WHAT THE HELL!?

>>15695506
Basically every time I engage in a test I have the chance of getting 4 successes.
1 from raw ability
1 from skill
1 from experience
1 from spending energy
The higher my numbers are, the more likely I am to get successes.

Greater feats require more successes.

Complicated tasks, or those which are done while hampered are done with a penalty to the roll.

If I want to roll under my stats to get successes, then adding +3 to the roll makes it harder.

>>15695535
roll high? or low? what determines an actual fucking success!?

Yay another poorly thought out system that has no reason to exist! Perhaps if you took your 10 minutes of thoughts and applied it to something that took more than a lunch break you could actually call yourself competent as all the major thinking was done for you. Thinking isn't your strong suit after all, you're hear asking us to critique and improve your oh so great homebrew.

>>15695553
Read the OP man, its all there! Because I'm nice, I'll sum it up for you: roll a 2d10 and make shit up.

There! Easy and simple mechanic.

I saw the d10s and was excited somebody was discussing One-Roll Engine on /tg/ and maybe I could get some feedback on some stuff I'm wondering.

But instead I got a vague mishmash of resolution mechanics.

It makes sense OP, ignore these dipshits.

It will work, though you will definitely want to explain it more clearly and concisely. What else is interesting about your system?

>>15695561
>Read the OP man, its all there! Because I'm nice, I'll sum it up for you: roll a 2d10 and make shit up.
so levels raw talent and skills dont matter?

>There! Easy and simple mechanic.

report to pic

>>15695553
Rolling low is good.
If I roll UNDER my attribute then I got 1 success. If I also happened to roll UNDER my skill then I get another success. Etc.

Rolling the lowest you possibly can is real damn good. Rolling the highest you possibly can is real damn bad.

Essentially all I'm doing is combining two pre-existing systems. The 'roll under stat to succeed' system and the 'roll for successes' system.

>>15695561
>>15695556
Why so angry? Got criticism?

>>15695591
Agreed. OP, I want to hear more about this. Having to roll dice and look at the result 4 different ways to determine i I succeeded? Adds a lot of depth to roleplaying.

>>15695598
NOW it makes fucking sense.

Guys, you roll 2d10 and look at 3 relevant numbers on your character sheet. Each one you rolled under gives you a success.

Then there's this thing called energy that can give you another success, but apparently that's too many words for you retards.

>>15695598
But why are you combining two different systems? You're adding complexity where it's not necessarily needed. I want to hear your reasoning behind this.

>>15695591
Uh...
Well I can jump over to health and damage...
I apologize in advance because a lot of this is easier explained with pictures, but I don't have the tools to make pictures (without spending a bunch of time).

Health is organized in light wounds, medium wounds, and heavy wounds. Each of these is referred to as a 'pool'.

Let's say Burker Brokenbottle the dwarf has 11 hp. That's split into the three pools.
Light OOOO
Med OOOO
Heav OOO

Getting damaged causes Burker to 'take a wound' (cross off one of those circles). The more severe the injury, the higher class of wound he takes.

When burker crosses off all of his Heavy Wounds, he dies.

If Burker is supposed to take a Light Wound, but he's already crossed all those off, then instead he takes a medium wound. Same for medium-to-heavy.

>>15695619

He's not really. The number of successes thing just gives you a really easy way of determining the difficulty number. i.e: 1 success = easy task, 2 successes = moderate task, 3 successes = hard task, 4 successes = nearly impossible

>>15695638
And why did you choose a system like that, instead of locational damage (as in ORE) or dividing damage into how "high" it is similar to WoD?

What it looks like to me is you took hit points from any generic RPG then tried to make it look different by dividing it into thirds.

>>15695638

Decent wound tracking, too. Hm.

So is this supposed to be for fantasy settings?

>>15695658

My guess is that it's to let weapon lethality play a part more interesting than just greater damage. - 4 "Light" damage to the example Dwarf would only fill in Light and do 1 Medium, but 4 Heavy would kill him right off the bat.

Also I have to know OP, do hit points go up as you gain levels? If they do you're going to have D&D syndrome (high-level characters are fucking invincible).

OP, how do you address things like unconsciousness and being near death? Or do you? If not, that's cool, it's just something I'd imagine would be useful for RP purposes.

>>15695619
Normally rolling for successes used a pool of dice. This means that as your stats increase, so do the number of dice you have to roll at a time. I find that unwieldy.
Rolling under your stat is fine and all, but I like that the #successes system gives you degrees of success and degrees of failure.

>>15695638
Armor works much the same as health.
Armor has a rating, which reflects how resilient it is.
Armor also has durability (like health) which reflects how many hits it can take, and of what type.

Let's say Burker is wearing Heavy Chain armor.

Heavy Chain Armor:
rating = 5
Light OOOO
Medi OOO
Heav OOO

Burker's chainmail can absorb damage for him. If Burker is attacked, any damage taken is instead dealt to his armor. This continues until the armor runs out of 'wounds' to cross off.

If the attacker's weapon has a higher rating than Burker's armor then it pierces right through and does damage directly to Burker.

Armor damage can be repaired, but doesn't heal without being magical or techy or somesuch.

Cool mechanics OP, I like it.

>>15695638
>>15695677

...

Continue...

>>15695658
Actually what I have is more like riddle of steel's stress system.
I like the ability to distinguish between "bruised all over" and "shot in the shoulder". One is like 2 light wounds, the other is a medium wound. It allows for more granularity to injury and combat. WHERE you get hit can be fluffed, or can be determined with a die roll.
>>15695674
Also this, but I wasn't expecting weapons would deal quite that much damage. Could be, though. Haven't done much testing with that.
>>15695681
As far as I've worked it out, no. Higher level characters simply have better armor and are better at avoiding damage. They might have a higher Fitness (one of my stats), which hp is dependant on, so that might raise their total health, but not by a whole lot.
>>15695687
One of the rules I cooked up was "bleeding to death". If you take a Heavy wound (any heavy wound) then you roll. If you fail the roll you start bleeding. That means you take a light wound every couple of minutes, or every time you exert yourself. This continues until you get medical attention or die.
Being unconscious, I have no rules for yet.

