Quote from: gleichman;641037Yeah, I think we're looking at this from such different points of view that it's going to be hard to understand.

Trying the switch gears on my end, are you perhaps looking for a toolbox with weighted complexity that you can then draw upon to a new game design?

(on the other post: I don't mind derailing, but I may not be able to get back to the thread for a bit).

Maybe I should have tried explaining how I got here (this far). Basically stuck at step zero of building a game - as usual I know that I want to build something thats a fantasy game of the heartbreaker variety, and from previous games I know various things that I like doing - like having damage coming off attributes occasionally (fatigue and the like), super powers having their own power ratings, talents which directly boost attribute score to work as 'subabilities' (e.g. you could buy up a 'presence' stat specific to Comeliness), assorted other things - like wanting magical items to give weaker characters a bigger boost.

However, I could see that some of the very specific goals were contradictory, and I was stuck on whether I want to go with say [d10+stat directly], or [d20+stat modifier + skill], or even dice pool, and so on, and related to that what stat scale to use e.g. a 1-10 stat scale is useful for having powers on the same scale as stats, but the low numbers make stat damage hard to work with.
 So, I decided to try to see which would be the approach that would get from A to B while generating the least amount of math. I've actually already gone through and tried listing out each of these operations, usually defined them 1-5 (where higher numbers were more unwieldy), and then totalled them up to try to figure out which approach would be best to start with, except that I'm not sure I have a comprehensive list of operations, and weighting them is unclear. Presently all the core mechanics rate very similarly. It looks something like:

Stat scale Mechanic      SUM (lower is better)
1-5         dice pool                37
1-10          d10+stat+skill        35
4-24       +1 per 5 points                  44
3-18       d20, +/- 3.0 mod                44
3-18        roll under                40
MSH ranks Rank vs. rank comparison table  43
1-100        d10+tens unit                48
1-x           step die                    37
-5 to +5   d20                        39
3-18       d20, modifier of [stat-10] 37

So while it wasn't overly useful so far, I thought I'd post the ideas leading up to that and see if any useful ideas came up, to get out of the rut. Mainly, seeing if I'd missed any basic operations or whatnot.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;641049Presently all the core mechanics rate very similarly. It looks something like:

How did you determine the ratings?

A bit dodgy but I used best estimate to pick a number 1-5. The system which would handle something most easily would get a 1, the system handling it with the most difficulty would get a 5, and an 'average' result would be a 3. Admittedly pretty subjective. For something like 'stat recalculation' I've considered that using the number directly is by far the easiest, with division being roughly more difficult for 10/2/5/3 or 4.  Core mechanic I've considered that rolling more dice is more difficult, and that rolling under is slightly simpler than additive (compare vs. addition), while multiple dice are more awkward.
Some of the logic behind what I decided made something easier/harder is in the first post (the 'drivers' of each).

Looking at them again, the numbers are probably slightly behind where my thinking is at currently, some of the categories I use there have been tweaked a bit before the OP, and need more tweaking/amalgamating. I'm undoubtedly missing things as well, hence why the OP is more general theory to start with.

Here's the allocations I came up with from Excel

That makes things clearer.

And really the only thing you're asking for is other methods so you can rate them as well right?

Yep! (And I think I'll also need to weight them somehow; some of the existing things here are a bit subtle or obscure)

My backup plan now is that I could both of these problems - a probably incomplete set of operations and being unsure which are most important -  if I actually worked through the comparison of system types rule-by-rule (instead of trying to define underlying 'operations' that are involved in sets of what may look like unconnected rules), but that requires a big spreadsheet and a more detailed plan of what I'm doing. Also, current line of enquiry may still be interesting (e.g. it helps show oppositions between operations).

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;641081The system which would handle something most easily would get a 1, the system handling it with the most difficulty would get a 5, and an 'average' result would be a 3. Admittedly pretty subjective.

Is this based on the real time expenditure in performing a particular mechanic?

Quote from: ggroy;641358Is this based on the real time expenditure in performing a particular mechanic?

I never thought of directly measuring that, actually. I suppose you could do that.
EDIT: although different people will have different handle times (or even complete failure rates, e.g. I've seen 3E newbs adding +Strength to a d20 roll when we told them to do a Strength check, instead of +Str mod).

EDIT2: also will depend on the exact check. I considered that possibly using [d10+Stat] is actually slightly more complex than [d20+stat modifier] in many cases, since using the stat modifier will mean that often the modifier is +0 and so no calculation is required. However, they end being rated the same for core system since I decided that this is offset by addition with the d20 using larger values with skills.
(addition with larger numbers being slightly harder).
Thinking about it now, the d20 is probably also likely to require modifiers more often, since +5% increments are significant (instead of just +10% or more). So '+1 higher ground bonuses' and such.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;641342Yep! (And I think I'll also need to weight them somehow; some of the existing things here are a bit subtle or obscure)

I see.

