In the thread about Mearls' comparison between OD&D and 4E, there was much highlight on the differing approach on rules usage - on one hand free-wheeling ad-hoc decisions based on pure plausibility, on the other hand clear-cut, "boardgame-like" rules based on pure mechanics.

I see strengths and weaknesses in both of these.
Personally, I lean more towards the 4E/3.x way of clear-cut and reliable rules - I'm a lazy GM who doesn't enjoy to permantly juggle with two hands and a foot to keep the tent from falling apart, and as a player I like when I can rely on the rules without fear to get them taken away out of a mood.
But I also enjoy it when players have clever ideas that go beyond the purely mechanical side - it's one of the most shining points of the medium RPG in my eyes, and one of the greatest strengths above all other kinds of games. It's a major reason for me to get back again and back again at the table, rather then sticking to WoW or NetHack or Secret of Mana or whatever.

For my current design project Mazeprowl I tried to come up with a way to get the best of both worlds, and it might be useful for those who feel the same way, so I'd like to translate and share.


The idea came when I read through my old SR3 stuff to get some inspiration while working on a subsystem - spontanous easement test for players who use their brains:

Quote from: SR3 BBB, p.94Dodger wants to do some snooping at the local Mitshuhama subsidiary. To get in, he tries to waltz past the gate guard with a little Fast Talk (Negotiation Skill specialization) and a somewhat tattered ID card. He uses the rent-a-cop's Intelligence Attribute of 3 as his target number. The guard ist suspicious (+2 to the target number, because it's his job to be suspicious) and he will be in trouble if he allows unauthorised personnel into the compound (a result harmful to him, which adds +4 to the target number). However, Dodger has an ID card (the Game Master applies a special -1 modifier to the target number for supporting evidence).

(Highlighted by me.)

It finally rang after I thought of an old mechanics idea in a German RPG newsgroup FAQ: http://www.azundris.com/output/rp/drsrm/faq/glossar.xml#wuerfellos
Unfortunately, Google seems to have trouble to auto-translate the page due to some unknown reason, but I can give away an own translation of the relevant part:

Quote from: DRSRM-FAQ about diceless resolution mechanicsOTOH there are resolution mechanics, that work without randomness, e.g.:

#  the Argumentative Resolution: the player declares why an action has success. For instance, a variant of the Matrix system demands the declaration of an action, the results of it and three good reasons why it works:
"I throw a fireball at the prince, what works because 1.) I studied many years fire magic, 2.) can to use the essence of the fire in the fireplace and 3.) the prince only has insufficient cover with the chair he's standing behind."

That's the concrete mechanic that came out of this thinking process.
It is included as an addition to the base mechanic, in direct neighbourhood to the other constitutional stuff together as long-time tasks, opposed tasks etc.
To give an idea of the integration, I should also add that the overall rules are very 3.x-like in their approach: Clear-cut definitions, clear-cut results, modifiers, mechanics for everything relevant for adventuring etc.

Situative Advantages
Players shouldn't just grind their stats and try to use trick 17 to waltz through every situation - instead, the players that look at the concrete situation and think about ways to improve their chance of success in it should be advantaged.
Whenever a player makes use of supporting measures customized for the situation at hand that isn't covered by existing modifiers, but plausibly seen should help, he gains a bonus of +1 to his test.
Examples:
- Disguise: For the assumption of the identity of a corporate guy, get a broken ID card of the target corp from the garbage and use it as supporting evidence for your bluff.
- Stealth: While sneaking up a wood stairway, stay on the side rather then on the center, where the stairs swing less and are less worn-out

In extreme cases, the GM can also raise this bonus or let several measures apply (up to +3, for a maximum of three tracked measures). He can also rule that a test automatically successful if the measures make it absolutely impossible to fail at the task.

There's explicitely no penalty for such plausibility-based measures. The worst the GM can do is to deny the bonus.

(Some might ask for my reasoning behind explicitely denying penalties.
The reasoning is that I want to _encourage_ players to think on their feet. Someone who at least _tries_ to do think beyond stats and dice shouldn't be worse of then the unimaginative Aspergers case next to him who just grinds the dice, even if the idea is bad.
Less importantly, there's also some bad experience with bad calls and general asshattery from some GMs. While as a designer I can't do much to stop them, at least I shouldn't hand them the baseball bat to whack the players around.)


What do you think about this mechanic?

Quote from: SkyrockWhenever a player makes use of supporting measures customized for the situation at hand that isn't covered by existing modifiers, but plausibly seen should help, he gains a bonus of +1 to his test.

