Maddman does have a point there.  We'll need to spell out exactly what success gets you.  I think that goal/skill success should be "better" than just goal success.  In combat, that will be easy -- you'd get hurt if you failed your skill roll.  You might still win with a dirty trick -- sand in the eyes, for example -- but you'd be injured, so your success wouldn't be "just as good".

We just need to extend that to other skills.

I think this idea is interesting enough to run with.    The question of where we go from here depends largely on what you want to do.  What kind of game do you want to do?  It could be turned into a generic system, but it would be a lot easier to have a focus.

So -- what would you want to run/play in?  Once you have an idea on that, we can more easily figure out what other features are needed to make the idea work.  

I don't think there is any need at all to put the mechanics into a setting.  The setting really only comes out in what skills/powers/equipment you get.  First concentrate on the core mechanic then spread out from there.  Decide on how it works in combat and non-combat situations.  Then add on magic/powers if those are important.

Quote from: kryystI don't think there is any need at all to put the mechanics into a setting.  The setting really only comes out in what skills/powers/equipment you get.  First concentrate on the core mechanic then spread out from there.  Decide on how it works in combat and non-combat situations.  Then add on magic/powers if those are important.

I used to think that way myself, but I've found that my designs work much better when I tailor the rules to what I want the system to do.

For example, the Virtues and Vices of the new WoD, the virtues of Exalted, or the alignment system of D&D would all just look silly in Traveller -- but they are essential mechanics of each system.

You can force a rules set to do just about anything.  But I think it's more profitable and fun to know where you're going when you start out.

As far as a settings I'd take the Savage Worlds approach and intend for it to be adapted to different settings.  I'd suspect that it would work well for action filled and pulpy games - metagame mechanics don't tend to make for dark gritty games very much.

And some good nomenclature to easily talk about the results of rolls.  I mean the sG, Sg stuff is okay but you can't talk abotu it verbally.

Quote from: MaddmanMaybe not every roll could call for a Goal pool?  Or maybe have the skill pool dictate narrative power?  If the goal succeeds then the goal is achieved, but if the skill is also achieved then the player gets to determine exactly how that happens.  If the goal succeeds but the skill doesn't, then the GM decides what happens.  Conversely if you get a success with the skill pool but fail the goal pool the action fails, but you get to dictate how it fails.  If the skill fails then the GM ownZ j00.    This may have all been intended in Dr A's post, but it wasn't obvious to me at first.  It almost seems a little backwards, but still very cool.

Er... I would like to say it was intended, but I think in my head I placed all narrating power in the hands of the player, regardless of result. This makes a lot of sense though. Player and GM has already agreed on the stakes (If you succeed, you get across the chasm, if you fail, you fall), but depending on who gets to describe it the outcome could be very different.

QuoteEdit - thinking about how this would work in a fight.  The Goal is to harm or gain advantage over your opponent, the skill is your ability to use weapons.  And I'm inventing some nomenclature so we can discuss this.  The results of a roll will be denoted s and g together.  Capital for a success, lower case for a failure - SG, sG, Sg, and sg.  Not perfect but it will save me typing.

For SG it's pretty obvious - you hit your opponent.  For sG you don't hit them, but you do gain some advantage over them.  Perhaps they lose ground, get disarmed, or lose initiative next round automatically.  If you buy my BS above, the GM gets to determine this.  For Sg the weapon strikes true but doesn't wound or hinder your foe for whatever reason the GM dreams up.  A parry, doesn't penetrate armor, or a dodge.  And for sg you miss and likely place yourself at a disadvantage, GM's call.

Looks pretty good to me. Here's one concern though: What if another character is the opponent? Do they just take turns rolling dice and reading/describing the effects? For that kind of situations, it would be good if the system was neutral as far as who is protagonist and antagonist. One set of rules for all, not one for players and another for npcs.

I'm also thinking that most fights should be resolved with one roll. See who achieved their goals, how the fight affected the characters mechanically, and who gets to describe it.

Quote from: GunhildaMaddman does have a point there. We'll need to spell out exactly what success gets you. I think that goal/skill success should be "better" than just goal success. In combat, that will be easy -- you'd get hurt if you failed your skill roll. You might still win with a dirty trick -- sand in the eyes, for example -- but you'd be injured, so your success wouldn't be "just as good".

Yes. If you're fighting a real opponent, it might simply be resolved with an opposed roll, where the difference in skill roll decides "injuries" (however that is represented in the game) while the difference in Goal successes decides who achieves what they set out to do (which might not be "kill the other dude").

QuoteWe just need to extend that to other skills.

