helping me pull my ideas together.

Do we differentiate between rollover failing and failing by rolling less than your target?

Yes, partially because most rollover failures will probably simply be narrated. Here Exegis confronts his brother in combat over the death of his father.

"I charge at my brother with my axe. I swing wildly and miss"

or

"I slip on the wet rock. I dodge my brother's blows as I pull myself up."

or

"I take a moment and rexamine my position."

or

"I pummel him over and over with my fists. But he just sucks it up. He doesn't even seem phased by it."

While a rolling less is narrated as a success that has been mitigated by some action or quality of the target. This assumes that the defensive target rolls after the attacker has declared his action.

"I swing my mace at my brother and land a solid hit."
Brother (using Armor trait): "My armor absorbs the hit. The blow jars my body, but I quickly return to action."

or

"I shoot an arrow through the son of a bitch."
Brother (using Dodge trait): "Seeing the arrow coming I fall to the ground. The arrow rips at the surface of my flesh, but no permanent damage."

Does this work? These descriptions are a little rough. I will have fairly clear guidelines on what kind of narrations will be encouraged.

Permanent Disads vs. Temporary (until end of round) Disads

Here is how I am thinking of it now. Temporary Disadvantages and Temporary Advantages (bonus/penalties to results) are delivered via augmentations and Permanent Disadvantages (damage) are done via direct attacks. I am thinking that Temporary Disadvantages/Advantages only apply to the next roll (either defensive or offensive) but will look at instituting them for the entire round.

The problem with the round method is the bookkeeping required for when they are in and out of play (since multiple opponents will try to deliver cumulative advantages/disadvantages to the same target). I know that many games require much more bookkeeping than this. And if I incorporate some sort of rules for super powers, magic or psionics (depending on what kind of setting/genre this system is applied to) I will probably need to have advantages/disadvantages that last for more than simply the next roll.

Fudge and Other Dicing Matters

The basic rules will only mention regular gaming dice with social contract governing whatever other types of dice can be used.

One optional rule might be that you when throwing multiple dice you can't throw two of the same dice during the same roll. No 4D4s with this rule.

Another optional rule might only allow D6s to be used. I might even include a line in the introductory rules saying "You can use almost any kind of gaming dice, but if you don't have gaming dice, don't worry, just grab some regular six sided dice out of a board game, they work fine." I chose 10 as my upper trait limit for beginning characters because it works so well with D6s. Someone with a trait of 10 (probably there most used/important trait) three viable options for rolling: a 1D6 for absolute certainty of not rolling over, a 2D6 for a higher average and a small chance of rolling over (useful if the character has some "damage") and a 3D6 if you really need to make a 10 (but with a 50% chance at outright failure).

Final Notes

Any thoughts on a clever name? A setting or genre where this might work best?

Also, my thought is now instead of getting an advancement point for rolling the max on a roll, that the person can allocate a temporary advantage/disadvantage point to anyone via narration (even if he failed the roll). "I shoot a crossbow at my brother, he dodges out of the way but slips on the wet rocks." (-1 on his brother's next roll reflecting the fact that he has to get up before he can truly rejoin the frey).

Note: Bonuses/Penalties from what we are now calling Temporary Disadvantages/Advantages are only applied to successeful rolls (Roll at or under the trait being used.

I would love trying these mechanics out in any sort of environment. Let me get the initial game text polished up with maybe one more round of critiques before starting. Anyone who is interested drop me a PM.

I think I follow this... but I'm not sure it doesn't suffer from a mild excess of gaming-the-numbers when you roll the dice. As pointed out, it's like blackjack, and you get to tweak the deck and number of draws (two cards from a standard deck, vs. four draws from a deck of ones through sixes). And in that setup, anyone familiar with probability will (a) have a huge advantage over less numerate people, not a big deal in some groups but frustrating in others, and (b) settle on a fairly optimal strategy quite quickly.

What you want as a player is a distribution with a narrow spike at some value, X, which falls off sharply such that your failures, anything over Y, occur rarely enough for your taste, and such that low rolls are unlikely. All you do is decide what's "acceptably rare" for failure, to you, right now, and then pick dice which fit this model. The smaller the die size the better, as this narrows the spike around the average roll.

Facing this system (Gamist-wise, anyway), I'd use exclusively d3s and d4s, and never anything else. In a normal situation, aim for (trait minus 2) or maybe (minus 3); in situations where even a win by a small margin is vital and risk is acceptable, aim a little higher, and in situations where failure is unacceptable but a loss by a small margin is OK, aim lower. Every d3 chips in two toward this number; every d4 chips in 2.5 toward it. Choose dice pool such that this gets you an average roll right on your 'aim point'.

F'rex, given an appropriate trait valued at ten and a normal situation, I'd probably aim at eight, and therefore roll 4d3. With only one way to get 12, and four ways to get 11, out of 3^4 = 81 results, my odds of failing are ~6%, and it's equally unlikely I'll see a result below 6. The majority of my rolls will be 7-9, meaning that against an evenly matched opposition (also trait value 10), I'll suffer at most a losing margin of 3 points on my worst-likely and his best-possible rolls. The only way he has a net advantage, sort of, is if he decided that more risk of total failure was acceptable, and aimed at eight point five (using 3d3+d4) or nine (2d3+2d4) instead.