Well I think the goal is very personal (i.e. very subjective), but here's a three more for you.

Threshold (similar to your rank vs rank, in fact it may be identical): A skill of X always allows expected performance of that level, example: a master armorer always makes masterwork armor.

Skill vs. Skill: Could be applied on top of any of the other methods.

GM/Player Decides: No mechanics at all

Quote from: gleichman;641375GM/Player Decides: No mechanics at all

For something like this, it would probably be easier to just read a "Choose Your Own Adventure" type of book.

Quote from: ggroy;641388For something like this, it would probably be easier to just read a "Choose Your Own Adventure" type of book.

It's very common, even in highly traditional games ran RAW such as my own.

A single game and campaign typically used a number of resolution systems, and this one is almost always one of them.

Quote from: gleichman;641375I see.

Well I think the goal is very personal (i.e. very subjective), but here's a three more for you.

Threshold (similar to your rank vs rank, in fact it may be identical): A skill of X always allows expected performance of that level, example: a master armorer always makes masterwork armor.

Skill vs. Skill: Could be applied on top of any of the other methods.

GM/Player Decides: No mechanics at all

Eh, yes all very subjective
Sorry I could have been more clear, just to check I'm after more operations, rather than other dice rolling methods... ?
GM/player decides avoids all the mechanics so would seem to be the same regardless of core mechanic (unless you mean it to be a core mechanic?...not one I really want to devote any attention to, so happy to note its there and move on).

Threshold is interesting, since some systems do lend themselves to calculating minimum results more easily, particularly the additive systems where skill gives increasing guaranteed minimums, as compared to dice pools (which have low chances of failure at larger numbers but can always theoretically fumble) and step-dice (where 1s are still very common regardless of skill).
Perhaps related to a fumble or 'error handling' operation.
 
BTW - The original rank vs. rank system was in another system I'd partly designed and then abandoned awhile back. It used a table that converted values to a descriptive rank (something like 2-feeble, 5-poor, 10-typical, 15-good, 20-excellent, 30-remarkable, 45-incredible 70-monstrous, 100-Unearthly). An opposed table then gave same 50% odds for same level comparison - it went through a couple of iterations where it was d6 for awhile (sometimes with multiple dice), then d20 before I gave up on the thing. (playtesters broke me by not being able to remember the table).
The rank increases were set up to allow stacking but with less increase each time, and it was really good for variable-complexity tasks - as a normal rating was assumed to be 10, you could run a contest based off say, one stat and four separate skills at once with one roll, by letting a character add together their five ratings vs. a default opposing value of [10 (a Typical rating) x 5 = 50 i.e. Incredible complexity).

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;641396GM/player decides avoids all the mechanics so would seem to be the same regardless of core mechanic (unless you mean it to be a core mechanic?...not one I really want to devote any attention to, so happy to note its there and move on).

I consider it a core mechanic in any RPG.

Simple example:

Player 1: "So Thunder, old mighty warrior. Where do you think we should go next?"

Player 2 (Thunder): "We should go south"

That's 'Player Decides'

A more meaningful example is the GM deciding that what reaction an NPC will have to a player request (assuming he doesn't decide to use a mechanic method to determine it).

Entire sections of RPG play are made up of this, it's likely the most common resolution system used.

It's worth keeping in mind I think only because people tend to forget about. But IMO part of Game Design is determine what aspects of play you leave completely in the hands of this method.

Quote from: gleichman;641400Entire sections of RPG play are made up of this, it's likely the most common resolution system used.

It's worth keeping in mind I think only because people tend to forget about. But IMO part of Game Design is determine what aspects of play you leave completely in the hands of this method.

OK - I don't have a problem with it used in that way.

It is interesting to think of why this appears for some systems in some contexts e.g. the D&D dungeon master might use this approach to generate treasure because the dice rolls are complex, when some sort of dice pool system might generate # thousands of GP and odds of magic items fairly simply.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;641453It is interesting to think of why this appears for some systems in some contexts e.g. the D&D dungeon master might use this approach to generate treasure because the dice rolls are complex, when some sort of dice pool system might generate # thousands of GP and odds of magic items fairly simply.

Now days switching from a non-dice pool for the core system to a dice pool for treasure generation would likely be dismissed out of hand. There was a big push for a single resolution method for everything in a game and it still hasn't been outgrown yet. So you're see things that might need a different method pushed out the Game Layer rather than suffer that different method.

But I think that's uncommon, mostly designers use a mechanical resolution method for those things they consider important and key to the game- and let everything else default to the GMs and Players.

What are the design motivations for a single resolution method?