Aspects.

[leviathan]

Okay.. I have had an idea on my brain for several weeks. Time to get it out. So here goes. (;

When you perform a skill in many systems, you just roll against a difficulty set by the DM and add or subtract your skill's level. The modifier method. But I was thinking, what about all of the things that happen to make up the action taking place?

Let me give you all a scenario to show what I mean. <b><i> Aki, an high ranking archer, is hunting a cloaked figure in the woods surrounding the small elvish city she lives in. She has orders to immobilize him and bring him to the imprisonment camps for questioning. She moves swiftly through the brush, making as little noise as possible. When she has a clear shot, she focuses, aims, and lets an arrow fly, making sure the timing is right. The cloaked man clutches his side and keels over in pain as the arrowhead tears through his flesh. </i></b>

Now, as you can see, there are several parts or <i>"aspects"</i> involved with every action taken. In this case, Aki had to Focus, Aim, and Fire. The focusing requires mental clarity, the aim requires hand eye coordination, firing requires strength.

So what I was thinking is that players could have about 9 <i>"aspects"</i> and build skills from those. When it came time to test them, they'd roll 3d8 or something against all of the <i>"aspects"</i> relating to that skill and see which succeed. This would produce more interesting results (in my opinion) rather than just pass or fail.

Let's apply that to the scenario: <b><i>Aki places pulls the arrow back, readying her shot.</i></b> Aki's player would roll against her strength and add any GM decided modifiers for difficulty and such. Maybe a +1 for element of supprise? For this one, she passes. <b><i>With the arrow in position, she peers across the distance at her target, the tip of her arrow following her eyes in sync.</i></b> Aki's player would then roll against aki's focus aspect to determine if her mind is clear enough to aim. As always, she'd add or subtract GM assigned modifiers for difficulty or ease. Maybe a +1 for the silence in the woods at this time of night? Let's say she fails this roll, so she cannot aim correctly. <b><i> She lets the arrow fly, not so confidant that it would make it's target. Her intuitions were right as it zoomed past the dark cloaked figure, embedding itself into a nearby tree. The cloaked figure turns to aki, revealing a set of illuminated purple eyes. She stops, almost in a trance. Suddenly the cloaked figure darts off into the woods. Shaking the trance off, she gives proper chase as she loads another down feathered arrow into her medium bow. </i></b>

So, every skill would be made up of these componants. Skills would start at your base stats for those "aspects" but you could improve them. However, you won't be able to improve the aspects themselves directly, they only serve as the starting point for skills. Maybe you could improve them by improving several skills relating to them by a certain amount? Improve a skill's (or several skills') aspect by 4 levels, and the respective base aspect goes up by 1 level, improving all of the skills with that aspect. But that could cause a little bit of crafty munchkinism! Oh well.

That's all for the moment. Any suggestions? Anything I can look at for reference? Anything would be much appreciated.

~Lev~

[S. John Ross]

So, you want to roll dice HOW many times just to shoot an arrow? Or do you just mean lots of modifiers?

There are lots of improv magic systems that work like that right now ... I'm not sure I see the benefit in Fun to apply it to more mundane skills.

[leviathan]

<i>"So, you want to roll dice HOW many times just to shoot an arrow?"</i>

Oh, only 2. (; One could just roll 2-3 at once, and the DM could quickly interpret the results. Like... "You try to swim forward, but loose wind fairly quicky. However you did manage to get a good amount of distance out of the short amount of time you did push forward."


<i>"There are lots of improv magic systems that work like that right now ... I'm not sure I see the benefit in Fun to apply it to more mundane skills."</i>

That's the problem eh. Anything I could do to solve it? I would think that it would add more... posibilities to a game. Beside that of passing and failing, of course. (;

~Lev~

[S. John Ross]

Well, yeah, it'd be kind of cool in an abstract way to know that you succeeded at part X of a skill and failed at part Y ... but then you're back to multiple die rolls.

