The 1d10 System (in lack of a better name for this idea)

[SamuraiChicken]

This is an idea that has been spinning around in my head lately, and I might use it for a future lite rules system. Before I do that, though, I'd like to hear your opinion of it.

In this system, all skills have a 'skill level' (the skill level equals ranks invested into the skill plus other modifiers), and skill checks are made against an opponent's skill level (for opposed rolls) or against a difficulty level for actions in which you aren't opposing a skill.
For example, stealth vs. awareness would be in which your skill check is made against the opponent's skill level. In the case where you want to make an athletics check to climb a tree, the skill check is made against the tree's difficulty level.

Unlike most systems, you don't roll a die and add modifiers to the result. Instead you compare your skill level with the opponent's skill level (or difficulty level). If both levels are equal, then the Target Number you need to roll on a d10 is 6. Such a roll has a 50% chance to succeed, which makes sense due to both your skill level and your opponent's skill level are the same.
In this system, the Target Number, TN, always represents the lowest number you need to roll on a d10 in order to succeed on a skill check. In this case, a TN 6 means you need to roll a 6 or higher in order to succeed.

When your skill level and the opponent's skill level are different values, things get a little trickier:

Additional Rules:[/b]

You always succeed a skill check if you roll a 10, and you always fail a skill check if you roll a 1.

If a skill check is to your advantage, you roll an extra d10 and take the higher result. Multiple advantages stack. If you roll a 1 or a 10 on any of these dice, then you automatically fail or succeed the check (depending on the result). If you roll both a 1 and a 10, then the check automatically succeeds.

If you are at a disadvantage when making a skill check, you roll an extra d10 and take the lowest result. Multiple disadvantages stack. If you roll a 1 or a 10 on any of these dice, then you automatically fail or succeed the check (depending on the result '" rolling a 10 in this way lets you succeed, even though it isn't the lowest number). If you roll both a 1 and a 10, then the check automatically succeeds.
If you have an advantage and a disadvantage to the same skill check, the advantage and disadvantage cancel themselves out, resulting in a normal skill check. [/quote] Players make all the rolls. [/quote]
That's right, only the players roll the dice while the GM sets the opponent's skill level and difficulty levels. This means that when a character attacks a monster, the character makes a 'swordsmanship' skill check against the monster's 'evasion' skill level. On the monster's turn, the player makes an 'evasion' skill check against the monster's 'attack' skill level.
This idea also extends into advantages and disadvantages. Whenever an NPC would have the advantage against a PC, that translates to the PC having a disadvantage to the opposing skill check.

To me, this makes combat far more interesting. In most games, players will just hope the GM rolls low on the monster's attack. Yet when the players get to roll the dice to evade the attack, they fell like they are actually doing something. Instead of the monster failing to attack you, it was the character who successfully avoided the monster's attack. While the end result is the same no matter which method you use, they have very different psychological effects on the players.


So what do you think? Do you like it, or is there something about it that bothers you? If you have any questions, feel free to ask (and I'll try to answer them). If you have any suggestions, comments, constructive criticism, opinions, thoughts, or ideas about this system, feel free to post them. This system is largely under construction (so far it is just a rolling mechanic), so I don't mind making changes.

[Kindling]

Overall, I like the idea of it. The target number thing, based on a combination of your skill level and your opponents, reminds me of Warhammer (at least, 2nd edition Warhammer, I dunno how much it's changed now) with it's to-hit and to-wound charts and so on.

The only thing I'd worry about at first glance is your 10-always-succeeds-1-always-fails rule. This means that, theoretically, Hugemuscles the Barbarian has a one-in-ten chance of losing an arm-wrestling match with Punyweakling the Peasant (or whatever) which seems a little high to me...

Also, how will your system handle directly opposed skill checks? In my example above, surely Hugemuscles and Punyweakling will both be pitting their Arm Wrestling skill against each other... so what happens? Do they both roll checks until one fails when the other succeeds? Or is there some other subsystem?