>>15695744
Twice in one thread man? Really?

>>15695695

>Normally rolling for successes used a pool of dice. This means that as your stats increase, so do the number of dice you have to roll at a time. I find that unwieldy.
>Rolling under your stat is fine and all, but I like that the #successes system gives you degrees of success and degrees of failure.

I can't wait to see what the retard haters are going to say to counter this.

Oh wait, they can't.

OP, this is a really good idea. Here's a question, though. Is energy sort of like fate points, where you can spend them after the fact in order to alter the outcome of the roll, or do you have to choose how much energy you spend before you roll?

One criticism on my part: Why 2d10? Trying to get more of a bell curve?

Before rolling dice, call "Evens" or "Odds"; you succeed if you correctly call the roll.

OP should stop samefagging his thread.

This system is supposed to be universal, so I try to keep things flexible.

Weapons have a rating, which reflects how well they bypass armor. They also have a Damage amount, which is what kind of wound they deal on-hit. For instance
>Fists
rating 0
damage 1 Light
>Lance
rating 6
damage 1 Heavy
>Gun
rating 10
damage 2 Heavy

Margins of success can affect damage. Getting exactly as many successes as you need means to barely hit. Lower heavy wound to medium, and medium to light. Light wounds might stay light, or they might become like a graze, iunno. Getting 2 successes more than you need means you crit, upgrade your damage light to medium, medium to heavy. Heavy might stay heavy or might become insta-kill (or in the case of armor, you smashed it to pieces). Or possibly critting means you deal an additional wound. 1 medium wound becomes 2 medium wounds.

Thoughts?

OP despite the samefagging, I want to play your game. Do you have plans to playtest?

>>15695757
Energy is supposed to be more like uh...action points in some systems.

You have some. You spend them. You get them back from a full night's rest.

You have to 'wager' them before you roll. Otherwise players can just roll and say "oh I rolled a 6? Okay I want to spend 7 energy. No. I prefer uncertainty and risk.

Honestly I hadn't settled on what type of dice to roll. That's really something I can leave up in the air for a long time. 3 dice gives a bell curve, 2 gives a 'pyramid', 1 gives a flat distribution. 2d10 is nice because it gives a max of 20 (appeals to my base-10 sensibilities). 3d6 is nice because is gives a range of 15 and a lovely bell curve. 1d20 is nice because it's familiar to people.

I'm open to influence as far as dice is concerned.

>>15695795
I'm not samefagging :(

No I didn't really have plans to play-test it. I've never DM'd a serious game before (only time I did was a couple of derpy sessions with roommates where I was testing a much older system I'd been designing).

I'm kind of occupied irl by applying for grad school, finding an apt, and other bullshit so I'm not sure I'd have time to set up anything cool.

Sorry, it feels shitty to work on something but then say 'naw, not gonna use it'. If I get it to a point where I'm more comfortable with the mechanics and crap I'll come back and see if you guys are interested.

In the meantime feel free to use it if you want. Just tell me how it goes.

>>15695795 here

>>15695847

Your system bro, I probably won't use it myself since I have 2 games of my own in development. Still, don't give up on it. You've got solid basics and I think it's got real potential. All the best.

Hokay, so in case people are still watching this thread, I'll fill in what's left.
There are 6 character attributes. Two for body, two for mind, and two for social skills.

Fitness - toughness, grit, strength, health
Agility - reflexes, dexterity, balance, quickness
Focus - memory, reasoning, concentration
Acuity - senses, ingenuity, alertness, cleverness
Will - charisma, discipline, self control, animal magnetism
Guile - deceptiveness, ability to understand and manipulate other people

Those are the 6 main attributes. It was originally 9, but I pared it down by combining Strength and Endurance (fitness), combining Intelligence and Concentration (focus), and combining Discipline and Charisma (will).

the system is ideally universal, which is why there's such an even balance.

I also wrote up a big ol bullshit list of skills (5 per attribute), but really it's ridiculously simple to create skills. Just decide what attribute they belong to, and have a basic idea of what kind of actions are govorened by that skill. All that is dependent on setting. I might provide the list of pre-determined skills as a, iunno, suggestion or default skill list, but maybe encourage the creation of scenario-specific skills.

>>15695763
>Before rolling dice, call "Evens" or "Odds"; you succeed if you correctly call the roll.

>Changed:

Before rolling dice, call "Evens" or "Odds":

If you call "Evens" and the dice result is even, your combat roll is an Offensive Maneuver (Attack).

If you call "Odds" and the dice result is odd, your combat roll is a Defensive Maneuver (Dodge).

If you call "Evens" but the dice result is odd, your combat roll is a Positional Maneuver (Press).

If you call "Odds" but the dice result is even, your combat roll is a Engagement Maneuver (Feint).

Your health system is very reminiscent of the Dresden Files RPG, but a bit more defined and robust. You might want to look at that system for ideas/inspiration/etc.

Thats all the constructive advice I can give.

>>15695932
>odds not being attack-oriented
nope.tga

>>15695977
That's actually very helpful! I lurk on /tg/ a lot, and I write down the names of rpgs that you guys like, and use them for reference.

I'm glad you dudes like my health / injury system. I considered rules for scarring, but iunno if that's uh...fun.

The problem with your system is that it's hardly different from just rolling a D20, aside from the fact that your D20 doesn't have a 1 and forms a bell curve centering around 11.

Ultimately, you have a number in mind, and either you beat it or you don't, and sometimes you can spend a resource to maybe lower that number. Even with that, it all seems terribly luck-based, and you run into the problem when you can't go above 20.

>>15696039
>have a number in mind
>beat it or don't
>terribly luck based
You just described rpgs. Beyond that there really are a lot of differences between roll-for-successes and roll-to-beat-a-number.

