iRole? guh. I need a new title. But as is, the mechanics are muchly an iSystems knockoff with strongly octaNe flavor; this is a feature, as I can be assured of some level of unbrokenness, as if it worked out for that game, close enough for my purposes. Sorta.

Purposes:

* a low-footprint core system for my multisystem game that won't take up much space in the book (as I'd expect many gamers-qua-gamers to use other systems)
* small stat blocks
* the information generated in this system is useful in creating a character in a potentially more complicated system
* potential candidate for a system targetted at getting new people to play (secondary goal)


---
TERMS DEFINITION
* All characters are made up many overlapping Roles.
* Each Role has associated with it certain specific Traits.
* Also, characters are defined by Details (basically other info). Details may cover mundane details (like Cash or Address), but also can track your characters development relative to your genre (Enemies may be a growing list of enemies you've acquired; in a crime genre, that's especially important.)
* Characters have Plot Points and Strikes when playing, but they don't carry over in between episodes.
* You can probably fit one Role on a 3x5 index card each.

SETTINGWISE SETUP
Collectively figure out: what Roles and Details are important for your setting/genre/style; what types of Traits are appropriate for the Roles, and what scopes they may have; power level (how many Plot Points to start with) and growth rate (cost for buying new Traits).

Genre: ensemble drama - members of a resistance cell in WWII
Roles(Traits): Former Career (skills), Cell Speciality (skills), Personality (relationships), Past (experiences), Passions (values)
Details: Luxuries, Gear, Cash, Enemies, Reputation

Paul Abelson
SPECIALTY: SMUGGLING (Black Marketeering, Bribe Officials, Sense Danger)
CAREER: TEACHER (History, Religion, Philosophy)
PERSONALITY: PATRIARCH-LEADER (Rivalry with Gary [team-member], Love for Angelica [npc], Paternalistic concern for Helga [team-member])
PAST: FAMILY LIFE (Piano lessons with Mike, Mike's funeral, Divorce)
PASSIONS: ZEALOT (Liberate homeland, Vegeance for Mike, Desire for Normalcy)

I have some concern that the acquisition of "skill" Traits may be overpowering (and thus selected for over more emotional traits).

Mike Holmes wrote:

I have some concern that the acquisition of "skill" Traits may be overpowering (and thus selected for over more emotional traits).

Mechanically they're the same, aren't they? So why would they be "overpowering"?

I wonder if you're not reacting to the tendency of other games to make people go for skills. In a game like HQ, however, I can assure you that people go for the personality traits just as often.

Dev,

A tentative first look here: I am going to do a bit of messing around with the system and let you know what I think.

The Dice

I have seen similar D6 based systems where each result equals a different quality of success or failure. I have never actually played with them, but they look interesting. I know that Zak Arntson has used a similar approach in some of his games and the Dying Earth game uses a similar mechanic, so the mechanic does seem solid.

Resolution

You might consider having 6 levels of resolution instead of 4. And maybe give options for the player to sometimes narrate failure and the GM to sometimes narrate success.

1 - Complete Failure (GM narrates failure, gain penalty)
2 - Intermediate Failure (You narrate failure)
3 - Minor Failure (GM narrates failure, you add positive twist)
4 - Minor Success (You narrate success, GM adds negative twist)
5 - Intermediate Success (GM narrates success)
6 - Complete Success (You narrate success, gain bonus)

or if you want to keep the GM = failure, player = success.

1 - Complete Failure (GM narrates failure, gain penalty)
2 - Intermediate Failure (GM narrates failure)
3 - Minor Failure (GM narrates failure, you add positive twist)
4 - Minor Success (You narrate success, GM adds negative twist)
5 - Intermediate Success (You narrate success)
6 - Complete Success (You narrate success, gain bonus)

Personality Traits

I have had some experience with games using freeform personality traits and skill traits. I seem to have had the opposite problem, players picking personality traits and using them in lieu of any skills. I have seen particularly competitive, "my guy" or screenhog players who pick traits like "brave" and have them activated on all rolls "haggling with this guy is really brave of me, who knows, he might be a powerful wizard," "you have to be brave to cross the street in this neighborhood" etc. There are a number of solutions to that problem, one is that using "brave" is metagame signal for the GM to put that the character in danger, otherwise the player wouldn't be using it. (i.e. all rolls are exploration framing rolls.)

More later,
Mark

As a quick aside: You have looked at Risus, right? This sounds kinda like Risus crossed with OctaNe.

Oh, I forgot OctaNe. I knew I saw this mechanic somewhere else! OctaNe meets Risus (as mentioned by X) just sounds like a killer combo, so far, so good. Plus your trait system creates a development beyond Risus' cliches so characters feel as if they are growing beyond a simple power level.

You seem to discourage use of the 2 dice level. Any reason? I would think it would be a comfortable place between 1 and 3.

I have seen Risus; I wasn't thinking of it at the time of writing, but it is similar. I guess the one big improvment - the reason this is worth it as a system - is the increased focus on Exploration rolls, i.e. taking asides for B-plots/C-plots.

