NP, happens to everyone. Myself especially.

Also, I just realized it would still be the same as d10-d10, assuming that you treated 0's as 0's in it as well. So the only distinction is 0-9 vs 1-10 really.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;500858While I'm here, on the /3 stage of the process: while Raises are a basic rule in Savage Worlds, I don't know of many mechanics that build off them. Damage is +1d6 regardless of # raises, and # raises seems mostly irrelevant on other rolls.

A quick (like 30 sec.) search of my deluxe hardback:

1 raise increases a lot of things, multiple raises aren't counted most of the time.

Raises are critical to soak rolls. Success and each raise = 1 wound reduced.

Which is actually worse than using it as a core mechanic. If it's something you do all the time, you get practiced at it. (I had friends memorize the Bonus Number chart in Torg.)

But only using it in 1 sitch... squirrelly.

Thanks for the reply and the info.

Quote from: Ladybird;500852I assume you've already got the skills / attributes scale settled, if you're deciding how much you need to beat the target for each success level.

Attributes for normal humans are rated on a scale from 3 to 13, average 8. Why?

Skills are rated in pluses: +1, +2 etc. Unskilled is +0 (and has some penalties attached). Similar to Torg and Fate.

Attributes give us the base value for all skills based off them. Dueling is based on Dexterity, for example.

But you don't get the full value of the Attribute, instead you use the Rule of 3. That is, divide by 3, round up. Just like Success Levels.

Attribute Base Skill Level
3 1
4-6 2
7-9 3
10-12 4
13 5
(Wow, that CODE tag leaves a lot of empty space.)

This gives me an extraordinary score at top and bottom. Only people with a 3 have a base of 1, only people with a 13 a base of 5.

Your Average DN is an 8. 8 vs. 8 succeeds just a little less than half the time.

Success Levels are embedded in many mechanics, as directly as possible.

Wounds, for example, are 1 SL = 1 Wound.
Crippling attacks (designed to impair, but not kill) inflict -1 to Target's actions per each Success Level.

And so forth.

Quote from: Ladybird;500852Another thing you might want to consider is whether some tasks may need multiple levels of success, rather than just any; it gives you an extra way of adjudicating successes, but it does make the job of the GM harder.

I've strongly been considering a pass/fail system. It wouldn't work for combat, however, unless I radically changed how combat works, specifically damage.

Quote from: salmelo;500855It was the opposite (treating 0's as 0's) that caused said shift. Which Jasyn has confirmed was not his intention.

Oops! That must have been after I started my post.

In which case, yeah, BSJ's table is correct:

Die roll Cumulative Total
-10 0 100
-9 1 100
-8 2 99
-7 3 97
-6 4 94
-5 5 90
-4 6 85
-3 7 79
-2 8 72
-1 9 64
0 10 55
1 9 45
2 8 36
3 7 28
4 6 21
5 5 15
6 4 10
7 3 6
8 2 3
9 1 1
10 0 0

Cumulative total is the percentage of die rolls that will score that number or higher.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;500867Attributes for normal humans are rated on a scale from 3 to 13, average 8. Why?

Because you need to know what numbers you're dealing with so that you can balance the success divisor. And the more information we have, the more we can help you, by seeing how everything fits together!

QuoteSkills are rated in pluses: +1, +2 etc. Unskilled is +0 (and has some penalties attached). Similar to Torg and Fate.

What sort of penalties? "You can't do this without training", or modifier penalties? If you impose a modifier penalty for being unskilled, unskilled effectively isn't 0, it's effectively whatever the penalties are. 0 can be a distinct skill value (Effectively, "the lowest possible level of training").

Also, if the base value for skills comes off an attribute, how does a character get a 0 / unskilled rating? How do your advancement / character creation mechanics work for skills?

QuoteBut you don't get the full value of the Attribute, instead you use the Rule of 3. That is, divide by 3, round up. Just like Success Levels.