As for the seemingly hard cap at 20, there's a couple solutions.
1. Don't give a fuck. No you agility cannot be higher than 20, deal with it.
2. change power level of campaign by rolling another die during checks. This raises the cap but also fucks with the probabilities. All of a sudden everything just got harder.
3. As previously mentioned, extremely challenging checks impose a penalty to the roll (remember a penalty adds to the roll, like +5). Once a skill/stat/level gets above 20 then yeah it's basically an automatic success. UNLESS the thing you're doing is hard enough to impose a penalty.

For instance a master skateboarder might automatically succeed while skateboarding. But if they're skateboarding OVER AN EXPLOSION AND ALSO UPSIDE DOWN then the DM adds 15 to whatever they roll. Good luck rolling under your Agility now, fuckface.

That particular solution is nice because it means that high-powered individuals don't need to sweat the little stuff. If a player wants to max out their character's lore then I see no problem with letting them automatically know general bits of knowledge.

>>15695932
Can I try to call a specific number for a deadly kill strike that leaves me open if I miss?

>OP
I like the sound of this, OP, I really do. Sounds like a solid mechanic with easily interpretable results (if you're not retarded). Honestly, I played d20 for years before I discovered other games, so I'm a sucker for anything that gives you different degrees of success (which I'm assuming your system does since you can have several degrees of success).
A good way of 'describing success' (which I seem to spam as advice in every mechanics thread I come across for some reason) is to phrase player intent as a question, and then answer it with the result, the answers being in ascending order...
No, and...
No
No, but...
Yes, but...
Yes
Yes, and...

What is the maximum number of successes possible in your system? Also, you have 'fiddly bits' for combat (i.e weapon damage, a physical health system, armour efects), how difficult would it be for you to cobble these into generic rules that could apply to any conflict?
For example, 'psychological/social' stress for social conflicts, social status as 'armour' for such conflicts, etc.
Actually, first you should probably ask yourself whether you want a social resolution mechanic at all, or just to sort all that stuff out through roleplay oldschool style.

It just seems to me that it jams together the worst parts of D20 and Dice Pool, and cuts out the most elegant.

>>15696129
Currently the maximum number of successes is 4. I haven't thought of a way to let that number grow infinitely. I'm not even sure that would be a good idea.

I like your 'buts' and 'ands' system. It's simple, intuitive, and yet it gets across everything it needs to.

It would be real damn easy to cobble the rules for attack, defense, and health into mental and social conflicts. Things like 'mental conflicts' are hard to design around. What the fuck is a mental combat? You basically have to accept that supernatural / techy stuff is going on. But anyways...

Health for body
Sanity for mind
Conviction for social

Bleeding for body
Confusion for mind
Doubt for social

etcetera

Instead of attacking a character's body, maybe you whittle down their sanity and leave them a drooling heap on the floor. Maybe you break down their conviction and leave them sobbing quietly. Maybe leave them a 'single bullet for mercy's sake'. All of these can be fluffed into sorcery or ghost-in-the-shell style mind-hacks, or what have you. The system is there, you can use it for whatever you can find an excuse for.

>>15696039
>The problem with your system is that it's hardly different from just rolling a D20, aside from the fact that your D20 doesn't have a 1 and forms a bell curve centering around 11.
Not OP but I'll take a whack at this.
If you're counting successes, this system does have an advantage over d20 in that it offers a seemingly reliable means of determining the value of the success/failure. Where d20 is a binary pass/fail system, it seems to me that the OP maybe intends, as suggested by this line,
>If I only needed 1 success then I landed the backflip, but not by much
for the system to value the degree of success.
Of course, with d20, you could imply say that every 5 or so above/under the target number affords a degree of success or failure, but this can get very swingy when you only have one number that you're looking at with regards to your roll (resulting in some characters auto critting on target numbers that others simply cannot make), whereas with this system, the range of potential target numbers (in this case 'successes') is smaller without sacrificing granularity (which the different attributes etc give). Also it's a lot easier to see 'where' the character succeeded when he rolls only under his attribute, under his attribute and skill, only under his level if his attribute/skill is low etc.

I think this system is actually really nifty.
OP, you should cross post this on the design/development forum at RPG.net, they should be able to give you some solid advice too.

Ultimately, you have a number in mind, and either you beat it or you don't, and sometimes you can spend a resource to maybe lower that number. Even with that, it all seems terribly luck-based, and you run into the problem when you can't go above 20.

You should use 2d12. The d12 gets no love.

>>15696202
>I haven't thought of a way to let that number grow infinitely
Please don't, the tight range of potential degrees of success/failure saves the system from 'arbitrarily high number' syndrome.

>It just seems to me that it jams together the worst parts of D20 and Dice Pool, and cuts out the most elegant.
Man, what is your fucking problem? Tell me what elegance OP's system cuts from d20 and dice pool? Is it that fact that you don't know from what aspect of your character success came from? Is it d20's binary success/fail nature? Is it the dice pool's tendency to become more and more predictable past a certain number of die (an increase in certitude at greater numbers of die rolled is one of the things that irks me about most die pools)?
Pray tell, what do you mean exactly?

>>15696212
Oh fuck I forgot the best fucking part.

Lets say I succeed at a test. GM asks me "what successes did you get"? I say "Acuity and Experience, but not Lore". That lets the GM know -how- my character passed the test. He might reply
>You notice a peculiar carving on the wall (acuity success). You cannot tell what it means (lore failure) but you have a feeling that it's connected with the ancient mechanism (experience success).

>>15696240
Because d12 is a faget.
It's not base 10
It's not as widespread as the d6
But hey, at least it's not the d4.

Honestly if I got a convincing argument for it, then yeah I'd toss it in the running with d6, d10, and d20.

>>15696251
I think you've got a point, there. Having a predictable range makes it easy to list the magnitude of outcomes.

>>15696251

I'm not trying to be mean, just constructive.

D20's a "light" system. You take a lot of actions through the course of an evening, each action usually has less weight attached to it, and you resolve them with a single dice roll. It's uncomplicated to figure out what you need to roll, you don't really have to put in much work, and in return you get an uncomplicated result that doesn't really contain much information.

