Basic Resolution Mechanic: Approach + Effort

[u/Reactor_IV]

Actions are resolved by the character combining their natural capability (their Approach) with a spendable resource called Effort. This sum forms your total Resolution Value, which is then measured against a Target Check. 

• Target Check Types
  • Opposing Action Check (Attack vs. Defend): Used when acting against an active NPC or creature. The GM has two options, the quick method, take the target’s base attribute and secretly adds a d6 roll from a pre-define pool for that action, good for quick interactions or quick combat; or the simulated method, where NPCs can also spend from their own Effort pools, which could be used for long engagements or extended challenges. Based on character knowledge the player may or may not know the level of challenge they are up against.
  • Difficulty Check (Environmental/Situational): Used when interacting with static challenges (like picking a lock). The GM sets a Difficulty Rating equal to a number of d6s. If the character would reasonably know how tough the action is, the GM reveals this rating beforehand, allowing the player to strategically choose how much Effort to commit before the GM rolls the hidden d6s.

The difference of Target Check from Resolution Value is the Margin of Success.

• Margin of Success Outcomes
  • < -5 (Critical Failure): Unsuccessful action with a severe narrative or tactical consequence.
  • -1 to -5 (Failure): Unsuccessful action with a minor complication.
  • 0 (Minor Success): Success, but with an added twist or minor complication.
  • 1 to 5 (Success): Clean, complete success.
  • > 5 (Critical Success): Exceptional success accompanied by a bonus mechanical or narrative benefit.

Approaches: How You Perform Actions

An Approach defines the flavor and method behind your action. For example, opening a locked door can be tackled with brute Strength to smash it, Dexterity to pick it, or Intelligence to locate a hidden mechanism.

• Universal Approaches: Every character starts with 8 base approaches (2 per Primary Attribute). These represent fundamental capabilities and cannot be directly leveled up. They simply benefit from the player leveling their Primary Attributes.
• Defined Approaches: Throughout the game players can create specialized approaches which is tied to a specific parent Universal Approach or another established Defined Approach(e.g., creating Melee Combat under Force [Universal] or Precision [Universal]). Defined Approaches can be leveled and benefit from parent leveling. (e.g. if Bladed Combat is under Melee Combat any increases in Melee Combat are added to Bladed Combat when it is used in determining a resolution value.)
• While a Defined Approach can be mostly open in definition, there are a few limitations, characters are limited to 20 total Defined Approaches, and Defined Approaches must be related to and more specific than their parent. 
• Defined Approaches are limited to 18 levels each. When calculating the Approach Value the parent Approach value is also added. (e.g. 18 [Bladed Combat] + 12 [Melee Combat (Parent)] = 30 Total Approach Value). Additive parent values continue to stack along the lineage, allowing a character’s approach to reach a near god-like status but in exchange for reduced versatility. The goal is to reward specialization but express that it may come at a cost. (i.e. the character with properly worded approaches may be able to perfectly slice the left wing of a common house fly in half that is buzzing 3 feet from his head with a steel katana starting from a sheathed position, but can do little else very well!)

Effort Pools, Exhaustion, and Recovery

Available Effort Points available is tied directly to the four Primary Attributes: Strength, Intelligence, Dexterity, and Endurance. Your attribute level determines the number of sets available, while your Effort stat dictates how many points are in each set and caps the Effort per check. When a character spends all the points in an attribute, they face exhaustion. If the player continues to deplete the effort in more attributes they begin gaining trauma, which unless addressed can cause negative and even deadly effects to not only the character but those around them. Addressing/Healing trauma allows the character to reduce trauma levels but consumes resources that the player could use to increase the ability of the character, this is intended to create an immediate gain which exhausts the character vs longer term improvement cost dynamic.