Code Select Expand

Attribute Base Skill Level
3 1
4-6 2
7-9 3
10-12 4
13 5

(Wow, that CODE tag leaves a lot of empty space.)

This gives me an extraordinary score at top and bottom. Only people with a 3 have a base of 1, only people with a 13 a base of 5.

Your Average DN is an 8. 8 vs. 8 succeeds just a little less than half the time.

I like this as a mechanic, but I'm not sure I understand it.

Attribute 8 gives you a base modifier of +3. If the DN is 8, then your dice+modifier total needs to be 9 to score any successes, which means your dice roll needs to be 6 or higher. Consulting our handy percentage chart above, we see that a 6 or higher result comes up 10% of the time.

Have I got this right?

QuoteSuccess Levels are embedded in many mechanics, as directly as possible.

Wounds, for example, are 1 SL = 1 Wound.
Crippling attacks (designed to impair, but not kill) inflict -1 to Target's actions per each Success Level.

And so forth.

I've strongly been considering a pass/fail system. It wouldn't work for combat, however, unless I radically changed how combat works, specifically damage.

The way your numbers look, inflicting a penalty looks like a very effective mechanic. Do your mechanics have any other "death spiral" effects? Is this intended behaviour? How long do the non-lethal penalties last for, and can they be stacked?

What sort of range do you expect character's "hit points" to be in? How long do you want combats to last? Do you want them all to be "to the death" or are you including mechanics that encourage/enable surrendering? If surrendering requires a skill check from the side surrendering, would the non-lethal penalty still apply ("The more pathetic you are, the harder it is to surrender")?

I think degrees of success suit your system fine, and they will help with your damage mechanic, it's also simpler in play if players only need to remember one core mechanic. If you want situations requiring a minimum level of successes to actually succeed ("You must score 2 successes to actually do this"), adding 3 to the DN is numerically the same as requiring a minimum of 2 successes, but is slightly more elegant (It's fewer math steps).

Quote from: Ladybird;500894I like this as a mechanic, but I'm not sure I understand it.

Attribute 8 gives you a base modifier of +3. If the DN is 8, then your dice+modifier total needs to be 9 to score any successes, which means your dice roll needs to be 6 or higher. Consulting our handy percentage chart above, we see that a 6 or higher result comes up 10% of the time.

Have I got this right?

I believe he's referring to the skill total, not just the attribute value. So for an 8 skill total with an 8 attribute your skill would have to be valued at +5.

I'm thinking this would actually cause 8 to be a relatively high target number, at least for starting characters. Of course, I could be misinterpreting something myself.


I had a thought though, do you plan on using D&D style skill - attribute match-ups (i.e. athletics rolls use strength, always) or a storyteller type approach (i.e. athletics to jump uses strength, athletics balance uses dexterity, athletics to hold breath uses toughness, etc). Of course the skill and attributes above are just examples.

Sorry, doing some moving. Been without computer access for almost a full day.

Quote from: Ladybird;500894

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;500867Why?

Because you need to know what numbers you're dealing with so that you can balance the success divisor. And the more information we have, the more we can help you, by seeing how everything fits together!

I apologize. That question was meant to be rhetorical. "Why did I make this decision?", not "why do you have the effrontery to ask?"

Your request for additional information was more than reasonable.

Quote from: Ladybird;500894What sort of penalties?

There's a repeating dice mechanic, like Torg's Roll-Agains or Savage World's Aces. Anytime a player rolls the highest possible result on a dice, they have Maxed the Die.

For the normal 2d10 roll, this is +9 or -9. When you Max the Hot die, you get to roll another d10 (read as 1-10) and add it to the +9. If this roll also maxes (+19), you get repeat and add again. So long as you roll 10's, you get to repeat and add. Rolling a +29, +39, +49, or more is possible. Maxing the Cold die is the exact same process, only you subtract the rolled number from the -9: -19, -29, -39.