Dice-Pool is a "heavy" system. You don't roll nearly as often, but each roll is usually more weighty in terms of the in-game implications. It's complicated to figure out what you need to roll, and you have to put in more work, but in return you get a complicated result that gives you a lot of information.

What this proposed system does is make you put in a lot of the work of a dice-pool system, but only gives you the payout of a D20 system.

It's like working just as hard for half the pay.

I also think you should trash the whole SKILLS & ATTRIBUTES thing. It's just a tradition and not really necessary. Just have big list of abilities, and then use the abilities that would apply to that challenge. If you have 7 abilities that apply to a challenge, you could possibly get seven successes.

To continue with your example, you could use your skateboard ability, along with Dodge, Explosives Expert, Acrobat, eXtreme dAredevil, and Luck abilities-- And also power/exp level, because that applies to all challenges. Bam. A possible seven successes to pull off something retardedly impossible

>>15696307
I'mma have to disagree here.
DnD uses modifiers on top of modifiers.
Roll d20
add attribute modifier
add level modifier
add skill rank
add feat modifiers
add conditional modifiers

That means that every time you want to do something you need to calculate that shit out. Not hard math, but tedious math. If you perform that action a lot you can write down the formula, of course.

With my system, you only need to look at 3 numbers.
attribute
level
skill
And if you perform that action a lot you can simply write down those 3 numbers. For instance
>Melee Attack
>13 / 7 / 9
bam, that's all the information you need. GM determines difficulty, just like in d20.

And my system doesn't involve a pool of dice. It involves a pool of *successes*. You roll the same number of dice each time, so there's nothing to figure out in that department.

>>15696307
>>15696307
>>15696307
I don't necessarily agree with this sentiment.

Don't forget you have to add bonuses and subtract penalties. In some systems (D&D, 3e & 4e) there are shit ton of little things to remember to add in. Conditional bonuses, buff spells, temporary marks, and other stuff that might or might stack. That mars the supposed simplicity of the system.

I like dice pools because you just look at the dice, look at the numbers, count the number of successes.

>>15696258
>That lets the GM know -how- my character passed the test.
A system that can fairly niftily determine both degree of success and how you succeeded.
OP, at the very least you have me looking at my current homebrew system (Fate meets Apocalypse World meets Barbarians of Lemuria currently) and asking myself why it can't do that. I may have to steal some of this...

By the way, the dude who mentioned ORE upthread might be onto something. Roll two different coloured die and suddenly you have another degree of difference to enterpret. This could be your source of location-finding for attacks, for example. Or whether the red die or the blue die is the lower of the two determines some aspect of the result. This makes the system a little crunchier, but hey, some people go for that sort of thing.

Hey, /tg/, do you think a core mechanic of roll Xd12, take average of any two you choose (rounded down) is too complicated?

dumb dumb dumb dumb
that is all

>>15696377
yes.

>>15696314
Ehh, that seems nice but how can I distinguish between a weak swordsman and a strong swordsman?

Attributes are good for a variety of reasons. They let you glance at a character sheet and figure out the character's aptitudes. They let you have advantages in a wide field of actions. They help define what a character is like.

As for skills, I miiiight make it so that the player can roll for as many skills as can justify. There are advantages and disadvantages.

Also another thing I neglected to mention: cooperation. Each person can contribute their stat to the effort. So for busting down the door, the brawny barbarian says
>we'll use my fitness to smash this shit
while the crafty rogue says
>we'll use my technical expertise to apply the right leverage
and the grizzled old guide says
>we'll use my experience to look for areas of rotted or warping wood

So when cooperating you can use the best stats of whoever is helping out.

>>15696307
>I'm not trying to be mean, just constructive.
Ah, fair enough. I'm not the OP anyway, I have no idea why I'm defending this system except that I think it's nifty and will likely steal it
>D20's a "light" system.
Yeah, agreed. Microlite d20 and it's various offshoots are great for rules light games where dudes just want to roll dice and have fun without the tea-leaf reading of something like this, I can deal.

>Dice-Pool is a "heavy" system. You don't roll nearly as often, but each roll is usually more weighty in terms of the in-game implications. It's complicated to figure out what you need to roll, and you have to put in more work, but in return you get a complicated result that gives you a lot of information.
Ehhhhh, not so much. There are a few different die-pool systems I guess. Storyteller and the various West End Games d6 systems are two examples. You don't really get a super complicated result in either situation, though, because unless you colour the die from different sources (stat, skill etc) differently, it won't tell you where success came from.
The other stuff you said, like "you don't roll nearly as often" is just not true as a general thing. Maybe some people, understandably, *want* to roll less because you're rolling lots of die and working them out can be annoying.
But yeah, rolling two die and comparing them to a couple of numbers vs rolling a bunch od die and adding them up/counting successes? I don't think OPs system is categorically more complicated than that, and it gives more interesting results (imo).

>What this proposed system does is make you put in a lot of the work of a dice-pool system
Maybe
>but only gives you the payout of a D20 system.
No, for reasons described by various other anons while I was typing this

>>15696400
Is taking an average of two numbers really that bad?

>>15696434
It didn't sound intuitive at all. I know, I'm one to talk (just look at the first reply).

What you're describing isn't terribly complicated, but I can't understand why it's good. Rolling a lot of dice is bad. Averaging numbers is bad. What would your system give you in return?

>>15696453
Interesting probability curves and numbers in the range of 1-12 for further calculations.

>>15696462
why not roll d10s so that you have numbers in the range of 1-10?

Are interesting probability curves worth making your player toss handfulls of dice?

The very ur-beginnings of my system (started like 2 years ago) involved rolling a # of dice based on your attributes. 6 strength = 6 dice. Skills gave you rerolls. Then I realized that fuck that, that's too much rolling and adding.

K.I.S.S.

>>15696496
Because d10 are shit dice.
And dice pool systems just have superior probability distributions.

There is a difference between keeping something simple and making something too simplified. Do you even know how the probabilities for your system line up?

