I have been re-writing my balanced, cinematic, universal, roleplaying game system (which you can use straight or as a tool kit) for my current backer. The rewrite was going well. I recently have had a big change over in alpha readers and playtester. My new set of readers/ playtesters have been giving me some odd feedback, but one of their comments have been echoed by several of them.

Currently, my game system does drama resolution by rolling 1d20 against a die roll number comprised of 4+statistic mod + “Skill” Mod +/- modifiers. In short a base attribute roll plus skill. The roll for making the die roll is that number or less, with the difference being used as a result mechanic.

Any attribute can be used with any “Skill”. So most combative actions will be based on Dexterity for hitting things.  However, you could use your combative aptitudes in other areas, Mental plus Combative to know about weapons and combat, Emotional score plus combative for a combat related will roll or Charisma plus combative to “talk shop” with soldiers/ warriors. (Modifiers apply for odd uses).  Now there are Will and Conversation “Skills”, but if you don’t have those and have a high enough combative (to overcome the pointed "off use" modifiers), you could substitute them for any of these limited uses.  

Nothing too exciting there. Stat+skill combinations that are fluid have been around for a while now. Sure 95% of your rolls are going to be the expected Dexterity+Combative, but the options are there for alternate uses, especially if you have the right traits/ specialties and such.

So my new playtest readers are going…. Why do I have these other things?  It should be simple, one roll for every skill, no matter what I do with it.  If it was just the “I play D20 only” playtesters, I could deal with it. But it is others as well.

They are thinking one stat always. Now single locked stat for a base will skew the system a bit. Many classic games use formula based on stats used for their base score. That can get complex and hard to remember. A simple combination of two stats (or the same stat twice), keeps the scores from looking similar, eliminate the maxing of a single stat to grant uber ability in a skill grouping,  gives a wider feel for each one, and takes up the base number of 4’s place.

The current Convergence Point system is a descendent of a system that had such a base system. The pieces are in place. Each “Skill” has two attributes associated with it.  The balancing factor is that the second attribute can not add more than the first (prime) attribute.  

As an example, a character with a STR MOD of 4 and DEX MOD of 6 has Combative and Athletic. The formula for Combative is DEX+STR  and Athletic is STR+DEX. The Combative score is 10 (6+4) while the Athletic score is 8 (4+4 (6>2)). Thus the placement of your scores becomes important depending on what you want to emphasize, without being score heavy (Oh you have DEX so you are a hitting and sneaking kind of character).

Literally, I can do the conversation without thinking about it. But I need some considerations:

........................................................................................

There has been a recent harkening back towards simplicity in games. (A direct reaction from the complexity of D20 things? Or other games? I do not know).  
1)  Is this a trend I should follow?  After all, Trends change.  Should I just go with my “gut” and stick with the solid system? What is all of your opinions?

The game is designed for “intermediate to advanced gamers”.  They are the ones who might appreciate the various features of the game. (To be honest, beginners can handle the game, but this is for “positioning”.)  
2)  Flexability is a good thing, especially in a Balanced, Cinematic, Universal, Roleplaying Game. It is a trade off between more “accurate” resolution vs speed.
3) There are things to be said for simplicity and “everything being right their on your sheet no matter what you do”.  Yet, the math is small (and some people have it predone on their sheets) and not that hard (add two numbers under 10).  Yes it is one step to be done before you have to make a roll.  But if it is a common roll, you just know your number.

A base score for each action means a player will be inclined to code each of the 32 “skills” ahead of time, even ones they won’t be using.  This happened so often in ancestor  game system, that we designed a character sheet to make it easier.
4) One of the advantages of the game system is the ability to quick customize the “skill” list for the genre or setting or GM’s style of play.  (There is a check system for it on the campaign handouts in back).  This means either the player will have to write down each AoE in use (and its value) by hand OR the GM will have to make a custom character sheet, instead of just the five or six they have.
5) Of course this makes 10 to 40 things you will do ahead of time. Each thing is adding two number and subtracting 2 because you don’t have the “skill”.
6) Of course having them there is to never worry about having to do the basic math for a future roll.  

7) I could punt the flexibility issue and running with this “simplified” set of one score for task (as each skill covers only one area with minimal to no overlap). This means you can’t utilize your superior score in the appropriate field (talking shop in a garage with technology or talking shop with soldiers. using combative). So you lose some flexability. You can regain some of it by taking a modifier for a “supporting skill” or some such.

There is a rule option, but it requires more math. We could still use the base score, and apply a negative mod, for “off uses”. See the combative example in the third paragraph.  That does give us the best of both worlds. A base score and anything not using a formula characteristic could be done, but with a penalty.

9) Anything I missed?