Also, what about unopposed checks? How would you determine a target number for Bookworm the Scholar's attempts to translate a text from a forgotten tongue? Would the GM just arbitrarily choose a target number based on how hard s/he thinks the task would be compared to Bookworms skill level?

[SamuraiChicken]

Also, how will your system handle directly opposed skill checks? In my example above, surely Hugemuscles and Punyweakling will both be pitting their Arm Wrestling skill against each other... so what happens? Do they both roll checks until one fails when the other succeeds? Or is there some other subsystem?

The only thing I'd worry about at first glance is your 10-always-succeeds-1-always-fails rule. This means that, theoretically, Hugemuscles the Barbarian has a one-in-ten chance of losing an arm-wrestling match with Punyweakling the Peasant (or whatever) which seems a little high to me... [/quote]should I just get rid of the auto-fail rule and keep the 'players roll all the dice' rules?[/i] If so skill then it would seem like NPCs can never get an auto-success against the players. It seems like a good idea, but at the same time It feels weird to not give NPCs an equal chance. I don't want to drop the 'players roll all the dice' rule, because by allowing NPCs to roll dice the system changes to either opposed rolls or rolling dice against the defender's passive skill level, which is something I wanted to avoid in the first place.

Any suggestions on this dilemma? Would you keep the rules as they currently are, or drop only the auto-failure rule (and keeping the auto-success rule)? What would you do, and why?

[Ghostman]

Couldn't you just change it so that rolling a '1' or a '10' (when it wouldn't normally be enough to fail/succeed) requires making a second roll - only if you roll two '1's or two '10's in a row will it count as automatic failure or success.

This way you have a small chance (1%) to always fail/succeed.

[Kindling]

One solution might be to switch to using percentile dice, and then you can just choose a percentage chance for auto-success and auto-failure that seems right to you.

[Xeviat]

It seems that you've just moved the math around, having to compare skill levels to determine a TN and then rolling. It seems it would be simpler to just roll and add your skill level, and have the TN be the opponent's skill level +3 or 4, whichever will work for the percentages you want.

I'm eager to hear more. I love crunchy goodness.

[SamuraiChicken]

After thinking about it some more, I realized that rolling a 1 is only significant when the TN is 2 (or would otherwise be lower than a 2). This means that whenever a skill check is greatly in your favor, there is a 10% chance of failure. When the TN is 3 or greater, it doesn't matter if you rolled a 1 or a 2 because they both result in failure.

So the question I should be asking myself is, 'on a roll in which the player should succeed, should there be a 10% chance of failure?'

Initially, I said, 'No. The character is obviously talented in this skill to get such a TN, and such an investment should allow him or her to automatically succeed.' Upon saying that, I realized a perfectly simple answer: If the skill check is so easy, why are you making the player roll in the first place? This goes back to the unspoken RPG philosophy of not rolling for overly simple tasks '" tasks that have no risk of failure. When roleplaying, nobody rolls to see if they can brush their teeth successfully, or tie their shoes. Such tasks are assumed to be so simple that the players automatically succeed, and while someone can technically fail at such actions, the threat of failure is nothing to sweat about. Characters do need to make skill checks when failure would be particularly bad, such as fighting in combat, scaling a cliff, or swimming across a raging river. In these cases, a 10% chance of failure is understandable. Even if you are really good at climbing, one loose rock can send you falling.

I think the best way to balance this system is to keep the above rules as they are, but players will only need to make skill checks when there is a significant risk of failure. There will always be rolling in combat, but outside of combat the GM can allow players to perform certain actions without the need for the players to make any skill checks (depending on the given situation).
I know this rule is really ambiguous, but I think this may be the best way to go. In most cases, I would say the characters need not make a skill check simply to keep the game progressing forward. Save the rolling for combat and for really intense scenes, where a failure just makes the scene even more suspenseful.

For example, a character who attempts to climb a tree can probably do so without rolling. (they take their time to safely scale the tree). If they attempt to climb a tree in the middle of combat (or other intense situation), then a roll is required (the character is rushing to escape from danger, and such haste may cause them to slip and fall).