>>15696561
I'm not talking about the 2d20.
I'm talking about the repeated check if your rolled result is under the attribute, skill, level and energy.

It's pretty clear that you don't want us to give our actual thoughts on your idea.

Instead you're clearly in love with your system and want to be fellated for it.

Such is the internet.

>>15696594
You only roll once per check in my system. Be more specific.
>d10 are shit dice
What is your damage? Are you actually looking for feedback, or are you just here to insult god's greatest gift to polyhedron-lovers? So far nobody has said anything positive about your system (unless you count me saying "its not that complicated" as a compliment). Your only defense thus far is "it gives superior probability distributions". What exactly makes it superior? Use your words.

does the roll have to be under the stat, or equal to/less than?

>>15696665
Under. So technically a stat of 20 is only a near-guarantee of success.

>>15696629
The d10 is not a platonic solid, thus it is a shit die. It also takes the cake of "most biased among common dice".

Oh, that's very simple.
It's a weighted bell curve.
Assuming that in this case you want to always have the highest result (which is usually best anyway).
For 2d12 this is a bell curve, when going past 2 the curve begins to weight itself towards 12 while never actually making 12 the most probable roll.
I.e. the better your aptitude for a task is the greater the chance that it will be performed as good as you can perform it.
As such the system does precisely what it was designed for.

>>15696678
and a stat of 2 is a guaranteed failure, but I highly doubt anyone will have a stat of 2. but I guess that depends on how you choose to determine stats. anyway, here's the probabilities of rolling successes against your stats:

#,%
2,0
3,1
4,3
5,6
6,10
7,15
8,21
9,28
10,36
11,45
12,55
13,64
14,72
15,79
16,85
17,90
18,94
19,97
20,99

#=stat
%=probability of success

bump for excellent mechanic. gj

>>15696434
what do you do with fractions?

My internet is crapping out on me so this is going to me my last post, thanks for all the comments.

>>15696686
Long story short, you're autistic. You're sacrificing comprehensibility and ease of use for a dice mechanic which by itself is not that great. Yes, you sure do have a trending bell curve there. Now what are you going to do with it? Also what the fuck, you choose d12 over d10 because the d10 isn't a platonic solid? Have you considered that d10 offers a range divisible by 5, thus allowing you to split up numbers into very bad, bad, medium, good, very good?

>>15696771
Just round down. Probably with a optional rule for more "cinematic" play with rounding up. But the system is balanced with rounding down in mind.

>>15696706
Did you know that: It is actually possible to never get one or more of the possible degrees of success if your stats happen to be equal?

Did you know that: In certain cases the chance of getting 2 or 3 successes can be several times less probable then either 1 and 3 or 2 and 4?

Did you know that: rising a stat has significantly more impact around the 10 mark than anywhere else? Especially if you are rising your highest stat.

Did you know that: your chance of getting 1 success is actually only based on your first largest stat, chance of getting 2 successes only based on your second largest stat, etc.?

>>15696795
Have you considered that 12 is dividable by more numbers than 10?

OP, are you still here? If so I want to talk about systems with you.

Oh shit, people, internet is back up.

>>15696811
Yes, but 5 is not one of those numbers. 5 is useful. It really is. Moreso than 4 or 3, imo. But fuck it, use whatever dice you want. Come back and tell us when you've got more of a system.

>>15696852
Sorry, dude it's like 5:30 am where I am and I need to go to sleep. post your comments or questions, I'll check them when I wake up.

You guys are great, I'll be back in a few hours, goodnight!

>>15696916
More?
The system has been serviceable for a long time (if not lacking content).
I just wanted to see how badly people would react to having "average" be part of the core mechanic.

>>15696934
elaborate on your system, plox?

>>15696916
I was more just going to talk to you about a system I was thinking of. I think there are a couple systems like it but not very popular ones if my information is correct.

I wanted to make a system that emulates human experience. I wanted to use it to showcase that when you're good at one skill, you are better at related skills, generally. If you are not trained or skilled in an entire area, you can still learn one specific thing of that area and succeed, but it is much more difficult.

basically, it's a 2d6 system to start with. You roll one positive, one negative, combine, and that's your roll.

When you level up a stat, you increase the positive die pool. So let's say you're making an agility test: you roll 2d6 positive and only one negative d6, and choose the higher of the two positive dice. You can still only roll a max of 5 but succeed much more often.

I haven't decided what stats to include, but I wanted to be ultimately VERY general, so something like just D&D stats.

Now is where it gets more interesting (read complex).
You have skills in each stat category of different levels of complexity/specificity. Like "acrobatics" would be the minimal level of specificity for agility while some very exact parkour maneuver would be the most specific.

From least to most specific is a run of 4 categories. least specific skills, when you learn them, you get a d8 to roll when making a check with that skill.

So let's say you've put a level into agility, and one level into learning acrobatics. Now you make an acrobatics. You roll a negative d6. You roll your d6 for agility, and instead of rolling the other d6 you got for levelling in agility, you roll your d8 for acrobatics. You take the highest roll.

I'm still working on it, and like your system, if you can actually SHOW someone, it's actually simple enough for someone that has no familiarity with RPGs to learn.

If you're interested, email me.

>>15696966
8 attributes, 4 physical (Strength, Stamina, Agility, Dexterity), 4 mental (Intelligence, Acuity, Willpower, Charisma). Represent competence in broad groups of tasks.
Several derived stats.
Skills, very important. The base mechanic is average of any two chosen dice in a [Attribute]d12 roll compared to base difficulty + modifiers - skill level. Base dificulty is defined by skill, modifiers are usually broad though there are several small general modifiers like wound levels or granted by traits/spells/etc. Skills are also set up in a tree-like structure, i.e. getting skills grants access to more specialised skills, which grant even more specialised skills (three levels only though).

Traits which are smaller or larger benefits.

A magic system based on functional programming (mechanically, not the fluff of it).

Wide support for non-human/non-humanoid characters. Only one of the pre-made races is human, the rest don't even fall under "humanoid-ish".

