Ludofex

I første omgang blot en kopi at et længere indlæg jeg lavede på rec.games.frp.misc, dengang jeg var en mere flittig nyhedsgruppe læser.

Someone suggested to start a new thread on the subject of non-combat
mechanics, since the other one had gotten a bit bogged down with the
lock-picking argument (Partly my own fault, since I kept defending it,
even though I’m not a great believer in the dramatic lock-picking epics
either).

Someone also suggested that we look at generic mechanics for many
sitiations, rather than specialised systems for various specific skills.
The main reason for this, was that it would be hard to predict what kind
of systems would be useful in various games. I agree with this, although
I think an effort could be made to make specialised systems for skills
that are in focus in a given genre. Thus I think that a good generic
system should be open to increased focus and specialisation - This may
twist the skill balance a bit, but if it increases the focus on genre
specific skills, I don’t think that that will be a disadvantage.

To make the challenge more specific, I will try to list some skills
which I think could be used to illustrate whether a system really is
generic.

Combat: Combat is part and parcel of many games and genres, so it has to
be there. It is also one of the few areas where there are already
complicated mechanics, so it will be a decent benchmark for the
detail-level of any generic mechanics.

Survival: It is the kind of situation that can appear in many games, and
it can illustrate a systems use for serious but draw out conflicts. I
also think a made a partway good stab at detailing this already. It is
also the kind of ‘conflict’ where all participants must make some
minimal contribution, even if it is just to stay alive.

Medical: Medical emergencies certainly has just as much life and death
drama as combat. It also fit well with a detailed combat/injury system,
it is the kind of thing where a pass/fail mechanic can be just as
disruptive as in combat, and it is a area where situations be can
constructed to involve participant of many different skill-levels.

Stealth: Again part and parcel of many games and genres. But often it is
not handled very well, since stealth missions can’t really ’survive’ a
simple pass/fail resolution mechanic.

Investigation: Again a type of skill which is the basis of some games.
It is also an area where a total failure, can spell the doom of a plot,
if a certain plot-hhok just isn’t discovered.

Research/Science: This skill is not typically the focus of rpgs, and it
can be said to lack in dramatic potential. However the few science
skill-rolls there are are often critical, and if a character has a
decent science-skill it will often be the focus of the character, so an
undetailed system will deprive the character of his chance to shine.

This is not in any way meant to be a complete list, and there are
propably many skills on the list that some people woulod find terribly
boring to resolve in detail. This IMO is inavoidable if we want a
generic mechanic, so such a mechanic should also have some way of tuning
the focus given to a skill, depending on its importance in a given
situation.

Also me might want to look at some more general skill resolution
concepts that should all be handled by a generic mechanic. These might
include:

Simple checks: This is the basic skill check of whatever resolution
mechanic chosen.

Resisted/Opposed checks: Skills checks where there is no set difficulty
but success of failure is determined by the comparrison of two different
skill checks, often made by different participants.

Iterated checks: Checks where the final success or failure at the given
action is determined over several individual checks. Often used to
simulate a long process.

Combined checks: Checks where several skill-checks are used in mutual
support of each other, such as backing up theoreticl research with
experiments.

Composed checks: Checks for actions that are composed of sevral
individual skils, such as doing a backflip while shooting.

Group actions: Actions attempted by whole groups. Might be thought of as
either iterated, combined or composed checks, where different characters
make the individual checks.

To further kick of the discussion I will try to sketch a couple of
(semi-) generic mechanics. Since I’m of a dramatist bend the systems
will propably reflect this, so they propably won’t suit everybody. They
are also not meant to be extremely realistic, but it might be possible
to trim that, since it is just sketches.

*** The success/complication point system ***

At its core a quite simple idea, where success and failure is translated
into a distinct currency, success or complication points respectively.
Apart from the difficulty of the actual roll, the difficulty of a task
is measured in how many success points (SP) are required to accomplish
it. Likewise the grade of failure is measured in complication points
(CP), which basically represent the GM’s right to throw problems at the
failing character.

The core of the decision mechanics is the choice between getting SP and
risking CP. If no further complications are added this could be simple
gambling mechanism, where you bet a number of SP which you get if you
succeed, but if you fail you get a corrosponding number of CP. More
complication could be imagined, but lets see what these points could be
used for first.

As stated success points are primarily used simply to accomplish the
task at hand. Excess SP might be traded in for speed-ups at the task,
gaining experience in the skill used, showing off, getting bonusses on
following checks, buying off complication points etc.

Complication points as the name implies represent extra problems for the
character. Generally these could include loosing already gained success
points, loosing skill levels in the skill used (Representing bad habits,
or that you where really as good as you thought), extra time spent on
the task, penalties on following checks etc.