Well, given this information, then I would say that you should stick with your gut instinct and leave it the way it is currently.  Trends are subjective and mercurial.  Most gamers these days are sophisticated enough to handle this type of system.  Besides, the stat+skill mechanic with the option to swap out the stat based upon situation has been around long enough to be considered mainstream, IMHO.

As you said, most stat+skill combination will be static for most gamers.  However, having that option to utilize a different stat+skill combination in an unique situation is awsome for gamers who think outside of the box.

As the system stands, it truly is flexible and can easily be used to create a specific genre emulation.  Having the option to tinker with the stat+skill combination will a GM to tailor his game to emulate his vision of a specific genre.

As it stands, the math is fairly simple addition of small numbers.  I would recommend against heaping on too many negative modifiers.  Keep the math simple, sweet, and based on addition.  I would recommend maintaining that optional rule as optional and not part of the core rules.

What do you like? Are they saying that the system is flawed, or not working as intended, or just wishing it were something else? If they're reporting actual failures of when the system works, then you probably should change it. If it is just opinion--well it is an opinion, and not feedback to how the game itself works, and should be taken with a grain of salt.


I'm not sure why you have 4+att mod, to begin wtih; is there a reason for the +4? Are attributes used straight? Skills? (That is if you have Attribute 3 it is added to the 4, rather than attribute 40 with a +2?) The reason I ask, is unless you've designed a lot of things into the larger attribute modifiers I've always felt it a bit silly to have things like D&D's 3-18 base scores then have a derived modifier, when for the most part; only the derived number is important.

Your math for determining the effective rolls, looks, problematic to me, in that I wouldn't want to do it myself. You also seem to be double dipping trairs--perhaps its your explanation. Because if Dex goes into the formula for combative, are you adding it again to the functional roll?  

Perhaps a complete character and a run through of her doing things would be useful?

Quote from: Silverlion;254982What do you like? Are they saying that the system is flawed, or not working as intended, or just wishing it were something else? If they're reporting actual failures of when the system works, then you probably should change it. If it is just opinion--well it is an opinion, and not feedback to how the game itself works, and should be taken with a grain of salt.

I like it as it is. They are saying that they find this variability confusing. I don't know why, but they do. I don't think they are writing any of their common rolls downs on their sheets. I think they are literally doing the math every time. The rules actually recommend writing down your common rolls, maybe I should point that passage out.

Quote from: Silverlion;254982I'm not sure why you have 4+att mod, to begin wtih; is there a reason for the +4? Are attributes used straight? Skills? (That is if you have Attribute 3 it is added to the 4, rather than attribute 40 with a +2?) The reason I ask, is unless you've designed a lot of things into the larger attribute modifiers I've always felt it a bit silly to have things like D&D's 3-18 base scores then have a derived modifier, when for the most part; only the derived number is important.

The 4+ATT MOD helps give a viable number to roll under on 1d20. It is a place holder. An Everyman example is all rolls are 10-, that is  4 +3 from att and +3 from skill level.   Attribute Modifiers range from +0 to +6 (with higher numbers possible) with an average of +3. Skill levels range generally from 1-10, with higher numbers very possible, with an average level being +3 to +5.  

Attributes are on a 0-20 scale (roll 4d6-4, 3d20/3 or just choose the number you want). For die rolls and tactical modifiers, only the modifier is used. That is the aspect's number divided by three, round down. The Attributes/ Core Aspects' values are used in a number of other rules (all of which are control points, i.e. use to to your taste).  They are used to define maximum base rolls and maximum number of traits of a given type, maximum possible result points from an action, as well as some things that get really optional.

Actually, until relatively recently, all players expressed "greater comfort" with a 3-18 range scale and a modifier.  It is mostly a psych thing. As long as the large scale number is used in some way as well, people accepted big number they only occasionally use and the little number they use all the time.

It also makes explaining your character to other people easier, as the 3-18, 1-20 scale is part of our gaming lingua franca - (love it or hate it) D20.

Quote from: Silverlion;254982Your math for determining the effective rolls, looks, problematic to me, in that I wouldn't want to do it myself. You also seem to be double dipping trairs--perhaps its your explanation. Because if Dex goes into the formula for combative, are you adding it again to the functional roll?  

It must be the example.

I think you are mixing the two die roll functions.

Current Base Roll: Dex roll + Combative Skill   (4+dex mod) + skill

Single Base Base Roll: Combative Base+ Combative skill  (DEX+STR) + skill

There is no double dipping.   A STR 16 (+5 MOD) DEX 13 (+4 MOD), Skill 1 character generates base attack rolls as
Current
   Dex roll of 4+4 8-
   Combative roll of 9- (8+1)

Single Base roll
   Combative Base  8  4+4 (remember the limiting rule)
   Combative roll is  9-  

Single Base rolls, mathematically, tend to be one less than the corresponding Current system roll.  It just happens to work out the same that way this time.