The people that I've played with have been doing this for years.  It might be nice to wrap some advice, rather that rules, around it, though (e.g., how to deal with players who go overboard on modifier mining, what ranges of total modifiers are reasonable, etc.).  Rather than a +1 for each individual good idea, I'd suggest something more like a +1 to +3 modifier with the guidelines that a +1 is for when the player does one or two things that will improve their chances a bit, +2 is for clever or unexpected ideas or quite a few improvements, and +3 is for the player doing everything right).

The reason why I put it into the rules section rather than in the advice section is that rules have more impact on actual play because "crunch" is taken seriously, while advice often gets lumped into the "fluff" section to be skimmed and ignored. (Vampire is probably the most extreme case if you compare the advice section and what people actually play with it; but I guess especially the veterans among us know this approach from own experience. At least I do know that I outright ignore most advice that I find in games.)

Quote from: John MorrowRather than a +1 for each individual good idea, I'd suggest something more like a +1 to +3 modifier with the guidelines that a +1 is for when the player does one or two things that will improve their chances a bit, +2 is for clever or unexpected ideas or quite a few improvements, and +3 is for the player doing everything right).

Its a bit subjective for my taste,  but it should also work, especially if you want to emphasize the unexpected and innovative.

Yup, this is pretty standard stuff, you can find it from oldies like Chaosium Runequest and indies like Sorcerer, The Shadow of Yesterday, My Life With Master, and Burning Wheel. The way you're talking about it Skyrock, though, tends toward the indie end, and at the extreme you've got Wushu, where a player can just "say anything" by way of description, and they get the bonus.

For this to really work you're dependent on trust and tolerance. If the group has a strong common vision, or enjoys gonzo description without regard to (or even with preference for) how silly and improbable the narrations might be, then near-automatic bonuses for description are fine. Otherwise, it's a fine line--you could end up with players feeling either entitled to bonuses for any old crap they come up with, or burdened with a need to think up meaningless description just to get what, to them, seems like a "standard" bonus.

In a game that features challenges and GM-controlled opposition, frankly, I'd rather the GM be told that bonuses can be awarded at discretion, period.

Quote from: SkyrockIts a bit subjective for my taste,  but it should also work, especially if you want to emphasize the unexpected and innovative.

I tend to prefer a bit of subjectivity but I think you could certainly make it crunchier, especially if you enumerate common examples that would give each modifier.  I always liked the GM section in the original Warhammer FRP where it detailed a bunch of common things that adventurers would do and explained how to resolve them mechanically.  

The main thing you want to avoid is adding up +1s because that can easily get out of hand and if you cap it at +3, then players will feel robbed when their bonuses stop counting.  Better to give a range that gives each modifier, especially if you are dealing with only +1 to +3.

Elliot:
Now that you mention it, yes, there's some resemblance to Sorcerer bonus/penalty for tactics.
The main difference is the lack of the possibility of penalizing for the aforementioned reasons. (Actually, in the concrete execution I found it a bit off-putting how Ron Edwards encouraged to penalize players for "I whack him"-descriptions.)

Wushu is insofar closer to my rule as it's also a one-way-road.
But the source of the bonus is very different - rather then allowing everything someone might come up with, it must actually make sense as an improvement from a plausibility POV. So, no bonus for doing saltos or describing rotating revolver magazines while sneaking around.

Quote from: Elliot WilenOtherwise, it's a fine line--you could end up with players feeling either entitled to bonuses for any old crap they come up with, or burdened with a need to think up meaningless description just to get what, to them, seems like a "standard" bonus.

Yes, there's always the risk of turning a reward into a kind of repetitive "XP farming" whenever boni are available under clearly defined circumstances.

On the other hand, boni at pure discretion have the disadvantage of putting the "be fair!"-burden on the GM, and if he's actually consistent enough that it might as well be a clear-cut rule, nothing is gained from purely arbitrarily boni.

To leave such boni totally out... Well, there'd go the open-endedness advantage of RPGs.

As in many things in game design, there's a catch-22 where you can't get everything at once, and all I can try is to take the disadvantage that I personally dislike the least. YMMV.

Quote from: John MorrowThe main thing you want to avoid is adding up +1s because that can easily get out of hand and if you cap it at +3, then players will feel robbed when their bonuses stop counting. Better to give a range that gives each modifier, especially if you are dealing with only +1 to +3.

That's a good point with the problem of additive boni.
I can totally confirm that with my play experience with Wushu, where we quickly introduced the houserule of "if it's overally cool you get the full bonus regardless of #details" as everyone erred at the end of each description to just squeeze out the last bits to get the full dice pool.

Maybe it would be a good idea just to leave it a general +1 regardless of #measures and the option of auto-success for the cases where's no way left to fail.
Or actually to swap the source of the amount of the bonus from quantity to quality, as you suggested above.