Apart from that, basically you just end up creating situational modifiers that might or might not be needlessly abstract. Again, there might be a benefit, but the problem isn't the benefit it's the work you exchange for it. If you spend a pound of work for a half-ounce of added fun, you're losing out on the game :)

So, no, no real suggestions; it's not my bag. I DO understand the goal of wanting more depth to skill rolls than success or failure, but as long as a game has _degrees_ of success (and many do), that's good enough for me :) The rest I just fill in with improv :)

[Sarim Rune]

My take: If you're having 2-3 rolls for just one skill then I think it's a little to unwieldy.

However if you're making 2-3 rolls to resolve an action, i.e. computer hacking, combat, etc - then it might work.

So aki has to make an Focus, Aim and Fire roll. If you work it like: 1 of these is successful, then she fails her combat. 2 of these are successful, then she wounds her target. 3 of these are successful, then she wins her combat (i.e. she takes down the figure).

Now you work out the details for yourself. Maybe in combat the target gets to make a doge roll against her aim roll (if he's aware) and then gets to make a toughness roll against her Fire (hit) roll. So she makes all three and he makes 1, he's not defeated, but wounded. If she makes all three and he makes 2 then he got out of the way enough to take just a scratch.

I think you can play around with this. It's got potential.

[Jack Spencer]

I'm going to have to side with the other two guys on this in that it seems like you're making more work for yourself (& the players) while not gaining all that much back.

One thing you could try is rolling all the dice at the same time to somehow gain a special form of result. But I think that's also going to be more work w/o the substantial pay-off.

[NPC Whymme]

I once saw a system being proposed where you roll three differently coloured dice; one for the PC's stat, one for the PCs skill and one for external circumstances. If two or three dice rolled under their respective target numbers, the action succeeded, if there was one or zero success, the action failed.
The nice thing was that you could see why the action failed. Take the die that failed the test by the largest margin and you know what aspect caused the failure.

The difficulty with determining aspects for every task, in the way that Leviathan suggests, is that you have to have every aspect defined for every action. And more, if you don't want to hold up the game because you need to look things up in the rulebook, you need to know the different aspects which make up an action by heart.

So firing a bow has three aspects. What about negotiating? That would cover psychology (to understand the motives of the opponent), persuasion, intelligence (information - knowing about the opponent's goals), business etiquette, perhaps language skills.. that's four or five aspects. If firing a bow is a success when two of the three aspects succeed, how many successes would you need for actions with a different number of aspects?

Whymme

[xenongames]

I'd rather just have one "Bow" skill and let the players define what aspects their character have. When I run a game, I do not want to figure out all those modifiers. When I play a game, I do not want to factor in all those modifiers.

I would also use the same technique to get rid of stats all together. You can have a high bow skill because you are very dextrous or because you are very focused or a combination of factors. You decide. I'm tired of game designers telling me these things.

Likewise, if the skill roll fails, the GM or player can usually make a good reason why it failed without worrying about the game mechanics behind it.

[kabael]

If you simply want to track characters succeeding in one part of a task but failing in another, why not have thresholds beyond a single, straight target number?

Instead of "beat a 10", have then beat a 6 to do X, a 9 to do Y and a 10 to do Z. Think of it as a more clear delineation of degrees of failure :p

You could also use multiple dice, if you really wanted. Say with a dice pool of 3, define one "aspect" to each die. Dice that succeed represent aspects that succeed.

However, in the archery example that you gave, I only see two aspects, one for perception and one for the actual skill at archery. How would I handle that? Give a perception roll to spot the enemy, an attack roll to hit them. i.e. the standard way systems operate now.

Personally, I find it much more useful to have a simple, single die roll that will determine success or failure and the degree. Then, depending on the situation, I fill in the details of specific success or failure for the different aspects that may influence the situation.