Point buy.

d12 only. No other dice needed.

>>15697002
>A magic system based on functional programming (mechanically, not the fluff of it).

go on

>>15696996
To elaborate on "specificity"
This is how it goes:
Stat (least specific) ->
Skill group (Skills of the broadest categories. Acrobatics, or Knowledge:arcana) ->
Skill (getting more specific. Knowledge:pyromancy, or a specific school of acrobatic knowledge, like gymnastics, or parkour.) ->
Ability (most specific. A specific spell or attack in a skill or school of knowledge.)

When you level a stat, you gain a d6 for making basic stat checks. You now roll 2d6 in addition to the ever-present negative d6 and take the better. If you again level up to gain a skill group, you now roll 1d6 and 1d8. If you level into a more specific skill after this, you roll 1d6, 1d8, and 1d10. If you go to the most specific, you roll one of each die up to d12.

Now, let's say you learn a very specific skill without learning the skills leading up to it. Like a high level spell without even delving into intelligence.

You CAN learn it. Let's say it's a d12 level of specificity. Now you make the check for that skill. You roll your negative d6, then you roll a positive d12. But here is where the critical failure system comes in. for each level of specificity you skipped in order to learn this spell, you increase the number you can critically fail at by 2.

So let's say you took a point in intelligence, a point in knowledge arcana, a point in pyromancy, and then took the spell. You learned the spell through the traditional methods, and though you can fail, you cannot automatically critically fail.
-If you skipped pyromancy, and went straight from arcana to the spell, you can critically fail with a roll of 2 or a roll of 1.
-If you skipped knowledge of arcana as well as pyromancy, you can critically fail if you roll 4 or below.
-If you neglected to even take intelligence, you will critically fail if you roll 6 or below. You now have a 50% chance of critically failing right away.

>>15697055
Ok, this will be a bit long.

There are three elements to the magic system, sources of power, arcane practices and arcana.

The functional aspect of the system comes from "elements", elements are granted mostly by arcana (even if you have at least 1 level in an arcana you get all of its elements to play around in, there are 3 levels in total) as well as a swat of generic elements (you get them if you have 1 level in ANY arcana) and specialised elements (are granted by knowing practices and generally only make sense when used with those practices).

Each element is described as a function.
It has a type (the root type of a spell is Effect) and might have a number of variables. The type of these variables is most commonly Number or Effect, though there are several more specific types like Trigger (used for shenanigans with selective spells or spells that "wait" before going off) or Duration (used for spells that last longer than fire and forget).

Elements from different arcana can be freely mixed together too.

>>15697112
liking it so far. might steal a bit for a magic system I have rolling around in my head, if I can ever decide on a dice system

>>15697112
Now how does this work?

It fires of the same way as a functional paradigm program - that is recursively. You go from the bottom and apply the effects of the element to the variables, but to do that you first need to do the same for the variables, etc.

The spells difficulty and cost are calculated the same way, as a recursive function of the elements.

(Due to this being rather complicated there is a rule that states "you can only make spells on the fly with the GM's permission".)

So let's say you want to set someone on fire?
You can do this in different ways to begin with.

You can use either Matter Agitation from the Movement Arcana or Photon Burst from the Energies Arcana.

Let's go with Photon Burst.
Using this effect alone you can set something flammable on fire, with the added effect of blindness if the hit goes at a "sensory: visual" bodypart (i.e. in the case of a human, the head).

But that's not really as useful since you have to get close to your target...

>>15697162
Adding a effect that changes the shape into a line and giving it some decent range will change it into a lazer.

That's still simple though. Adding a shaping effect of sphere with a triggered delay and casting it onto a door-frame with the trigger being detection of hostile thought and you have made a flash-bang mine. That also sets flammable things on fire...

For something even more complex...

You can use a Matter Reconfiguration from the Shapes Arcana to make a car into a bunch of spears, then make this effect the target of a AoE Movement Arcana effect Apply Velocity changing the car into a directed burst of pointy-spiky bits. Etc.

Generally this is how the functional programming aspect of it works.

>>15696110
I'd personally say that a botch mechanic might be useful here - Rolling 20 means you fail in some hilarious manner. So it's pretty much a "The DM may rape you non-lethally".

pretteh kewl.

I have to say, I really like your mechanics, dirigible. I've been working on /tg/'s Legend of Zelda RPG project for awhile now, so I've acquired an appreciation for dice systems that allow for degrees of success, and I really like how your system allows for insight into what elements of your character's abilities contributed to your success. I don't get why so many people are opposed to it, it seems like a very elegant system to me. And I rather like the health system, it seems like it has a lot of potential.

Mind if I adapt your mechanics for my homebrew? I've got a lot of ideas for fluff and setting and character abilities, but I've been kind of hung up on how to handle the dice and health, and this seems like it would serve quite nicely.

>>15698452
>I don't get why so many people are opposed to it, it seems like a very elegant system...
His system doesn't work.
Just like your system doesn't work.
But you both ignore people pointing it out.

>>15698511
You are the only one.
The consensus in the thread is that OP made quite a good system.

>>15698511
I never claimed to have a completed system of my own...unless you're referring to the LoZ RPG I'm helping with, in which case multiple separate playtests speak against you.

As for dirigible's system, I read the whole thread and couldn't find any substantiated claims as to why it wouldn't work that weren't soundly refuted, besides the points about the issues with using 2d10 rather than 1d20. Hence why I said "adapt". And dirigible himself admitted that the exact type of dice rolled was kind of up in the air anyway.

Basically, dirigible's dice system is like that used in GURPS, but with more information provided by the roll because of the method of counting successes based on comparison to multiple parameters rather than being a binary pass/fail.

>>15698604
His system is actually binary.
Success or failure is based on only one of the four parameters at any time. The remaining three are irrelevant. For example getting three successes is only based on the third highest threshold, the first, second and fourth do not factor in at all.

The system just fails to provide what it promises upon anything but a rough glance.

