Okay, I've been weighing the pros and cons of systems that use opposed rolls exclusively and those which used opposed rolls for enemies and static TNs for obstacles. But what about this idea?

Rolling the dice:

Whenever your character attempts to overcome an obstacle (foe or peril) and the outcome is not certain, you'll need to roll dice to see if you succeed. If you try something which is related to your trade you get one die [1D]. Add another die for each tool and trademark you can use. If your die pool doesn't seem like it's enough, you can lower your threat score on a one point for one die basis. Any of your companions can also use one of their tools or trademarks to give you a die of their own. Keep in mind, however, that you cannot roll more than six dice at a time. This is known as the 'rule of six'. Finally, roll all the dice in your pool. Keep the highest die. If you have a pair for your highest dice, add them together. With three or more of a highest number, each die beyond the pair can be used to refresh your threat score, remove a trouble, or add a triumph to a successful result. If your roll is higher than the opposing score then you have succeeded. Ties will result in a success, but with consequences.

The resolution:

This is a sort of a combo between opposed roll and a TN. Haven't really thought it out all that much, but here's the jest of it. Dice mechanics work as above.

The # dice that you roll is the TN. So if you use just your Trade, you need to beat a 1. Trade and Tool you need to beat a 2. Trade, Tool, and a Trademark you beat a 3. Each die you add makes the TN higher, but has the potential to reward you as well. If you beat the TN with multiples rolled, these will count as extra successes. Extra successes earn you treasure points, remove troubles, restore/remove threat points and so on.

Example 1. A Thief wants to steal a gem from a case. He uses Trade [Thief], Tools [Lockpick], Trademarks [Steal] [Hide]. He has got 4D and he needs to beat a 4. He rolls 5,5,3,2. 5+5=10, so he is successful. The two 5's are counted as extra successes.

Example 2. A Thief wants to steal a gem from a case. He uses Trade [Thief] and Tools [Lockpick]. He has got 2D and he needs to beat a 2. He rolls a 4 and 1, so he is successful. But it's just an average success, no bonus since he didn't really risk anything.

By choosing only 2 dice, the thief isn't putting that much effort into the attempt. So while he will probably succeed, nothing special is going to come out of it. However, raising the effort increases the risk, but also offers more reward.

Now the GM can up the ante by adding threat.

Example 3. A Thief wants to steal a gem from a case. He uses Trade [Thief], Tools [Lockpick], Trademarks [Steal] [Hide]. He has got 4D and he needs to beat a 4. The GM however adds 2 Threat [silent alarm] [tricky lock]. The thief now must beat a 6.

Example 4. A fighter takes on a band of goblins. Fighter goes with Trade [Fighter], Tool [Sword], Trademark [Slash] for 3D. The Goblins have a Threat of 3, so the fighter will need to beat a 6 to succeed. He rolls 4,4,4. 4+4=8 so he succeeds and also earns 2 extra successes for the two 4s.

Thoughts?

I don't like the fact that it becomes harder the more effort you can put into it, it seems off. Much in the same way it became easier to fail in White Wolf's early system the more dice (skill and talent) you had to roll.

It makes more sense to set the difficulty another way. Since utilizing more resources should make it less difficult, not more so. I wish I were thinking more clearly as I can see something in the system that feels like it needs to be done, but I can't quite visualize it or explain it--something dealing with the way resources work.

Maybe-- drawing on resources somehow reduces the use of those resources if you utilize them again without suffering some trouble?

Quote from: Silverlion;558270I don't like the fact that it becomes harder the more effort you can put into it, it seems off. Much in the same way it became easier to fail in White Wolf's early system the more dice (skill and talent) you had to roll.

It makes more sense to set the difficulty another way. Since utilizing more resources should make it less difficult, not more so. I wish I were thinking more clearly as I can see something in the system that feels like it needs to be done, but I can't quite visualize it or explain it--something dealing with the way resources work.

Maybe-- drawing on resources somehow reduces the use of those resources if you utilize them again without suffering some trouble?

Look at these examples and let me know what you think:

Example 1: A Thief wants to steal a gem from a case. He has got 4D and he needs to beat a 4.

Count of how many times player scores X with 4D+0R+0P (100000 total tests)
2    398    0.4%
3    2451    2.5%
4    9135    9.1%
6    41373    41.4%
8    5185    5.2%
10    8839    8.8%
12    13028    13.0%

The thief is going to outright succeed about 68% of the time (9% chance of succeeding, but with consequences). Also with a good shot at rolling multiples. This is good with me.



Example 2. A Thief wants to steal a gem from a case. He has got 2D and he needs to beat a 2.

Count of how many times player scores X with 2D+0R+0P (100000 total tests)
2    8452    8.5%
3    11115    11.1%
4    19227    19.2%
5    22199    22.2%
6    30597    30.6%
8    2788    2.8%
10    2812    2.8%
12    2810    2.8%

The thief is going to outright succeed 91% of the time (9% chance of succeeding, but with consequences). But with a lesser chance at rolling multiples. This seems a bit too easy.