[leviathan]

Sarim Rune: <i>"So aki has to make an Focus, Aim and Fire roll. If you work it like: 1 of these is successful, then she fails her combat. 2 of these are successful, then she wounds her target. 3 of these are successful, then she wins her combat (i.e. she takes down the figure)."</i>

Then it just turns into a regular ol die pool system. Oh well.
~~~
Kabael: <i>"You could also use multiple dice, if you really wanted. Say with a dice pool of 3, define one "aspect" to each die. Dice that succeed represent aspects that succeed."</i>

Well.. that's what I'm talking about. (: That's how I planned it would work in the first place.

<i> "However, in the archery example that you gave, I only see two aspects, one for perception and one for the actual skill at archery. How would I handle that? Give a perception roll to spot the enemy, an attack roll to hit them. i.e. the standard way systems operate now." </i>

Nonono.. She had the enemy spotted. She was following the enemy all along. But what she had to do was <i>ready</i> the arrow (which takes strength in order to pull the arrow back far enough so that it'll reach your target), <i>aim</i> the arrow at the target(which requires focus), and fire... which is just letting go of the arrow and doesn't really require an aspect. So really it's not the same. In standard issue systems, a perception roll would mean spotting the target. I wasn't speaking of spotting the target. I was speaking of aiming at the target and readying the shot which are both basically what a bowing skill consists of.

So really, I'm just splitting up skills into the parts that make up the skill. Swimming would require strength to push forward and stamina to keep going without loosing your breath. Marksmanship would require focus to aim the shot and stability to hold the gun steady. Magic would require stamina to control the magical energies and will to manipulate it. And so on.

<i>"Instead of "beat a 10", have then beat a 6 to do X, a 9 to do Y and a 10 to do Z. Think of it as a more clear delineation of degrees of failure"</i>

But that would imply that one part of a skill is easier than the other. :P I would say that some people might have problems aiming and others would have problems holding the arrow in the bow while they aim. (; Now, is getting the arrow to it's destination any less difficult than getting it to the proper destination? Precision and strength are equally important. (;

~~~

I think that if I reduce the number of aspects to about 7 key ones and make the skills based on only 2 of them, it could work. I just don't see any other way to get the desired effects beside improv, but I want mechanics to back it up.

Oh well.

~Lev~

[kabael]

leviathan revealed:
So really, I'm just splitting up skills into the parts that make up the skill.

Ah, I see now. But can I ask why?

In the archery example, you don't learn how to shoot a bow without having the basic strength to pull the arrow back. You don't hit the target unless you can aim. Why bother to separate them?

For swimming, without the strength to push forward, you don't go anywhere. Without stamina, you don't get very far. Again, why bother?

To show how this could be accomplished in a standard system already, let me use something I'm familiar with: Storyteller.

For the archery: Holding the arrow ready (for an extended period of time) would be a simple Strength roll. Aiming would be taking a few turns to make the task a bit easier. The show would be resolved with Dexterity or Percetpion (depending on what kind of mood I'm in that day) plus the Archery skill. That covers the aspects you mentioned, without making one easier than another.

For the swimming: Determining swimming speed could be figured with a Strenght+Swimming (Athletics) roll. How long you can swim would be a Stamina+Swimming (Athletics) roll.

What I'm trying to say is "Yeah, you can divide them and thus complicate a system, even if only a little. But why would you want to do that, especially when established systems can already handle it to some extent? What is gained for the expenditure of effort and increased complication?"

I think that's an important thing to remember with all rules. For people like me who think that "less is more" in almost all things, don't add something unless what you gain from it is worth the cost. Whether or not it is will depend on opinions. Rules-light people might balk at the cost while people who like really detailed rules might entertain the idea more readily.

[leviathan]

I'm saying that if you split up the skills into the componants that make them up... you get results that differ from situation to situation.
Like say if you don't aim the bow well but have the proper tension on the arrow... it zoom pasts the enemy and he figures someone is attacking him, so he runs. But if you did aim correctly, but didn't have the proper tension, the arrow falls short. The enemy doesn't notice it's a was an arrow but rather something in the bushes. The enemy turns around and investigates what's in the bushes.

I'm just trying to get more possibilities than pass and fail. And improv comming from me would turn into a "why did my arrow go there? Man, why you always gotta pick on me?!" situation.

Oh well.. yet another failed attempt.

~Lev~

[kabael]

Ah, I see what you want.

I'd recommend just creating a clear system for degrees of both success and failure, and encourage the GM to extrapolate from there. Most games have clear systems for degrees of success (I consider that an essential element in almost all games), but leave failure to something along the lines of "bad" or "really, really bad."

If you gave more detail, you could still retain the simplicity of the single die roll but provide a greater range of outcomes, if you so desired.