Any other scheme than many-small-dice both increases my chance of failure (top end of curve is more likely) and increases my chance of a poor roll that would be easily beaten.

Allowing something like d2s would make that, in turn, the unarguably best strategy, over d3s - by a noticeable margin. Disallowing d3s would make d4s dominant, and so on. Period.

Now, is this a fatal issue? Not necessarily, provided it's written up clearly enough that even less math-savvy folks can use it. For example, rather than put a "you fail below X" rider on a disadvantage or wound, put a minimum die size on it instead. Kind of like die caps in the old WEG d6 Star Wars system. If a Star Destroyer tried to shoot an X-Wing directly, all his d6es (of which there are, still, quite a lot) got capped at something like threes, becoming basically 1-2-3-3-3-3 on the die. In the case of this system, say, you might get wounded and lose your "right to" d3s, until healed. You can still achieve best success with some other combo, but you have to face higher risks of poor performance and outright failure.

Or, rather than wounds, tie anything you like to this... you can only use d3s when your Passion scores are firing, a la TROS; you earn XP equal to one roll of the smallest die you used in a night, at the end of the session (or just its number of faces); you choose those dice out of a specific set purchased at chargen, when d3s cost more points than d4s and thus limited your Trait scores; whatever. But be aware that it's there.

- Eric

Followup thought: A good way to enforce "smallest die size used" in an advancement role would be this: Advancement rolls for a trait are made on a single open-ended dX, where this is the smallest die used on rolls with that trait. The roll must equal or exceed the trait for the trait to increase. High traits go up slower; conservative (small die) strategies go up slower. Risky use, assuming it succeeds, goes up much faster. Tidy.

Depending on pacing desired, you could make such rolls (a) immediately after combat/other situation is resolved, downside: higher handling time, or (b) at the end of a story or whatever period, a la Pendragon/CoC. (Pendragon's is neat... I suggest you read up on it. You could use a box where they write "dX" instead of just a checkbox, in an analogous system intended to potentially span more than one session before advancement time.)

- Eric

Eric,

Great analysis and will definitely be incorporating your observations into my development. I definitely like the advancement system you propose. Beautiful stuff. I am still considering other ways to encourage fewer/higher die use. But if not, a CoC style advancement system really might work here even if I don't use it for limiting dice types. (BTW I have been meaning to check out Pendragon for years. I wish that everything was available on PDF.)

The D4 Dilemma

I appreciate your math analysis on the roles. I never intended D3s to be a feature of play (unless GM approbed) But as feared the game in its current form (as alluded to by Dev) will become a D4 rollingfest. I hate D4s. This gives me several options:

1) Create advancement incentives for using bigger die types as you demonstrated in your last post. It may add more complexity to the system than I intended. I will definitely work with it. My current system had an optional rule that was gave out advancement points for maximum rolls (which are much ard with multiple dice).

2) Limit rolls to D6s. What I like about the game is not really that you roll any kind of die as much as it that is you can roll as many dice as you want. This would retain the element of risk taking = higher payout that made the system attractive to me without the steep curves of the D4s. This seems like the simplest option with the fewest drawbacks. Simple is not necessarily the best though.

3) Limit rolls to one die. This is not a real option, it basically becomes an wonky step die system at that point.

4) Limit rolls to two dice. This is a possibility however.

5) I have considered rejiggering the "damage" by making it equal to the lowest result on your lowest die. Throw 4D4 and you are probably stuck with a 1. Throw a D10 and you might get a 10 damage. The defensive player would then roll their dice and if they are equal or higher (but still within their trait) then they would take no damage. If the defense was lower then it would take full damage. This system however has no incentive for the defending player to take risks, so it is D4 city for them.

6) Create some other kind of incentives or punishments for rolling fewer dice. Anyone?

I really like the idea of die use types reflecting damage (as in your Star Wars example) or Spiritual Attributes (as your TROS suggestion.) This will definitely create a flavor other than vanilla, but I like it.

The Augmentation System

After a bit of playtesting conflict scenarios, I can see that the augmentation system does not work. The augmentations unbalanced play tremendously more than I intended. They should be little nudges in effectiveness, but became the point of play. I may scrap the idea entirely. After all, a Distract Enemy really is just a setback of the opponent so why not just give them a setback point and allow them to roll against being distracted.

I really do want something to fill this void though. I really do think that players should be able to have traits like Find Higher Ground or Watch Your Partner's Back that gives some kind of bonus to play without being a direct assault on the opposition.

Back to the drawing board.

Where I am At

I am writing the game document and conducting preliminary mechanic testing. I hope to do some PBM tests by the end of the month and get back with my gaming group for playtesting by the end of February. This system is a radically different design implementation of a game that I have been working on for over a year. If for some reason the roll under mechanic here or the FITB mechanic doesn't work (FITB fixed one of the main flaws of my old system), I will probably try to create a hybrid between this and the older system. I am honestly tired of tinkering with it and just want to get it done so I can play it. This is like an itch that I just can't scratch to my satisfaction. I am sure there are many who can relate.

Thanks to all for the help and any further suggestions comments are welcome.

Later,
Mark

P.S. All these suggestions from both Eric and Dev are deep and insightful. My immediate reaction is not as important as it is when I am tinkering with the game later. Even suggestions that are not taken have opened up new avenues and possibilities. I am truly greatful for the level of response I have gotten here.