Unskilled people don't get to reroll when they Max the Hot die. Got a +9? Great. They do get to reroll when they max the Cold die. Being utterly clueless limits the potential for success, but doesn't limit the potential for disaster.

I know this means that skilled people can't ever exactly roll a +9. This produces blank spots on the probability charts. This is deliberate.

Why did I do it? Maxing the Hot die happens 1% of the time. It should be an "Awesome!" moment. Getting to repeat the die, and getting a 0 sucks. It pisses players off, and increases their dislike of the system.

Because success is Result/3, those blank spots make minimal difference to the actual Success Levels rolled: .33% of the time you gain 1 higher Success Level than you would otherwise have (depending on what the DN was). That's a small enough effect that I can ignore it in favor of fostering more "Awesome!" moments.

Quote from: Ladybird;500894Also, if the base value for skills comes off an attribute, how does a character get a 0 / unskilled rating?

Skills are rated in "plusses", listed as +0, +1, +2, etc. Unskilled is a +0. So, an Attribute Base of 3 +0 = 3.

Plusses represent how much training one has had in a skill.

+0 = Unskilled. You haven't even the slightest hint of training in this area, and no experience either.

+1 - +3 = Minimal training. You have learned the very most basic concepts of the skill. There are large gaps in theory and application.

+4 - +6 = Beginner training. You have learned all the basics concepts well enough to do the job, but not spectacularly. You make mistakes that other beginners or amateurs won't catch, but anybody who know what they're doing will.

+7 - +9 = Proficent. You have a solid grasp of the theory and practice of the skill. Advanced theories can often be challenging. (The oft-cited "10,000 hours of practice".)

+10 - +12 = Advanced Training. You are very skilled, capable of teaching advanced theories. If they know of it, your skill impresses people.

+13 and higher = Mastery. There are few more knowledgeable than you.

Taking the Attribute Base with skill Pluses gives us the Total Skill. (Attribute 8 = Base 3, Skill +1 = Total Skill of 4.)

Here's the Total Skill comparison chart (all of these assume at least +1):

up to 3 is a Substandard employee
4-6 is a Novice
7-9 is Skilled (employable in a field, at an Entry Level)
10-12 a Professional (Graduate level or equivalent work experience)
13-15 is Experienced
16-18 is a Master
19+ is a Grand Master, one of the best in the world at what they do.

Here's the Difficulty Chart:

Description DN
Trivial 2
Easy 5
Average 8
Difficult 11
Challenging 14
Grueling 17
Heroic 20
Astounding 23
Unbelievable 26
So, by way of comparison, the Total Skill of people with Minimal training:

Deficient Attribute of 3 = 1, skill +1 = 2
Weak Attribute of 4-6 = 2, skill +1 = 3
Average Attribute of 7-9 = 3, skill +1 = 4
Good Attribute of 10-12 = 4, skill +1 = 5
Exceptional Attribute of 13 = 5, skill +1 = 6

Total Skill with Proficiency:

Deficient Attribute of 3 = 1, skill +8 = 9
Weak Attribute of 4-6 = 2, skill +8 = 10
Average Attribute of 7-9 = 3, skill +8 = 11
Good Attribute of 10-12 = 4, skill +8 = 12
Exceptional Attribute of 13 = 5, skill +8 = 13

Quote from: Ladybird;500894How do your advancement / character creation mechanics work for skills?.

As currently contemplated, starting characters will have one skill at +7 (Proficient), two more at +5 (Beginner). They will then have 10 other plusses to spread around as they see fit (up to +5).

Advancement is tied into the 5-Stages, and would make a long post too long. I'll add that as a separate thread.

Quote from: Ladybird;500894I like this as a mechanic, but I'm not sure I understand it.

Salmelo was correct. 8 is the Total Skill (some combination of Attribute Base and Plusses to equal . Anytime your Total Skill and DN are equal, you will succeed 45% of the time.

Quote from: Ladybird;500894The way your numbers look, inflicting a penalty looks like a very effective mechanic. How long do the non-lethal penalties last for?