In addition to these general effects each skill could list extra uses
for SP and CP. To take the example skills I have drawn out it could be:

Combat: SP) Extra dammage, improved initiative, better defensive
position, giving your opponent complication points, extra attacks. CP)
Self-inflicted dammage, low initiative, dropped weapons, loosing
attacks.

Survival: SP) Extra food from foraging, less evidence, extra knowledge
about the path ahead. CP) Getting lost, loosing supplies, unexpected
encounters.

Medical: SP) Faster recovery, fewer complications, lower expenditure of
resources like medicine. CP) Extra damage to patient, higher expenditure
of resources, secondary damage.

Stealth: SP) Less evidence left after the fact (Fingerprints etc.), less
immediate evidence (Noise). CP) Immediate or persistent evidence.

Investigation: SP) Evidence is good enough not just to be circumstatiel,
but conclusive, extra trace evidence is gathered, the scene is kept
practically undisturbed, and can be checked again. CP) The evidence
might be found but be inadmissable, or be destroyed in the process of
recovery.

Research/Science: SP) Underlying connections between different theories
are uncovered, the research not only helps at the issue at hand, but
also makes for a good paper. The machine or item designed works better
than the specs. CP) A flaw in the characters earlier work is uncovered,
the experimental results can’t be recreated, the machine or item
designed does not live up to the specs, the theory ends up making
controversial assumptions.

On top of this SPs and CPs might also just be traded in for general good
or bad luck, like whether or not an innocent bystander happens by during
the break-in, or some idiot can’t get out of the way during the car
chase etc. While some might be opposed to connecting a driving-check
failure to an old woman in the pedestrian crossing, IMO it would be both
a nice and fair way to include this kind of realistic complication,
without relying solely on GM wim.

The main point about this system which set it appart from the
success-track suggested in the other thread, is that SPs and CPs don’t
have to cancel out, so you can succesfully accomplish the action you set
out to perform, but set yourself up for a fall due to collateral
complications.

The different kinds of checks (Simple, Combined, Composed etc.) can be
handled by looking at different pools of SP and CP. So an Combined task
might have one success pool for all the different skill-checks, but
seperate pools for CPs, while the converse might be true for Composed
checks. This would make a difference in how the points might be traded
in for game effects, which would be especially important if spending 2
times 1 point was different from spending 2 points in one go.

Apart from the simple gambling trade-off on how many CPs you are willing
to risk, one could imagine further options where you get CPs even if you
succeed (Such as an all-out attack, where you will end up in a bad
defensive position even if you hit your opponent), or SPs even if you
fail, just as onoe might imagine that the effect of gained points could
be determined in advance. This would leave rooom for many options. It
might also be possible to take skill-checks aimed only at getting rid of
CPs already gained. It would also make for quite a modular system, where
extra options for how to trade in SPs and CPs coudl be added to increase
focus on particular areas, (hopefully) without invalidating how the
whole system worked without this addition.

*** The trade-off system ***

Here instead of a common currency for success and failure, each skill
would have a set of suitable trade-off intrinsic to that skill. So for
the selected skills this might be:

Combat: Attack, Defence, Initiative, Fatigue.
Survival: Time, Expended resources (Like food), Evidence left, Evidence
Gathered (for tracking and the like), Orientation, Fatigue.
Medical: Time, Resources expended, Risk to patient.
Stealth: Time, Persistent evidence, Immediate evidence.
Investigation: Time, Thoroughness, Quality of gathered evidence (For
getting further leads), Admissability of evidence (For prosecution of a
criminal).
Research: First Order principles, Experiments, Previous research
(looking though papers etc.), Fringe theories.

The above choice are of-course pretty much grapped out of thin air, so
they might not be the best trade-offs one could imagine. But the basic
idea is then, that whenever a skill-check is called for, the player
would way these trade-offs to modify the roll. This would then allow for
a more detailed examination of success and failure. Some of these
trade-off might then be translated directly into the story, while others
might need more system support for the player to be able to make a valid
choice. Forinstance the difference between First Order principles and
Experiments might not be clear, nor would it be clear what would be the
best thing to use in a given situation. But even just having the words
could be a help, when translating the skill-check into game-world
effects.

Hmm. I can feel that I don’t have the endurance to even partly flesh out
this system now, so I think I’ll just get back to it.

Anyway none of these two system sketches will immediately lift all
skills up to the level of detail that combat has in many systems at the
moment, but I think that they get part of the way, by presenting more
options for a skill check. Some of the options also has to come from the
situation in the given roleplaying session, just like the argument that
combat involves tactical choices between multiple opponents doesn’t hold
the the GM always just presents one big monster. But at least with more
varied skill checks, where the feects can be controlled by both player
and GM, will go along way towards making more interesting treatments of
skills possible.

Sorry about the rather long (And possibly boring) post, but I guess I
just don’t no when to quit on a subject.

mvh

Nis