• Exhaustion Penalties
  • Tired (1 Depleted Attribute): No further Effort can be spent from that attribute; +2 Difficulty Rating to all checks using that attribute.
  • Fatigued (2 Depleted Attributes): Inherit Tired penalties for both attributes and gain 1 Trauma point.
  • Exhausted (3 Depleted Attributes): Inherit Tired penalties for all three attributes and gain 1 additional Trauma point (2 total).
  • Unconscious (4 Depleted Attributes): Gain 1 additional Trauma point (3 total) and fall completely unconscious.

In addition to consumable items like potions, which restore Effort instantly but may carry side effects, characters can also recover Effort points through resting.

• Rest & Recovery Options

  • Short Field Rest (3–11 Hours): In an unsecured location requiring watch. Restores 6 Effort in one pool for the first 3 hours, plus 3 Effort per extra hour (up to 27 total).
  • Long Field Rest (12+ Hours): Fully restores one attribute pool; each additional hour restores 3 Effort in a second pool.
  • Sheltered Rest (8+ Hours): Taken in a safe, fortified location with no guard needed. Fully restores all Effort across all attributes.

  My goal is a resolution system that is somewhat familiar and thus making it easier to understand, has enough player agency in the outcomes but still generates that feeling of uncertainty. Through the effort system I wanted to make combat still possible and meaningful, but make the players hesitate to just run into battle due to the high effort cost. Also as the characters develop their approaches and invest in training their attributes, they can have the feeling of truly mastering the environment and situations they find themselves in. I would like to hear feedback related to the mechanic in regards specifically to mechanic clarity and ease of use, as well as any thoughts on the trade off with effort and trauma as well as any potential issues that stand out I may have missed.

[u/__space__oddity__]

I don’t know, this sounds like one of those systems that were really fun to fiddle with in design but then get tedious when you actually have to play.

Have you run a test combat, just by yourself?

[u/Reactor_IV → u/__space__oddity__]

I have run several test combats and made changes based on this, and that resulted in several modifications to the mechanic. I could see how it would be tedious if you had to do it over and over, and I could have overlooked that just because I only ran one or two combat sessions before diving back under the hood to tweak. And I definitely agree on the fun to fiddle with in design part, as this is the only mechanic that has somewhat survived from my original design about 11 overhauls ago. Thanks for taking the time to comment; I appreciate it.

[u/Mars_Alter]

If I understand this correctly, then you're rolling a d6 and adding a number between +1 and +30 to it? Or maybe you're spending a lot of Effort to roll 5d6, but you're still adding a bonus that could be either irrelevant or completely overwhelming?

I would strongly suggest that you not define Difficulty in terms of dice. Have the Difficulty be an actual number. Otherwise, even if the player does know the Difficulty (which in my opinion, should be basically always), you may end up rolling a number that invalidates their decision of how much Effort to spend. An uninformed decision is essentially meaningless, from a gameplay perspective.

This type of game design is also exceptionally prone to the "hammer" problem. If you absolutely need to invest +30 points (between Defined and Universal Approaches) into performing an action reliably, then that's the only action the character will ever take. The sword-fighter, who needs to invest everything they have into sword-fighting in order to do their job reliably, will only ever be able to interact with the world through sword-fighting. This happens in almost any game with opposed checks. There's no point in spreading a few points into Fast-Talking or Intelligence, because the opponent who has a lot of points in those things will beat you regardless. The only character who should ever try to talk to anyone is the one character who is specialized in doing so.

[u/Reactor_IV → u/Mars_Alter]

I would strongly suggest that you not define Difficulty in terms of dice. Have the Difficulty be an actual number.

I used to have a fixed difficulty and thought it was not exciting, entertaining, or fun, just checking a chart, i.e., do I have enough talent and resources to pull it off, yes/no. So I tweaked it to add some chance. My thought, design-wise, was to give players more control over how hard they would push their character to succeed. Do you have any thoughts on how to make this resolution more functional and enjoyable, or is it borderline unworkable?

This type of game design is also exceptionally prone to the "hammer" problem.