Highest penalty takes effect.

There are 4 time periods:

Enemy's Next Phase.
End of combat.
End of adventure.
Persistent. (i.e. lasts until "cured".)

Each "costs" 1 SL. So, if you get 4 SL, you can choose -4 for their next phase, -3 until the end of combat, -2 until the end of the adventure, or -1 persistently.

These are abstract conditions. They can represent, for example, a painful sword strike that makes it difficult to fight, a Taunt that distracts them, and Intimidation that means they're scared, and so forth.

Quote from: Ladybird;500894Can they be stacked?

I would say no. The highest current penalty is affects the character.

They may have a -1 persistent condition, but their current -5 next-phase condition is much more painful, so that's all that affects them.

Quote from: Ladybird;500894Do your mechanics have any other "death spiral" effects?

Advantage bonuses for Initiative, but nothing beyond that.

Quote from: Ladybird;500894What sort of range do you expect character's "hit points" to be in? How long do you want combats to last? Do you want them all to be "to the death" or are you including mechanics that encourage/enable surrendering? If surrendering requires a skill check from the side surrendering, would the non-lethal penalty still apply ("The more pathetic you are, the harder it is to surrender")?

Combat is a separate Thread. It's just too long. I have thought out all these questions, and have answers, but they require some explanation.

Quote from: Ladybird;500894If you want situations requiring a minimum level of successes to actually succeed ("You must score 2 successes to actually do this"), adding 3 to the DN is numerically the same as requiring a minimum of 2 successes, but is slightly more elegant.

I agree. There should never, ever be a time where characters require 2 SL to succeed. Modifiers are okay, but if you got 1 Success Level, you got a success. You succeeded.

Quote from: salmelo;501009I had a thought though, do you plan on using D&D style skill - attribute match-ups (i.e. athletics rolls use strength, always) or a storyteller type approach (i.e. athletics to jump uses strength, athletics balance uses dexterity, athletics to hold breath uses toughness, etc). Of course the skill and attributes above are just examples.

A given skill is almost always associated with the same Attribute. If GM's feel the need to do otherwise, they can, but that's not a contemplated situation. I'm not sure I'd even mention it in a sidebar or as a 1-paragraph optional rule.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;501127Your request for additional information was more than reasonable.

Sorry! I'd misread that.

QuoteUnskilled people don't get to reroll when they Max the Hot Die. Got a +9? Great. They do get to reroll when they max the Cold die. Being utterly clueless limits the potential for success, but doesn't limit the potential for disaster.

I know this means that skilled people can't ever exactly roll a +9. This produces blank spots on the probability charts. This is deliberate.

So, why did I do it? Maxing the Hot die happens 1% of the time. It should be an "Awesome!" moment. Getting to repeat the die, and getting a 0 sucks. It pisses players off, and increases their dislike of the system.

Because success is Result/3, those blank spots make minimal difference to the actual Success Levels rolled: .33% of the time you gain 1 higher Success Level than you would otherwise have (depending on what the DN was). That's a small enough effect that I can ignore it in favor of fostering more "Awesome!" moments.

I like this a lot as a mechanic. It makes those skill levels very important and provides a further edge to the skilled character.

I'd be inclined to remove exploding cold dice for skilled characters, to add symmetry to the mechanic (So the worst an unskilled character could do is a -9).

You also need to state that the choice of dice kept is based on the original roll of the dice, not the final total after any exploding die rolls. An overly literal reading of the rules looks like it might say that your exploding die either becomes |10| (If you roll a 1 on the explode), giving you a modifier of +0 (Because both your dice are reading 10, so you discard both) or your total becomes |11|+, in which case your dice modifier becomes |9| (Because the exploding dice is now rolling 11+, and you discard the highest).

