PDA

View Full Version : [Peach] D20 Simplified Action Resolution



celtois
2012-07-17, 05:06 AM
This is my attempt to unite all actions under a single simple system, which is really just two methods of resolution for actions. It can be used for attacks, social encounters, abstract combat, grapples. Anything. I think. I would greatly appreciate help with wording, because while I think it makes sense. I did write it. Also any examples of things that can't be resolved by this or ways to simplify it would be greatly appreciated. As this is for True 20 (Blue Rose) my goal is to simply and streamline even more. So all you need to know to play are these rules, your characters numbers, and how to roll a d20.

Immediate Conflict Resolution:
The individuals (or parties) in conflict each roll a d20+modifiers and compare the results. The conflict is resolved in favour of the individual with the higher result. Immediate conflict resolution is typically used in combat or other situations where the conflict can be resolved in a single round. Such as one individual trying to parry anotherís attack; withdrawing from combat; damage rolls, eg. D20+Str+Weapon Vs. D20+Toughness.

Drawn Out Conflict Resolution:
The individuals (or parties) in conflict each start with three points. Each round the individuals in conflict each roll a d20+modifiers and compare the results. The individual with the lower result loses a point, and the conflict shifts slightly away their desired outcome. In addition the victor of the first round gets a +2 on his or her roll in the following round. If the victor won by a margin of 10 or more the loser loses two points instead of one. Repeat the process round by round until one party has no points, at which point resolve the conflict in favour of the individual who has points left.

Exceptions to the above rules:
If one individual has a significant advantage over the other at the start of the conflict, the superior individual may start with four or even five points.

If an individual has two or more points remaining, he or she may choose to wager all of them, rolling a d20+modifiers for each point wagered this way. Her or she may not use the same skill or ability for all of these rolls. If all of the wagered rolls are higher than the opponents roll, immediately resolve the conflict in favour of the wagerer. However if all the wagered rolls are lower than the opponents roll, immediately resolve the conflict in favour of the wagererís opponent. If only some of the dices are success or failures, resolve the action normally, with the wagerer losing a point for every failure however the wagerer's opponent may only lose one point no matter how many successes the wager rolls (unless all rolls are success). If both opponents wager on the same turn they each individual loses as many points as he or she has failures.

In drawn out conflict resolution the DM may choose to penalize repetitive and boring action taking with a -2 penalty on the roll, this penalty will stack for each repetitive action. The DM may also grant penalties or rule certain skills and abilities unusable for any given conflict.

Immediate Task Resolution:
The individual trying to complete the action rolls a d20+modifiers against a DC set by the DM for the action to be attempted. If the roll is five less than the DC the action is a total failure with unintended, and sometimes dangerous consequences, if the rolls is below the DC but by less than five it is a marginal success the action succeeds but has unintended and sometimes dangerous consequences, or if such failure is not possible the action simply fails. If the roll is higher than the DC the action succeeds. If roll is five (or more) higher than the DC then the action succeeds, and brings with it positive consequences. In the case of failure a retry may be possible based on the action, and the consequences.

Drawn Out Task Resolution:
The individual trying to complete the action rolls a d20+modifiers against a DC set by the DM for the action to be attempted. To succeed at the task the individual must succeed a certain number of times before failing twice in a row. The number of necessary successes is set by the DM with easy tasks requiring three, moderate tasks requiring five, and hard tasks requiring seven. As with immediate task resolution a failure of five or more brings unintended negative consequences, a failure by less than five is a success with unintended negative consequences, and anything over the DC is a success, with a result five over the DC having positive consequences. Unlike immediate task resolution a result 10 counts as two failures, resulting in automatically failing the task. In the case of failure a retry may be possible based on the action on the consequences.

In drawn out task resolution the DM may choose to penalize repetitive and boring action taking with a -2 penalty on the roll, this penalty will stack for each repetitive action. The DM may also grant penalties or rule certain skills and abilities unusable for any given task.


I'm running out of room, so I'll try and post some examples of DOCR, ITR and DOTR in action tomorrow in the next post. Which I'll reserve.

Peace y'all, and thanks for your help. (I've also done a bunch of other modifications to the rest of the system but this as at the core of all of them, so I'd greatly appreciate if you could help me give it some polish. If I can get this spiffy, I'll post some more of my modifications. :smallwink:)

celtois
2012-07-17, 05:08 AM
Reserved for examples.

Also...the big problem now I think is that there is a ton of rolling in drawn out conflict. Any suggestions on how to streamline that a bit?

That is what the gamble is supposed to do for easier tasks.

Craft (Cheese)
2012-07-17, 05:24 AM
Also...the big problem now I think is that there is a ton of rolling in drawn out conflict. Any suggestions on how to streamline that a bit?

Winning a round of a conflict shouldn't give you an additional hit point to work with.

You can also try this: Everyone must always wager as much as possible each round. It doesn't lower the actual number of dice that need to be rolled, but it does lower the average number of rounds considerably.

celtois
2012-07-17, 03:47 PM
Ah...not having the points transfer on a success. I like this. It makes the whole system faster and neater. Definitely going to adopt this.

Always wager everything...hmm. I kinda like the wager being a choice. To be used in desperate situations, or easy ones, but I'll definitely consider this. It might make it faster

So here is my other problem. I'm torn on where to apply each of these systems.
My gut says that I should make things that make sense be an opposed roll.

Setting spell DC roll vs. Saving throw roll. Etc. But that results in a lot of rolling. Which I kinda feel like I should be getting away from. I could instead go towards strict task resolution for everything. Roll v. Set spell DC or AC etc. But that kinda feels like its going against the idea of allowing both parties a chance to actually oppose each other. It makes one party essentially a static object. Which I don't like. Any suggestions?

Craft (Cheese)
2012-07-17, 09:21 PM
My first piece of advice is whatever you go with, make sure it's consistent. Either the attacker always rolls, or the defender always rolls, or both parties always roll.

Personally, in my FATE games I prefer to use opposed rolls whenever possible, but that's because the system has two important properties:

- Degree of success/failure matters. Succeeding on a roll by 5 gives you more than you would have gotten if you only succeeded by 1.

- Defenders get goodies if attackers fail their attack roll. So if you attack me, and you fail your roll, I get to do something like make a free counterattack against you.

Opposed rolls work naturally in this system (and are worth the cost of extra rolling) but they may not work in your system. Really, the best thing you can do is playtest.

celtois
2012-07-18, 04:31 PM
I eventually settled on going with opposed rolls whenever there is a conflict, and task resolution whenever there isn't.

It's a logically consistent system. Which is what I was going for. Hopefully it runs smoothly. And when coupled with a list of clear and concise conditions should allow for the adjudication of pretty much any action.

This coupled with the movement to a everything is skills system leads to very consistent adjudication for actions and an ease of setting difficulties. The only non-skills are ability checks. Simple.

A bit of work on conditions and I think I'll be good.