OP's system seems fairly sweet. Although it doesn't give much options for difficulty, or so it seems to me.

The main thing seems to be that a simple roll can give successes in various areas; someone can be trying to knock down a door with possibilities of successes in strength, toughness and arcane door knowledge. Or something. The GM can say "you need successes in two areas to break down this tough door".

However, it seems like a lot of work for the DM, rather than making things more simple. If i were playing, i'd find it difficult to rule "you need two successes to break down the door" because, let's be honest, it's a tough door. Strength's not going to help too much. Let's say two successes with Strength at -4. In fact, since the door's so big in the first place, let's have a -3 to every skill with a further -4 to Strength.

i like the system because it seems simple and expandable, but something feels a little off-i get the feeling that in a gaming situation it'll get just as complex as other systems.

>>15698641
>Success or failure is based on only one of the four parameters at any time. The remaining three are irrelevant. For example getting three successes is only based on the third highest threshold, the first, second and fourth do not factor in at all.

...What don't you understand about "degress of success"?
If you try to pick a lock and only manage one success, you'll break the lock or make sound. Two successes will make it less messy. Three successes are absolutely perfect. And the fourth one adds a bonus.

>>15698657
Yeah, pre-calculated guidelines would be good. So that the DM can just read the rules and know how to achieve different levels of difficulties.
I think there should be a hard rule. Something like "Upgrade the requirement to one more success for every -10 modifier", with an exception for rolls that would end as automatic successes that way (Because of the possible "20 in all thresholds" situation that was discussed in this thread).

>>15698676
Let's use the example given by this fellow here:
>>15698657
"you need two successes to break down the door"
This means that the player needs to roll under his second highest threshold to succeed. Bonuses? Who cares, he's breaking down a door.

And in the case of your example.
Either the first result type is satisfying in which case you just need to flat roll under your highest involved threshold to succeed, if you need to open it quietly than you need to roll under your second highest. Etc.

There's no actual deep gradation of success in this system. It's all superficial, unintuitive and very much broken.

>>15698706
The chance of success on a task requiring X successes is equal to the chance to roll below your Xth highest relevant threshold. There's really nothing else to it. Even with "energy" there is little you can do to manipulate this.

OP, you suck at explaining!
However, from your mishmash I was able to rewrite the rules for you in what I understood from it.

You have level, attribute, and skill.
With 2d10, you roll an acrobatics check with your 5th level, 17 agility, and 9 skill in acrobatics.
If you roll 17 or lower, you had marginal success for rolling under your agility. If you roll 9 or lower, you rolled under both agility and skill thus you had a greater outcome. 5 or lower? You epically succeeded because you rolled under all three skills.

Did I get it right?

>>15698798
not op, but you got it right, it wasnt that hard to understand

so if you every actually need 4 successes to complete something, you just spend as much power as the skill/attribute/level, whichever you have the lowest score in.

>>15698831
Yep.

>>15698839
I can live with that. :D

>>15698641
That's only true if you're looking at something as a binary success/fail outcome, where if you get X successes if you pass, and if not you fail.
However, with this system you can also have tests with scaling outcomes, where each additional success contributes to the magnitude of your outcome. While this is possible with a simple target-number system, it's clunkier there than in this one, requiring you to calculate how much you beat the target number by ("for every 5 points by which you beat the target number..." and things like that). In this case, though each given success is a binary outcome dependent on a specific parameter, the combined effect is a scaling outcome. You passed for your skill (the highest number) and your attribute (the second highest), but not your experience? That's a bigger outcome than if you'd only passed for skill.
The outcome is only binary if you treat it as such.

It may be more coarse-grained than a dice pool system, but it's definitely not completely binary like a target number system is, and it gives you information on the outcome of your attempt that neither a dice pool nor a target number system can provide -- namely, the relative contributions of raw talent, specific training, experience, and effort. If you're specifically looking for a highly granular system, it's obviously going to fall short in comparison to dice pools. But if you're looking at it as a way to add a degree of granularity to a target number system, then it's quite good at what it does. It does exactly what it advertises -- adds the granularity of a success count method to the simple probability of a target number system. It's a perfectly functional dice system, and not any more unintuitive than any other roll-under system.

>>15698831
It's pretty much a less binary version of temporary willpower in WoD.

>>15698831
Of course, if your lowest parameter is pretty high, then you could spend less energy and just hope that you roll low...

>>15698875
>scaling outcomes
They don't. There's no logical correlation between the thresholds and situations where whole gradations go missing.
>requiring you to calculate how much you beat the target number by
This is seriously a problem to you?
>It may be more coarse-grained than a dice pool system
A lot more coarse grained and without the actual benefits of one.

>>15698925
>They don't. There's no logical correlation between the thresholds and situations where whole gradations go missing.
How so? If you're talented, skilled, and experienced, you do a better job under the same conditions (same die roll) than someone of comparable skill and talent, but less experience, and that person does better still than someone of equal skill but lacking both talent and experience. Makes sense to me.

>This is seriously a problem to you?
It's not a "problem" per se, but it's certainly slower and clunkier than this system. Less math is always better, even if the math is just simple arithmetic.

hmm. what if the gamemaster could, say, make it more difficult by stating that you wont gain a success if you roll lower than for example your level (because this is ancient and comes from another dimension, no experience can teach you this), or similar, when the gamemaster thinks experience/attributes wouldnt help you with whatever you're doing. good/bad?

>>15699010
I think he's a troll.
No one can be that ignorant.
Maybe he's the autist who raged against this system further up in the thread.

>>15699037
It seems less like he's trolling and more like he's just hung up on how this system is less fine-grained than a dice pool, rather than how it's more granular than a simple target number. He's latched onto that one "weakness" of the system (which is really only a weakness by comparison to one kind of system, but actually a strong point compared to others) rather than looking at the big picture.

Simply put, if you want something with a high degree of granularity, yes, go for a dice pool rather than this system. However, I can't think of any way that this system is worse than a target number, and given how widely popular target number systems are, I'm inclined to give this system the thumbs-up.