QuoteHere's the Total Skill comparison chart (all of these assume at least +1):

up to 3 is a Substandard employee
4-6 is a Novice
7-9 is Skilled (employable in a field, at an Entry Level)
10-12 a Professional (Graduate level or equivalent work experience)
13-15 is Experienced
16-18 is a Master
19+ is a Grand Master, one of the best in the world at what they do.

Here's the Difficulty Chart:

Code Select Expand


Description DN
Trivial 2
Easy 5
Average 8
Difficult 11
Challenging 14
Grueling 17
Heroic 20
Astounding 23
Unbelievable 26

So, by way of comparison, the Total Skill of people with Minimal training:

Deficient Attribute of 3 = 1, skill +1 = 2
Weak Attribute of 4-6 = 2, skill +1 = 3
Average Attribute of 7-9 = 3, skill +1 = 4
Good Attribute of 10-12 = 4, skill +1 = 5
Excellent Attribute of 13 = 5, skill +1 = 6

Total Skill with Proficiency:

Deficient Attribute of 3 = 1, skill +8 = 9
Weak Attribute of 4-6 = 2, skill +8 = 10
Average Attribute of 7-9 = 3, skill +8 = 11
Good Attribute of 10-12 = 4, skill +8 = 12
Excellent Attribute of 13 = 5, skill +8 = 13

Looks fine to me. Your "employableness" table looks like everything is a level too high (I'd put 1 - 3 as novice, 4 - 6 as entry level, 7 - 9 as skilled, and then up from there) but that's probably just a personal taste issue.

QuoteAs currently contemplated, starting characters will have one skill at +7 (Proficient), two more at +5 (Beginner). They will then have 10 other plusses to spread around as they see fit (up to +5).

Advancement is tied into the 5-Stages, and would make a long post too long. I'll add that as a separate thread.

My initial thought is that, from what you've wrote above, these numbers look a little low, and starter characters won't be very good at anything. But it does give you a lot of room to advance as the invasion progresses, and at the start of the invasion, the majority of characters won't be very "heroic" (They're basically still average people at this stage).
 
[/quote]Salmelo was correct. 8 is the Total Skill (some combination of Attribute Base and Plusses to equal . Anytime your Total Skill and DN are equal, you will succeed 45% of the time.[/quote]

This is why I think your "employableness" table is a level off (At skill 7 - 9, the average person is succeeding the majority of the time at average tasks), but again, that could just be a personal taste issue.

[/quote]Highest penalty takes effect.

There are 4 time periods:

Enemy's Next Phase.
End of combat.
End of adventure.
Persistent. (i.e. lasts until "cured".)

Each "costs" 1 SL. So, if you get 4 SL, you can choose -4 for their next phase, -3 until the end of combat, -2 until the end of the adventure, or -1 persistently.

These are abstract conditions. They can represent, for example, a painful sword strike that makes it difficult to fight, a Taunt that distracts them, and Intimidation that means they're scared, and so forth.[/quote]

Works for me. I'd make "persistent" more expensive. I like recognising that mental stress is as debilitating as physical stress.

I'm looking forward to seeing more.

Quote from: Ladybird;501131You also need to state that the choice of dice kept is based on the original roll of the dice

I'll make sure that's clear.

Quote from: Ladybird;501131Your "employableness" table looks like everything is a level too high (I'd put 1 - 3 as novice, 4 - 6 as entry level, 7 - 9 as skilled, and then up from there) but that's probably just a personal taste issue.

"Employable-ness" is based on Total Skill with at least +1 skill. The minimum Total Skill possible is 2: Attribute Base of 1 (from Attribute 3) with +1.

So, 2 and 3 are Substandard employees: Minimal training (+1) and Deficient (3) or Weak Attributes (4-6).

The Attribute Base for an Average attribute is 3. With Minimal training, +1, Average people have a Total Skill of 4, Novices. Defining an Average person with Minimal training as a Novice is reasonable, IMHO.

Average people (Base 3) with a Beginner's training (+4) are Skilled (Total Skill 7).

Average people (Base 3) with demonstrated Proficiency (+7) are Professionals (Total Skill 10).

