Et system jeg gik igang med baseret på de overvejelser jeg tidligere havde haft. Er aldrig blevet specielt glad for den mekanik jeg fandt, men jeg vil stadigt gerne lave noget bygget på de principper.

TASC – Tasks as Successes and Complications.

Introduction.

This document is meant to describe one possible instantiation of a success/complication point mechanic, like the ones that have been discussed on rec.games.frp.advocacy. This entire document assumes that the reader at the very least knows a few role-playing games, and to a certain extent also that they have read part of the above mentioned discussions.

Motivation.
The previously mentioned newsgroup debate was concerned with making a system, which could provide a general mechanic for detailed use of a wide variety of skills. While many existing systems have quite detailed combat mechanics, the general skill system is often quite bland. This can make it difficult to create non-combat challenges where the players can give qualified input, and have meaningful interactions, since all you end up being able to do in the system is ‘Roll you X skill’.

It is possible to overcome this problem in the case where both player and GM has enough working knowledge of the task at hand, to be able to create logical options purely from narrative descriptions of the situations. However this doesn’t invalidate the point that the system provides no support for handling these situations. At best it is not in the way.

One way to solve this problem of lacking system support would be to create a number of detailed mini-games, like the mini-game that most systems provide for combat. A combat system presents the player with a number of options which can be evaluated solely on the basis of the system itself, thus removing the need (Though not the usefulness) for actual knowledge about combat. However creating such a detailed system for some other skill – Like investigation or engineering – would take up a lot of rulebook space. Thus it would only be possible to provide perhaps one or two extra systems, and it would be hard to decide which skill merited the extra attention.

Another option – The one attempted with this set of rules – is to create a general skill mechanic which was better at supporting the kind of detailed decision making that the combat system makes possible. Thus the system should make it possible for the player to make meaningful decisions even when the GM has declared ‘Roll you X skill’, just one can choose between several attack options in a typical RPG combat system, even if they are all resolved by (modified) combat skill rolls.

Possibly such a more general skill system might also make it easier to create the formerly mentioned mini-games. After all many combat mini-games are simply a collection of interrelated skill options, and the general skill mechanic should provide a concise way to describe such options. This should make it possible to make a more compact description of a given mini-game, thus providing room for more of such games.

Note that I do not really consider arguments why combat may be the only skill that really deserves the attention of a mini-system. For instance combat is a central element of many RPGs and the action genres that have inspired these games. It is also something that the whole party can participate in, and it requires relatively detailed rules because the lives of the characters are on the line. Also because combat is such a central element of the action genre, it can be assumed that the players have at least some partial understanding of how a (fictional) combat works. Thus they are better equipped to make combat decisions, than they are to make detailed decisions when using some other skill. There is also the whole question of whether other skills have the dramatic potential of combat – After all how many other skills can provide the same life and death situations, and dramatic pacing as combat? And so on. Most of these are quite valid arguments, but I have chosen to mostly ignore them, because I have actively felt the lack of system support when using non-combat skills. Even if others don’t share this problem, that is really no reason for me not to make a system which might fit me better.

Since the focus of the discussion was action resolution mechanics, that will also be the focus of this document. So there will be no detailed discussion of character generation, learning etc. though there will be character description tools.

The core problems of standard resolutions mechanics.

As stated above the main problem with most standard resolution mechanics is that they do not provide any options. Most mechanics have just one measure of skill in a given area, and only one measure of task difficulty. Likewise most systems have a very binary result interpretation, where you either fail or succeed, but with no further interpretation of what, in particular, failure means. Sometimes this very rough scale is extended with exceptional results, such as critical failure and success, but often even these results lack interpretation. None of these mechanics provide any options for the player, since a necessary (but not sufficient) requirement for there to be any options, is that there are some trade-offs.

This problem is often only addressed in the combat mini-game, where options are provided in two different ways. First there are some basic trade-off which are mostly integral to the combat skills. These options are things like choosing to lower your to-hit chance in return for dealing more damage if you hit, or increasing your to-hit chance in return for lowering you defence scores. This kind of options is what I will refer to as Intrinsic Options. The second kind of options is the Situational Options. Situational options are things like choosing which opponent to engage, taking the high ground etc. This distinction isn’t clear-cut, but mainly Intrinsic Options will always be there, even if some options might be useless in a given situation, while Situational Options are only there if they are part of the story so to speak. For this reason I will focus mainly on creating Intrinsic Options. However to create good mini-games it is also useful with good concise framework for describing situations (And thus create Situational Options). ((In the case of fantasy combat, this is one of the tasks a monster book fulfils. It provides a quick way of creating a new situation, namely by introducing a new monster.

The basic Success Point/Complication Point (SP/CP) idea.

The SP/CP idea was provides as one way to create a general framework for giving the players Intrinsic Options, when using their skills. Rather than simply having a binary measure of success and failure, a skill check results in a number of success points (SP) and a number of complication points (CP) – Combined they are called resolution points (RP). The same roll can generate both types of points. The actual resolution of a skill check is handled by exchanging the SPs and CPs for concrete game effects. SPs are primarily used to accomplish the attempted task, but they may also be exchanged in return for other positive effects, such as completing the task faster, getting a bonus to a connected skill checks. Conversely CPs are exchanged for negative game effects. This could be broken tools, preventing further attempts at the attempted task, or it may be things like attracting unwanted attention etc. The possible uses for SPs and CPs will depend on the skill being used, though it might be possible to make a list of generally applicable ways of spending points.

This idea should provide Intrinsic Options in at least two ways. First all skill checks now result in two values that are not mutually exclusive, namely the number of SPs and the number of CPs generated. Thus a trade-off can be made between the chance of getting SPs vs. the risk of getting CPs. Secondly there is the decision of how to spend the generated points. Typically the SPs will be spend by the character generating them, while the CPs will be spend by the GM or possibly by the opponent, if it was an opposed test.

Since the ways you can spend RPs depend on the skill used (Also called ‘RP targets’), it is also possible to make meaningful decisions between using different skills. Even if they call all accomplish the main task; different skills may generate different secondary effects. This differentiation can also be extended to the particular way a skill is used, simply by connecting a specific RP target, to a specific way of using a skill. Likewise RP targets can also be used as simple way to introduce Situational Options – Just specify a new way to spend points.

An actual mechanic.

After this rather long introduction to the discussion, it is about time to look at an actual mechanic for generating RPs. I will base this mechanic on the dice-pool idea, which was also suggested on rec.games.frp.advocacy. For a simple skill check a number of dice are rolled, and each die is then compared to both a success target (ST) and a complication target (CT). If the die comes up equal to or higher than the ST it gives a success point and if it comes equal to or lower than the CT it gives a complication point. The two ranges may overlap, so a single die can give both an SP and a CP.

Modelling talents and skills.

Since this is supposed to be a skill resolution mechanic, at the very least it should take into account the skill of the character attempting the task. This can be doe in several ways, using the framework given above, so here I have just chosen one. Skills (by which I mean learned and relatively easily trained, but not universal abilities) are used as modifiers to the ST and CT. A person with skill X can modify the ST and CT of a given roll by up to X points in total. This could be lowering the ST with X points, lowering both ST and CT by X/2, or any other combination which gives a total modification less than X. It is not possible to modify the ST below 2 or the CT below 1. So there is always the risk of a complication point, and a risk of not getting a success point, on every die.