Let's take two characters with the following profiles:
Attribute: 17 and 15
Skill: 11 and 12
Level: 7 and 6

Let's see how these two characters take on a task requiring 1, 2 and 3 successes:

#successes: Character 1/Character 2
1: 90%/79%
2: 45%/55%
3: 15%/10%

Character 2 despite being overall seemingly less apt at the task in general has a significant (10 pp more) chance to succeed at it if it requires SPECIFICALLY 2 successes.

While belligerent, the naysayer had a point upthread when he stated that if you have two attributes that are the same, you can have 0 successes or 2/3 successes, but never 1. This is a pretty glaring flaw in the system imo. Imagine if somehow a character ended up with three of those aspects within a very tight range? He'd either fail tasks, or do them spectacularly well. It doesn't work.

You could only really rectify it by rolling separately each for attribute, skill and level. This make the game significantly slower.
So yeah, unless you guys can come up with a way to fix that, OP's system is a novel idea with an unfortunate flaw that would put me, at least, off of it.

>>15699276
Ah, that's what he was getting at! The way it was worded, I couldn't make sense of what he was getting at, so I just ignored it as belligerent ravings. But you're right, that is a pretty significant flaw. Unfortunate.

rolled 10 = 10

>Read Through Entire thread
>Get confused at some of the explaining
> Read [>>15695638]
>Kind of Gelatinous cube.

Beautiful. I like it. Keep it up OP!

I can offer rationalizations for the flaws, but I can't deny that they exist.

>>15699246
In that scenario one character decided to max out one of his stats (comparatively), while the other decided to raise them all. As a result, the first character is virtually guaranteed of getting a single success. The second character is in more danger of getting no successes, but he is more likely to get two successes.

Essentially char1 spent points to give himself a safety net, while char2 spent points to maximize his output. In my system, having lots of 11s is more rewarding but less safe than having an 18 and a bunch of 7s.

>>15699276
This is correct. If a character's stats are all within the same range then it is less likely that that one will fail while another succeeds. The only solution I can think of is rolling multiple dice, which I'd really rather not do. I'm honestly not sure how I feel about this yet.

Another flaw which I don't think anyone brought up is that rolling high is REALLY BAD and rolling low is REALLY GOOD. A master who rolls a 20 will likely get bitch slapped by a newbie who rolls a 2. This would be why 3d6 > 2d10 > 1d20, because the smaller the odds of rolling super high and super low, the more reasonable my system becomes.

You guys seem to like the basic mechanic, but it does have some serious issues which I need to figure out. I think that simply changing it up to where stats go from 1-10 and then you roll (up to) 4d10 might just be a better system. I dunno.

It sounds interesting OP but it will confuse new players. In fact we can see in this very thread how it has confused people.

My opinion OP? Your rolling mechanic is fine if a bit fiddly. DO NOT risk making the system even more fiddly by adding extra mechanics for other areas of the game, like your wounding system.

>>15698657
If the GM *wanted* to go into that level of detail he could. Or he could simply say
>breaking down this door is gonna require 2 successes. This is a tough door so I'm giving you a roll penalty of +5.

>>15697112
>>15697162
>>15697192
Monte Cook's World of Darkness has rules for spell creation, similar to your own. You can make almost any type of effect, but calculating the cost is complicated. Thus you rarely improvise a spell. You should check it out if you haven't already.
I don't know if regular World of Darkness also has these rules.

>>15697098
>>15696996
An older system I was making had 'universal, general, and specific' skills, which work similar to your own. The problem I ran into there is it can be hard to decide what a homebrew skill falls under. Dunno if your system was designed to encourage homebrewing skills.

Do you have any way of dealing with levels of skill? Let's say that a novice swordsman is fighting a master swordsmen, but neither of them know anything but the sword. What kind of advantage does the master have?


Oh and any of you guys can poach my mechanics. Just...I dunno. Remember me, and tell me how well they worked if you see me on here again.

>>15701396
>DO NOT risk making the system even more fiddly by adding extra mechanics for other areas of the game, like your wounding system.
I'm confused, do you think the wounds system is good or bad? Currently it's modular, meaning that I could basically take the wounds system of hp and transplant it into any rule set and it would still work. Are you saying it's just too complicated when combined with my basic mechanic?

>>15701514
(Not the same guy)
These systems are imo fine in terms of complexity. Difficulty adjustments for the rolls might be a bit of a hassle for the DM, but I love the wound system - It's as simple as, say, WoD, but also slightly deeper.

Do you have any combat rules figured out yet?

>>15701576
Nah, not really. Roll to hit like you would roll for anything else. I want defense to be passive, meaning the defender doesn't roll. I'm not sure how to implement that, though. Mite require mathing.

Special attacks would be powered by energy. Cast a spell? Costs energy. Whirlwind attack? Costs energy. So you can either spend energy to do something cool, or you can spend energy to try really hard to succeed.

If I use a grid I'd use a square grid, where diagonals count as adjacent.

There's a lot of mechanics floating around in my head but I'm not really sure which should be used.

>>15701676
maybe make the defender's passive number a 4th number that cancels a success?
Or maybe a penalty to all success thresholds? So rolling 17,12,5 against a defense 4 character would need 13,8,1 to get successes.
Have you taken a look at the Infinity miniatures game? The rules are free from the company online, and there's nifty resolution mechanic that maybe you could crib from.

>>15702001
thanks, I'll check it out.

>casual bump

>>15702001
I thought about what you suggested.

Perhaps when you are attacking someone

0 successes is a miss
1 or 2 is a hit
3 or 4 is a crit

Their dodge score directly adds to whatever you roll. So for instance if you would normally need to roll a 14 or below to get a success, but you are attacking someone with a dodge score of 3, now you need to roll an 11 or below.

This means that if their dodge rating >= your highest stat, then you simply cannot hit them without some kind of advantage, like a surprise attack or high ground. But I would try to keep dodge ratings low. A dodge rating of even 10 means that a master swordsman misses you about half the time.