Average people (Base 3) with Advanced Training (+10) are Experienced (Total Skill 13).

Average people (Base 3) with a Mastery of the subject (+13) are Masters (Total Skill 16).

Exceptional people (Base 5) with a Mastery of the subject (+13) are Masters (Total Skill 18), but they are almost Grand Masters. It takes that extra bit of training to truly make them superior.

I think all the above make sense. They match descriptively. I may need to run the numbers against the DN's and make adjustments, but they make sense, provisionally at least.

Quote from: Ladybird;501131

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;501127As currently contemplated, starting characters will have one skill at +7 (Proficient), two more at +5 (Beginner). They will then have 10 other plusses to spread around as they see fit (up to +5).

My initial thought is that, from what you've wrote above, these numbers look a little low, and starter characters won't be very good at anything.

Their Primary Skill is +7. That gives them a Total Skill range from 8 (Skilled) to 12 (Professional), depending on their Attribute Bases. Those are quite good skills. Not "setting the world on fire", but practicing in their field (as a cop, lawyer, or doctor).

Their secondary skills are +5. That gives them a Total Skill range from 6 (Novice) to 10 (Professional), again depending on their Attribute Bases. Those ranges seem reasonable.

So, I would say "not very good at anything" isn't accurate. They are good at one thing, and passable at everything else. That's not unreasonable, for starting characters.

Quote from: Ladybird;501131I think your "employableness" table is a level off (At skill 7 - 9, the average person is succeeding the majority of the time at average tasks)

7-9 is Skilled (employable in a field, at an Entry Level). A person with a 9 is succeeding at Average tasks 55% of the time. A person with 7 only 36%, about 1/3rd of the time. I do not see how people who fail at average tasks almost half and 2/3rds of the time could be considered any more competent than Entry Level. Those are actually good percentages for people just out of training, but that's why they have Leads and skilled employees around, to check up on them.

(Of course, with most scutwork, the tasks are actually Trivial (2) or Easy (5) tasks, swinging the percentages greatly. Data Entry is not a demanding field.)

Quote from: Ladybird;501131I'd make "persistent" more expensive.

I'll make a note, for when I go into playtesting.

Quote from: Ladybird;501131I'm looking forward to seeing more.

Thanks! I'll be posting more ASAP.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;501151"Employable-ness" is based on Total Skill with at least +1 skill. The minimum Total Skill possible is 2: Attribute Base of 1 (from Attribute 3) with +1.

Oh, of course! I hadn't took attribute modifiers into account... that makes sense (But I'm sure someone else will ask the same question).

For those of you who aren't Jasyn or Sal, here's a brief intro to me:

• I've been playing TORG since its inception, and agree with most of the reasons Jasyn has tried to revamp the system. Through the TORG mailing list, I have been introduced to his proposals, which started out as changes to TORG, but have since become distinct enough to be its own system.
• As a result, I have been trying out some of Jasyn's ideas as they applied to TORG, with varying degrees of success.
• We have been known to get into fierce disagreements, but not enough to start a flame war over.

One of the changes I have adopted in my version of TORG is a variant of this dice mechanic. I do d10-d10 with the rule that any die that comes up 10 explodes. It works well, but I do it the way I do for a few reasons I find compelling. (I have mentioned these to Jasyn, and he doesn't agree with most of these, but that's something we agree to disagree on.) For me, d10-d10 exploding has the following incidental benefits:

• Since a die can explode independent of the result of the other die, the gaps vanish. This was one of my personal dislikes of the original bonus number system, and while Jasyn's variant doesn't have many gaps, it does have some.
• d10-d10 gives each die a quantifiable role: a 7 on the positive die actually adds 7 to the skill check, and a 4 on the negative die actually subtracts 4. Together, the net result would be +3, and if subtraction is too hard for someone, it can be represented as adding to the difficulty with no change in probability.
• With the quantifiable role of each die, it is easier for me to assign a description to the action based on each individual die, as its meaning can be interpreted independent of what the other die rolled. Rolling +15-12 on the die means that large interfering forces are at work, but an amazing effort brought about a result that exceeds expectations to the same degree as rolling +4-1. The latter would be better interpreted as a steady effort bringing a good result through a lucky situation where obstacles were preternaturally removed. It is not impossible to assign results based on the hot/cold die, but it is harder to do so, especially trying to do so independently. A red 5 might mean "great effort rewarded" or "cockiness leading to minor fall" depending on the other die.
  