Now lets look at Athletics (mostly because I am tired of Combative).

Athletics is STR+DEX. Most people can see this for some activities like climbing, but others require more coordination, flexibility, and reflexes than muscle power. And now you see the problem I have with a static score. It does not alwasy properly reflect the action at hand.

Example: Imagine a character with a STR MOD of 3, DEX MOD of 5, and WILL MOD of 4, and an Athletic of 3. Our example actions will be make a climbing roll based on STR+Athletics, DEX+Athletics to grab that ledge, and WILL+Athletics for a "It is too hard, yet I must go on" or the "ignore the pain and hang on" kind of check.

STR roll is 7-, DEX roll is 9-, WIL roll is 8-  (4+mod)

STR roll+Athletic or 10
DEX roll+Athletic or 12
WIL roll+Athletic) or 11 (9 or less with an off use penalty of 2, if rule being used. The off use rule is there for balance in these systems or to rewards those who took the "right skill" and are not substituting)

Now in the single base system, you would have a base of STR+DEX + Athletic Level 3+3+3
STR, no problem 9-
DEX, no problem 9-
WIL 9- with a small problem or if we are using #8 would be 7-

*Note, the everyman base Roll goes to 9- from 10- using the one score system, but traits and other mechanics would improve these in play- but that is out of scope for this example,*

The score go down in those cases. but if you reverse it (STR 5/ DEX3)
STR+ATH 11-
DEX+ATH 11-
WIL+ATH 11- (9- if using #8)

Is the saving of a few moment's time worth the reduction in representative skill?

Quote from: Silverlion;254982Perhaps a complete character and a run through of her doing things would be useful?

Trying to avoid that, but will if needed.

QuoteTrying to avoid that, but will if needed.

I think I see their problem. In part as most people  expect reasonable arbitration in the game. You've designed the system to call for specific (but flexible) rolls. The general D20 thing as I've seen it used is to simply take the base "D20+relevant stat" but ask for a decrease of the target number because of X, Y, or Z. Such vague ideas: "I'm a Mountain Dwarf...I should be used to this kind of climb.." to "Hey I'm agile can I use that to help me find smaller handholds?"

They're getting an arbitration (GM) altered number by their open idea/convincing the GM--whereas you are creating specific conceptually paired aspects already in the system. It basically adds complexity since they have to utilize a more formal application of the idea.

I think. This may just be wild supposition on my part. (I can't argue the 3-18 stuff, I think its silly to have big huge numbers that mean nothing mechanically for the most part. But then I'm more interested in "How does this effect the outcome" than "hey this looks HIGH!"

I'm not sure there is a solid solution to their issue. I'd probably go for something much simpler and simply describe how you can choose pairs as needed, and make the roll more easily built. (No on the fly calculations, even for "common" things--because let's be honest, what's common varies too much.)

Yet you have to make the game YOU want.

Trying to avoid that
I am sorry you misunderstood. I just didn't want to write out a full example, starting from character creation and moving to actions here in this thread.  I have some big examples in the book, using the example characters. I have a step by step breakdown in the book.

Quote from: Silverlion;255037I think I see their problem. In part as most people  expect reasonable arbitration in the game. You've designed the system to call for specific (but flexible) rolls. The general D20 thing as I've seen it used is to simply take the base "D20+relevant stat" but ask for a decrease of the target number because of X, Y, or Z. Such vague ideas: "I'm a Mountain Dwarf...I should be used to this kind of climb.." to "Hey I'm agile can I use that to help me find smaller handholds?"

The game uses the twin mechanics of elements (which provide the ability to do things and through their levels impact die rolls and other game mechanics) and traits (which describe important things about the character).  Skill Elements are pretty well defined for what they cover.

In the example of die rolls, the die roll is pretty much figured as we have above. The "skills" define pretty specifically what you want to do.  The apprpriate Elements generate the bulk of your numbers for resolution and give you the ability (or inability) to do thing.  

Traits describe things you can do. You can pull them from element being used, the core trait (defininng who and what you are), and any gift (or flaw) you have.  Traits applicable simply change the mechanic generate number slightly. First trait negates the modifier for not having an appropriate trait, the next one (and everyone after that) simply adds a +1.  
-2/ 0/ +1/ +2/ +3   etc

To use a trait, you should incorporate it appropriately in your "short" description of your action.   The GM still gets rejection rights.

In your above example, if he a "climbing trait" then asked for Mountain Dwarf (+1), Agility Gift (+2).    If he didn't have a climbing trait, the Mountain Dwarf would negate the -2 (it makes sense that a mountain dwarf can climb), and agile bumps it to +1  Normally speaking, you will have one, maybe two traits applicable to your regular actions.  

