I'm editing this post to make it less 'wordy'.

  I'm working on a system that uses traits that define everything about a character.  Some examples are;

  Fighting
  Brawn
  Crafting
  Magic
  Theivery
  Scholorly Lore
  Wilderness Lore

  etc.  I don't have a list yet.

  What I'd like to do is to allow the characters to use other traits to help them out when performing actions usually governed by another trait.  For example, if you're fighting someone, you would use your Fighting trait vs your opponents Fighting trait.  If a character wants to sub in a different trait ( for example use their Brawn instead of Fighting when fighting), they can do so but only on a limited basis otherwise one would always sub in their best trait all the time!

  So I'm thinking you can only sub in a different trait by expending an Action Point.  I was going to have a pool of Action Points that are shared between all of the PC's ( or maybe everybody just having their own? ).  When a GM controlled NPC wants to sub a different trait, they can do so by ADDING an Action Point to the PC's pool.

  Once an Action Point is used it is lost but can be regained through good roleplaying.

  Anyone see any problems with this?  Any way this can be improved upon?  The goal is rules lite fantasy that's fun and easy to play.

  P.S.  If you spend an Action Point to sub in a different trait during an opposed roll, your opponent has to use that same trait too!

Another way to do a similar thing (based on Tunnels & Trolls):

For each trait, find the 'adds'. Assuming a range of 3-18,

scores of 9-12 have 0 adds
scores of 13 or more have (score-12) adds
scores of 8 or less have (score-9) adds (giving a negative).

Normally you compare the scores. But you can spend an Action Point to bring in a second trait - in this case you use its adds, not the score.

Using the example above, you might have Fighting of 10 vs an NPC's Fighting of 14.

You spend an Action Point to use Brawn. You have a Brawn of 15, they have a Brawn of 8.

So you get your Brawn adds (3), and they get their Brawn adds (-1).

This brings your score to 13 and theirs to 14, making the match much more even.

Hello Age of Fable.  It's funny that you responded to this post because I've pictured my game system ( as far as traits go ) to be similar to your game.  I came up with this idea a while back and did nothing with it and all of a sudden I see your Age of Fable game and say 'cool, this guy's game is like the one I'm working on!'.

  Anyway, I have considered a method similar to what you posted but I felt having another trait modify an existing one instead of outright replacing it would be more complex.  Not too complex mind you ( it's a viable way of doing things and arguably more realistic) but a little more fiddly for my tastes.  

  How do you feel about the overall mechanic of being able to use a secondary trait to accomplish a task on a limited basis?

  How do you feel about the Action Points being shared between all the PC's in the party?  Do you think it would be better to have each character have their own set of AP's to use?

  How do you feel about the GM adding AP's for the PC's to use when he wants his NPC's to use secondary traits?  If every character had their own personal AP's, then I could delete this rule.

  Overall, do you think this game system would be FUN and EASY to play?

There are some situations where you'd think the two characters wouldn't use the same trait - eg if someone's trying to con someone else, it'd be Charisma vs Wisdom or the equivalent.

In that example, A Charisma vs Willpower to con someone would be the default roll the GM would call for ( or whatever he feels is best for that particular situation ).  If one of those guys decided to spend an Action Point to use...oh let's say their Wits trait, THEN the other guy would be forced to use his wits score too to oppose him.

  So you only have to use same trait vs same trait when someone spends an Action Point to force you to do so.

How do you work out which traits you're allowed to substitute?

You can use whatever you think is reasonably appropriate.  If the GM doesn't think it's a viable substitution ( like wanting to use Agility to interrogate someone ), then he just says 'no'.  

  Also I think making an opponent have to use the same trait againts you during a substitution is more fun.  For example, if you have a very high Brawn trait and mediocre Fighting trait, you would always sub your Fighting for Brawn because you know it's higher.  But unbeknownst to Mr. Muscles over here, he's going up againsts a guy with even more Brawn than himself so thats not gonna work out so well for him.  I guess he'll have to find a different tactic.  Perhaps he can match 'Wits' with him and see if he can outsmart this guy?  Better come up with something fast...your running out of Action Points!

  I like to think that substitutions can also add cool roleplaying aspects too.  Like having your 'ranger' type character using his 'Woodsman' trait to attack an opponent by describing how he's using the terrain around him to give him an advantage.

I can see a couple of possible problems with that...

i) people start talking in rules terms which don't relate very well to the 'story': eg "I spend a token to use my Agility" - as opposed to "I throw my spear", which has a clear meaning in the world of the game.

ii) people have different expectations of what attributes can be used when. Different ideas of the 'unwritten rules' is a big cause of tension, in my experience. Especially because the decision as to whether you can use a particular attribute could have a big impact on what happens.

So I'd suggest having rules about what you can and can't use (eg 'you can use Wilderness Lore in combat, only if you're in the wilderness').