Indeed. Here's a challenge: Hard knocks make you weaker, but at the same time more interesting from a story perspective. After all, if Han Solo and Luke Skywalker never had any set backs, their successes wouldn't be very memorable.
So how can the game model something like that? I'm thinking that skill failures drain your resources, while goal failures actually provide the character with fuel for future scenes. Not sure how that should work though. I'm sort of imagining a pool from which you can draw extra dice to your pools when you want to ensure success, or to advance the character through new skills or traits. But it seems too..I don't know. It doesn't feel satisfying. It might be possible to improve on.

Is it possible that losing/losing a Fast Talk check hurts your character in exactly the same way as a lost fight does? That would be funky in a way.

Quote from: KryystI don't think there is any need at all to put the mechanics into a setting. The setting really only comes out in what skills/powers/equipment you get. First concentrate on the core mechanic then spread out from there. Decide on how it works in combat and non-combat situations. Then add on magic/powers if those are important.

I think this is probably the way to go (plus, in my mind, I have this nagging feeling that in the end, I will decide that things like magic works just the same way as any other skill check, so it's already built in).

Quote from: GunhildaI used to think that way myself, but I've found that my designs work much better when I tailor the rules to what I want the system to do.

For example, the Virtues and Vices of the new WoD, the virtues of Exalted, or the alignment system of D&D would all just look silly in Traveller -- but they are essential mechanics of each system.

You can force a rules set to do just about anything.  But I think it's more profitable and fun to know where you're going when you start out.

This is absolutely true. I wonder if it's maybe it's not so much a setting though as a unified sense of how the game is supposed to be played. To me, this feels like a poster child for player empowered, character driven roleplay. I don't think you'd use this game for mystery solving, and you wouldn't use it for anything where realism is desireable - it's not going to model gun wounds or slash wounds, that's for sure.

But I think if we want to make an assumption for a setting, let's make sure first that it can do a straight swords and sorcery game. It should be able to model Conan, or Fafhrd and Gray Mouser. I don't foresee any trouble making it work with for example a modern setting as well, but let's use this as a start.

After re-reading this thread after a bit, I think I know what Dr_Avalanche is going for, and it's really, really similar to The Shadow of Yesterday's subsystem called "Bringing Down the Pain."  This subsystem switches the game from conflict resolution to task resolution.  

The system itself is 100% Creative Commons, similar to Open Source, so the game itself is free, and available at the link above.  The printed book is nice, though.

Quote from: Xavier LangI understand your frustration.  This is nothing like a perfect plan ruined by a GM that won't let there not be a big fight.  I can't remember the last time we didn't end up having a blood bath in a fantasy game no matter how sound the plan was.  (For me its been specific to fantasy.  Plans have gone off flawlessly in Sci-Fi.  I think the difference is just GM's but I'm not 100% sure.)

This doesn't seem to me to be a problem that has anything to do with changing the mechanics, but rather with getting a less crappy GM. Its a "GM skills" problem, and not an inherent system problem.

RPGPundit

QuoteFor example, the Virtues and Vices of the new WoD, the virtues of Exalted, or the alignment system of D&D would all just look silly in Traveller -- but they are essential mechanics of each system.

Which is why Traveller is the best of all sysems.

As for your dice mechanic (@Dr_Avalanche), I've recently been trying to adapt Hollow Earth Expedition's binary dice pools to a swords and sorcery-style glorantha adaptation...  I like the mechanic... and I like the idea combining Task and Conflict Resolution ... I was going for Conan/Leiber/Pulpy-Runequest hybrid feel, and this could fit in quite nicely.

However, I'd like to point out that it's easy to use different die mechanisms...  why not two different color d20s?  It doesn't have to be die pools, and it doesn't have to be the same dice either... how about a d20 for task resolution rolled simultaneously with 2d6 for the conflict resolution (just for the sake of example, I'm not advocating this)... or perhaps ever better, something like ORE, where you height determines goal success and width determines skill success (or vice versa)?

I mentioned earlier that CRN games had Shadow of Yesterday available as an SRD on their website.  They apparently took it down.  I have it, and if anyone wants it, PM me.

Quote from: joewolzI mentioned earlier that CRN games had Shadow of Yesterday available as an SRD on their website.  They apparently took it down.

While it's undoubtedly of limited interest to most of the folks at this site, the Finnish translation of the game is still freely available online...

These links might help

http://www.blinklist.com/Linnaeus/The%20Shadow%20of%20Yesterday/http://files.crngames.com/cc/tsoy/
http://files.crngames.com/cc/tsoy2/

and of course http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&q=%22solar+system%22+%22shadow+of+yesterday%22&btnG=Search

There used to be something at http://www.smokingmirror.net/SoY/ but it's been hacked.

If Clinton didn't mean for these things to be disseminated, well, that should at least help him stop it from happening by tracking down the sources and altering his own site. Though I'll delete this post if he requests.