Maybe 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. :p 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.
Edit - 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.
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".
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").
We 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.
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.
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).