"Being the most agile of Mountain Dwarves I easily climb up the rock face. "

Also the nice thing about Convergence Point is that a "failed roll" does not mean you fail the action. It just means you did not succeed as well as you could of. After all, there are some actions a damm hero should not fail at.

You manage to climb the rock face, really slowly, because of the failed roll. The "Bad Guys" have managed to get to the rock face while you were scrambling up and see you up there.

Quote from: Silverlion;255037They're getting an arbitration (GM) altered number by their open idea/convincing the GM--whereas you are creating specific conceptually paired aspects already in the system. It basically adds complexity since they have to utilize a more formal application of the idea.

All games games have this. Player declares action. The GM throws numbers at them. Players either accept the number (which is most of the time) or appeal because of x,y,z - no matter how accurate or flimsy x,y,and z are.  GM can accept the appeal and give new numbers or stick to their original number. 90-95% of the time, flexibility is not needed.  It runs pretty straight forward. (And if doesn't the first time you roll, it will the second or third time).

When flexability is needed, it grants advantages to players who either "planned ahead" or have the right game pieces and penalizes those that didn't.

You paid for a high will, well this is when it is going to pay off.

And you thought intelligence was a dump stat, well.....

Player: I am not sure I can do it.
GM: Well you are not completely screwed. Now look at your sheet. What describes things that could help you do this? I see about 8.  It won't be a great chance, but better than nothing.

"Ummm I needed the points and I didn't think I would get hit - ever - after buying up my combative."  

You see how this goes.  Things are often unforseen.

The rules for how to use your combative aptitudes and skills as the conversation skill (in a seriously limited mode) are there to rescue the player who needs to do something and ]does not have the skill he needs, but can make a convincing argument (x,y,z) on how AND gives the GM concrete specific guidelines on how to deal with it.  

"At least I am charismatic.."
CHA DR+ Combative, -2 Off Stat, -2 for wrong skill, +0 for your soldier trait (negating penalty),  You do have a good charisma roll and a huge combative skill of 8, so maybe you can pull it off. Now, you begin to talk with the guards and begin to get the skivy on the castle and the court.

"Can I use combative to talk to the Chamberlain about Master Pell? Appeal to his military side, if he has one?"
Actually if you want, we can see if he is amused, simply blows you off, or begins to consider you a total git and every interaction you take at court from here on will be at a penalty.   "No pain, no gain. At least I am charismatic...  Say, Sir Chamberlain, I am wont to remember my days on campaign. You remember your days in the field surely. Doesn't Master Pell remind you of....."   Okay Same roll, lets hope you roll really well..

This is where the Benchmarks and Degrees of Success come in handy.

The system is desgined to give you flexibility in response.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

So far, it seems that flexibility is winning the opinion poll.

Generally, you will have base uses, but you can use the other stats for appropriate things.

Though it does seem I should make it very clear that some of the flexability options are not "every day used".

For most gamers, complexity is only a problem when it becomes difficult to understand. When creating the rules, as long as there are simple step-by-step examples of the different uses of the rules, you'll be fine.

I love the idea of combining stats together and joining them to a skill. From a universal POV (I've read a lot of free ones recently!), it really helps. Imagine these sorts of scenarios:

I want to get past the Luftwaffe checkpoint. Going to use DEX and CHR with German Language skill to walk without looking suspicious and going un-noticed.

I want to convince the robot to kill him. Going to use CHR and INT with Computing skill to cajole the robot with logic.

Both work nicely. I'd stick with your system but think of a really simple way of explaining it and why it can be really cool for the players. I think rolling under the sum is simple enough for people to grasp as the numbers are small enough.

I like it.

Quote from: Rob Lang;255327For most gamers, complexity is only a problem when it becomes difficult to understand. When creating the rules, as long as there are simple step-by-step examples of the different uses of the rules, you'll be fine.

I love the idea of combining stats together and joining them to a skill. From a universal POV (I've read a lot of free ones recently!), it really helps. Imagine these sorts of scenarios:

I want to get past the Luftwaffe checkpoint. Going to use DEX and CHR with German Language skill to walk without looking suspicious and going un-noticed.

I want to convince the robot to kill him. Going to use CHR and INT with Computing skill to cajole the robot with logic.

Both work nicely. I'd stick with your system but think of a really simple way of explaining it and why it can be really cool for the players. I think rolling under the sum is simple enough for people to grasp as the numbers are small enough.

I like it.

I'm clash bowley and I fully endorse this position. When I playtest games, I playtest in two phases - ALPHA playtest tests the rules. BETA playtest tests the expression of the rules. When a Beta tester has a complaint about something, my first instinct is to always go over the way I state the rules. I assume the rules themselves are correct unless specifically stated. Hone how you say what you want to say, be simple and direct, use examples, don't be afraid to reiterate something expressed before.

Luck, dude!

-clash

What clash said.

(And the circle is complete)

rofl