The "Rule of 3" is not that hard, especially in the context of TORG from which it came. There was a chart called the Power Push Table that effectively created a Rule of 3 result for trying to lift objects. This rule was also applied to many spell results where the logarithmic scale upon which TORG is based was deemed too generous. (Because of this scale, dividing a result by 3 is close to taking the third root of absolute effect.) Counting by threes is simple enough and creates reasonable granulation.

Expect to see me pop in on these topics when I have time.

The "divide By 3, round up" procedure has a name: The Rule of 3.

People pointed out that it may be less than intuitive for some players. I concede the point, but offer the following caveat:

The Rule of 3 is used to generate Success Levels. To calculate Attribute Base, for skills. (Att 3 = Base 1 in those skills.) And in several other places.

Being a common mechanic, means people will have practice in it. For those who can get better with practice, this makes it an easier mechanic to learn.

So, it may not be as bad as it seems at first glance.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;501298Being a common mechanic, means people will have practice in it. For those who can get better with practice, this makes it an easier mechanic to learn.

I've had people tell me Champions combat runs plenty quick, too, once you've learned all the rules.

I wish you the best of luck, but I've played TORG before with FATE rules, and so far I'm not seeing anything in these mechanics that would convince me or my group to use them over FATE.

Quote from: daniel_ream;501307I've had people tell me Champions combat runs plenty quick, too, once you've learned all the rules.

The intended imputation of this argument, expressed in plain English, is this:

"Some people say Champions is simple, so your rule obviously cannot be."

That makes no logical sense, as an argument. Because you can say that about anything.

"I think walking is simple."
"Well, some people say Champions is simple, so you're wrong."

"I think breathing is simple."
"Well, some people say Champions is simple, so you're wrong."

Unless you can establish that the Rule of 3 is as complex as Champions, the above quote is meaningless.

Daniel, counting by threes is simple. 1-2-3. 4-5-6. 7-8-9. That's literally 1st grade math. And there's nothing else to learn about the Rule of 3.

You count. By threes. It's something Elmo could teach on Sesame Street.

Compared to the mechanics of nearly every other game out there, it rates among the simplest. (1st Edition Shadowrun staging. How I miss you.)

Quote from: daniel_ream;501307I wish you the best of luck, but I've played TORG before with FATE rules, and so far I'm not seeing anything in these mechanics that would convince me or my group to use them over FATE.

I'm not trying to. Your group, your rules, your fun.

I'm not trying to sell you anything, just get some feedback about the Destiny rule set.

And FATE is not simple. I know. I own SOTC, Dresden, and Strands of FATE. Probably a couple of others.

The advice I got, over on the DFRPG forum, about learning FATE 3 (SOTC or Dresden) was this: read FATE 2. Then there's the poster on RPG.NET who wrote two different cheat sheets for FATE ("Tri-Fold FATE").

FATE isn't simple. It's an interesting game with some killer mechanics. And I'm playing in a PBP Torg game with FATE rules right now. But it isn't simple.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;501360I'm not trying to sell you anything, just get some feedback about the Destiny rule set.

And you've been given some, positive and negative.  Like the authors of most heartbreakers, you've become a touchy, defensive prick when people don't tongue-bathe your heartbreaking work of staggering genius.  That by itself is enough reason for me not to consider ever using your rules for anything - you won't listen to anything that isn't ego-stroking your masterpiece.