Quote from: Age of Fable;260524i) people start talking in rules terms which don't relate very well to the 'story': eg "I spend a token to use my Agility" - as opposed to "I throw my spear", which has a clear meaning in the world of the game.

  I think any system is open to that type of problem.  That would be a problem with the players themselves rather than the system ( any system ).  3e D&D power attack Example - "I subtract 4 from my attack roll so I can ad 4 to all my damage rolls if I hit him" as opposed to "I swing with all of my might and  beat him down with my powerfull blows.  I'll take a -4 penalty."  It's all in how you want to spin it.  Remeber, it's required the player give a reasonable description on how/why he's using his subbed trait.

Quoteii) people have different expectations of what attributes can be used when. Different ideas of the 'unwritten rules' is a big cause of tension, in my experience. Especially because the decision as to whether you can use a particular attribute could have a big impact on what happens.

  That of course can be a concern but I would think it would be obvious in most cases what traits one might use to substitute.   It's up to the GM to know what the hell he's doing and the players being mature people.    

  Also, some situations may call for a player having a choice between what trait one may use ( yes I neglected to mention that in my OP ).  For example the GM might say "Anyone who wants to swing aross the chasm on a vine would have to make a roll againsts their Agility OR Brawn trait".  If a player then still wanted to use a different trait he felt was relevent ( like using their Woodsman trait for example ), he would have to descibe HOW it's relevent  and if the GM agrees, then they may do so at a cost of 1 Action Point.

  Remenber that the ability to sub in other traits is a very limited option.  When in doubt, I say let the player have their way.  It makes it funner for them.  You you can always kill them off later!

QuoteSo I'd suggest having rules about what you can and can't use (eg 'you can use Wilderness Lore in combat, only if you're in the wilderness').

  If the game were to be published ( which it isn't ), then yes there would be many examples and guidlines for what traits can be used for what but honestly, it would be impossible to list every type of situation and what traits could be subbed in.  For simplicity sake, I'll just have a list of the traits and their basic meaning/use.  I think that should be good enough ( for experienced gamers at least ).


  P.S. Do you think each character should have their own pool of Action Points or should they share just one pool?

Every player should have an action die pool.

Realistically, I think people use their best ability for everything they can at all times, so I don't think you should have to spend an action die for it. For example, a strong person and a weak / fast person get into a couple of fights. If they are unarmed, the strong person is going to muscle the guy down and beat him up, assuming they practice the same amount of time before hand. Being fast just isn't as good as being strong without a weapon. If you gave them both rapiers, the strong guy would STILL try to be strong, because that is his nature, even if it wouldn't work out as well because of the mechanics of the sword.

I think you should let people use whatever attribute they want everytime as long as it can be justified. If the attribute isn't on a pregenerated list of attributes that are useful for said action, they would suffer a penalty.

For example, Strength and Dexterity could be for fighting, but the combatant has -4 in each, but a +4 in Wits, so he tries to use his Wits to outsmart the guy. Sense Wits isn't a useful attribute, he suffers a -2 penalty, but that still leaves him with a +2, which is better than a -4. Maybe he can use an action point to remove the penalty.

Quote from: Cranewings;261455Every player should have an action die pool.

 Yes, I think that's the best way to handle it too.

QuoteRealistically, I think people use their best ability for everything they can at all times, so I don't think you should have to spend an action die for it. For example, a strong person and a weak / fast person get into a couple of fights. If they are unarmed, the strong person is going to muscle the guy down and beat him up, assuming they practice the same amount of time before hand. Being fast just isn't as good as being strong without a weapon. If you gave them both rapiers, the strong guy would STILL try to be strong, because that is his nature, even if it wouldn't work out as well because of the mechanics of the sword.

 This is true, at least to some extent, but sometimes you just can't fall back on your strengths and your weaknesses can/will show.

QuoteI think you should let people use whatever attribute they want everytime as long as it can be justified. If the attribute isn't on a pregenerated list of attributes that are useful for said action, they would suffer a penalty.

  I think that would make characters too one dimentional because one would always use the same 2 or 3 traits for everything.  I want the characters to have much more variaty.  If you have a character with a poor trait in something, then you just shouldn't expect to succeed very often when using it.  Perhaps giving them more Action Points would allow characters to sub in other traits more often which would allow their strengths to come into play more.

   I like to picture falling back on other traits as meaning 'hey, right now in this particulal situation, it's possible your [ insert subbed trait ] might be a factor where it usually isn't'.  So when a player spends an Action Point and subs in another trait, they're basicly saying 'right now is one of those times'.

I could see that. I never liked action points before, but one of my groups has been playing Spy Craft, and it is starting to grow on me.

(: That's saying something sense Spycraft is just 3.0 dnd with a 200 page equipment list.