About the great degrees of success/failure: I've been using a semiextreme definition of "simple", and I felt that having a less differentiated breakdown of outcomes was "better". I think having 6 results to the die isn't that much different from my 4 result, in reality; but otherwise I'm not certain if I would personally put an intermediate result in this coarse a system. (For that matter, I'm not entirely certain if the marginal rolls would come up too frequently.) As for the GM narrating failure, that's largely a comfort measure for what most people are useful. I'll give some thought for how I'd want to alter the result table.

And as for personality traits: I think this is one thing I can make clear - that Roles are vague (like "brave") but Traits are more specific. I think I should make more suggested guidelines for them, such as "applicable in no more than 10% of situations in your (or someone's) average life", "abnormal or uncommon relative to most people", and so on. (Yes, most people don't have your Skill in plumbing and whatnot, even if plumbers do.)

Dev,

I kind of guessed that having four grades of failure/success was a conscious decision. It is workable, but you may need to change the numbers somwhat because when you roll three dice, as you noted, you get so very few marginal successes/failures.

One way to mitigate this is if you might have an option where you get two dice to roll if you have an appropriate role, but no trait or if you are straining credulity a bit with your trait. This would also allow three levels for Nemeses/Setbacks.

Number of Dice = Type of Setback, Nemesis
1 = Minor Setback, Stormtrooper, Orc, Dalek, Soldier
2 = Medium Setback, Boba Fett, Wraith, Special Weapons Dalek, Odd Job
3 = Major Setback, Darth Vader, Sauron, Davros, Goldfinger

Just an idea, but two dice is still fairly powerful with a 75% chance of success.

You could also simply combine the marginal results:

Die Roll = Result
1-2 - Failure (GM Narrates with Penalty)
3-4 - Mixed Result (Both GM and Player Narrate, No Bonuses or Penalties)
5-6 - Success (Player Narrates with Bonus)

Players with Fudge dice could use them in this system for a bit of color.

Or if you think that the system is too generous with successes, you could try the following:

Die Roll = Result
1-3 - Failure (GM Narrates with Penalty)
4 - Marginal Failure (GM Narrates, Player provides twist)
5 - Marginal Success (Player Narrates, GM provides twist)
6 - Success (Player Narrates with Bonus)

Or this provides for some very rare out and out failures, but not as much overwhelming success as your system:

Die Roll = Result
1 - Failure (GM Narrates with Penalty)
2-3 - Marginal Failure (GM Narrates, Player provides twist)
4-5 - Marginal Success (Player Narrates, GM provides twist)
6 - Success (Player Narrates with Bonus)

Or simplify it to:

Die Roll = Result
1 - Failure (GM Narrates with Penalty)
2-5 - Mixed Result (Both GM and Player Narrate, No Bonuses or Penalties)
6 - Success (Player Narrates with Bonus)

These are only suggestions if you are unhappy with the current distribution of successes.

In the last two suggestions, if multiple 6s are rolled you might give out multiple bonuses. I wouldn't suggest multiple penalties for multiple 1s though, as it would mean that more talented characters could have more catastrophic results than less talented characters (even though this can be true sometimes in real life, most gamers don't like it).

The Risus comparison was simply on how the roles worked. I wouldn't plug Risus into anything other than a total beer and pretzels style game (alhtough I know that people do use it for serious gaming, the game itself encourages humorous usage). I think this is much more appropriate for your game.

Later,
Mark

(Edited in additional examples.)

Of the die methods, I think the 12/34/56 or 1/2345/6 splits are what I'd want to be writing up. I then considered simply doing opposed rolls: players and their opposition (OR THE gm) roll between 1 and 3 dice, and the highest number gets narration priveleges (win or lose, their pick, but they narrate); if there is a tie, which is likely, they used the mixed narration with the marginal results (and lack of bonus/penalties). This seems like the simplest describable way. Hoped-for side-effects:
* Perhaps keep the gap between 1 and 3 dice to show players the importance of getting traits (and so those who pay for them feel rewarded)
* Give the GM no resource for adding to his own die pool beyond 3 (burning Plot Points for dice is your advantage, but there's a limit to how much good you can do, as ties are still very likely)
* Actions against worthy opponents are likely to lead to lots of marginal results.
* I can create some guidelines that upon entering a conflict/task resolution, each side describes what they're trying in ways that necessarily constrain the victor's narration.

Are there large pitfalls for using "compare highest number"? Since ties enable the marginal results, I'm okay with that. This does mean always an at LEAST 1/ 6 chance of a mixed result (oftennot better), which could be potentially deprotgonizing, depending on if I define the mixed result as a temporary outcome or a break in the resolution that prevents further attempt.

The one advantage of the "compare highest number" system is that player's aren't restricted to the chunky resolution of the D6. Each campaign could choose its own dice to use depending on how much marginal results could be tolerated. D10s and D20s are definite options for campaigns that wish to avoid as many marginal results. Sorcerer and its kin use a similar resolution mechanic and definitely evoke the type of play that you are trying for well.