Example 3. A Thief wants to steal a gem from a case. He has got 4D and he needs to beat a 6.

Count of how many times player scores X with 4D+0R+0P (100000 total tests)
2    398    0.4%
3    2451    2.5%
4    9135    9.1%
5    19591    19.6%
6    41373    41.4%
8    5185    5.2%
10    8839    8.8%
12    13028    13.0%

The thief is going to outright succeed only 27% of the time (41% chance of succeeding, but with consequences). Wow! The 2 threat points really make a difference.



Example 4. A fighter takes on a band of goblins. He has got 3D and he needs to beat a 6.

Count of how many times player scores X with 3D+0R+0P (100000 total tests)
2    1844    1.8%
3    5652    5.7%
4    14313    14.3%
5    21962    22.0%
6    38103    38.1%
8    4603    4.6%
10    6164    6.2%
12    7359    7.4%

The fighter is going to outright succeed only 18% of the time (41% chance of succeeding, but with consequences). Again the threat points are a big factor.


Now lets play the examples out with the thief having the trouble [Doubt] and the fighter with [Hurt].

Example 1: A Thief wants to steal a gem from a case. He has got 4D+1P [Doubt] and he needs to beat a 5.

Count of how many times player scores X with 4D+0R+1P (100000 total tests)
2    1479    1.5%
3    7061    7.1%
4    20420    20.4%
5    24574    24.6%
6    23388    23.4%
8    9853    9.9%
10    9619    9.6%
12    3606    3.6%

The thief is going to outright succeed about 48% of the time (25% chance of succeeding, but with consequences). With [Doubt] odds of success drop by 20% and increase the odds of succeeding, but with consequences as well. Okay, exactly what I intended: having a Trouble is bad news.



Example 2: A Thief wants to steal a gem from a case. He has got 2D+1P [Doubt] and he needs to beat a 3.

Count of how many times player scores X with 2D+0R+1P (100000 total tests)
2    19943    19.9%
3    19390    19.4%
4    26954    27.0%
5    16587    16.6%
6    11489    11.5%
8    3274    3.3%
10    1880    1.9%
12    483    0.5%

The thief is going to outright succeed about 60% of the time (with a 20% chance of succeeding, but with consequences). With [Doubt] odds of success drop by 31% and increase the odds of succeeding, but with consequences as well. Yep, [Doubt] is definitely trouble!



Example 3: A Thief wants to steal a gem from a case. He has got 4D+1P [Doubt] and he needs to beat a 7 (with the 2 for threat).

Count of how many times player scores X with 4D+0R+1P (100000 total tests)
2    1479    1.5%
3    7061    7.1%
4    20420    20.4%
5    24574    24.6%
6    23388    23.4%
8    9853    9.9%
10    9619    9.6%
12    3606    3.6%

The thief is going to outright succeed about 24% of the time (with a 0% chance of succeeding, but with consequences). With [Doubt] odds of success drop by 3% and eliminates the odds of succeeding, but with consequences as well. I like that the penalty doesn't effect a stronger character as much, however the fact that you cannot get an odd number above six makes this an issue.



Example 4. A fighter takes on a band of goblins. He has got 3D+1P [Hurt] and he needs to beat a 7.

Count of how many times player scores X with 3D+0R+1P (100000 total tests)
2    5590    5.6%
3    13102    13.1%
4    26135    26.1%
5    22322    22.3%
6    18659    18.7%
8    7255    7.3%
10    5297    5.3%
12    1640    1.6%

The fighter is going to outright succeed about 15% of the time (with a 0% chance of succeeding, but with consequences). With [Hurt] odds of success drop by 3% and eliminates the odds of succeeding, but with consequences as well. Same issue as example 3.


To get past the odd number above 6 issue,  I'd need the option that if you failed a roll, you can burn a threat point to bump the score by 1 so you could get a success, but with consequences result. Working almost like danger dice, but in reverse since you don't want your threat score to bottom out at zero.

Also, I'd probably need a rule if rolling 2D, that if you get snake eyes when doubles don't count. So the result is a 1 which is always a failure. You could burn a threat point to bump the score by 1 so you could get a success, but with consequences result.

I've heard (but not read) that this idea is similar to the systems for Shadow Run and WoD (not sure old or new). If so, do you like those resolutions? How close is mine to theirs?

Just reading the explanation made my head hurt a bit... it's very complex. It might work, but the opposed rolls system has the advantage of simplicity. One die vs. one die, added bonuses for skill and additional people if it makes sense, or added bonuses to the opposing roll for difficulty, unusual circumstances, etc.

The more complicated you make your test system, the more people you risk excluding because they simply cannot understand the rules. Gaming should be about fun, not navigating complex rules.