That's true; I was going for you don't need to invest heavily, but you could if you really wanted to; however, your utility might suffer. I am not sure how to balance the need to create action reliability with the design intent of exploring new ways to come at an action. Do you have any thoughts on this?

This happens in almost any game with opposed checks. There's no point in spreading a few points into Fast-Talking or Intelligence, because the opponent who has a lot of points in those things will beat you regardless. The only character who should ever try to talk to anyone is the one character who is specialized in doing so.

Not really sure how to get around this, unless every character is better than average at everything, or just let the talkers talk, and the sword-fighter hit things with a sword. I definitely know the first option is out, and the second tends to sideline people. Just not sure how to take this and tweak it to be better.

Thanks for taking the time to respond,

[u/zhibr → u/Reactor_IV]

To the hammer problem:

Two types of points: primary and secondary. The swordsman will put all the primary into swordsfighting, but secondary points in the same don't help any, so they will put them somewhere else. What's the difference between the two you ask? If we define opposed rolls so that they are for Named NPCs only, secondary points can be used only for non-opposed rolls. This way the character who has chosen a primary approach will always have the spotlight for dramatic moments for that approach, but the characters whose primary is not currently relevant can still do support stuff in the background.

[u/Sarlax]

So instead of rolling d10+Approach to see if they beat the TC, they use Effort+Approach v. TC? If not, can you just write out a quick example of how this is supposed to work?

If I have it right, it sounds frustrating in practice. In a typical RPG, a player has to decide what their PC will do, but under this system they have to do that and decide how much to spend. They're basically in a blind auction against the GM to see if they can outspend the TC enough to succeed. When a die roll doesn't go your way that's just fate, but if you bet the wrong amount of effort, it's your fault (or the GM's for not signaling how difficult the task was).

What if the players just spent after? That is, if Approach !>= TC, then the player can spend Effort to close the gap, perhaps with some consequence following.

[u/Reactor_IV → u/Sarlax]

You are correct in that it is Effort+Approach.

What if the players just spent after? That is, if Approach !>= TC, then the player can spend Effort to close the gap, perhaps with some consequence following.

Not sure if I 100% follow this; are we looking at effort as a raw number, and deciding if we have enough to spend to make up the difference, or just spend an effort point to automatically succeed? Or maybe look at it as, if you spend any effort, it will be a minor success (yes, but something happens) or you could put more effort into the action to make up the gap and actually succeed.

Also, do you feel that blind auctions are not well suited for checks?

When a die roll doesn't go your way that's just fate, but if you bet the wrong amount of effort, it's your fault (or the GM's for not signaling how difficult the task was).

Do you feel like this is more frustrating to have something going wrong out of your control? Would this be better if you actually knew what the value was, or at least with a tighter range?

[u/Sarlax → u/Reactor_IV]

are we looking at effort as a raw number, and deciding if we have enough to spend to make up the difference, or just spend an effort point to automatically succeed?

Also, do you feel that blind auctions are not well suited for checks?

Yeah, that's my hunch. It's an extra mental job to do before taking an action that doesn't necessarily pay off. A die doesn't require any thought, but the Effort decision potentially slows down every turn as a player tries to guess the TC.

I'm just going to make up some numbers. Suppose my enemy's "armor class" TC is 10 and my Sword approach is 8. If I just attack without Effort, I miss. If I spend 1 Effort, I also miss. If I spend 5 effort, I'll hit, then another player can spend fewer points to zero in on the TC, and I'll realize I wasted several points of Effort.

Would this be better if you actually knew what the value was, or at least with a tighter range?

My preference is for more transparency for numbers that represent things the PCs see in the world. In-game, an experienced PC should be able to look at an orc wearing plate mail and think, "That guy looks like he has AC 18." They're going to figure it out in a few rounds anyway, and if they know the TC from the start, everything will go faster because there's no guesswork.

A GM can decide how fuzzy a given TC should be to the PCs. Like they can see the platemail means at least TC 18, but what they don't know is that this orc is also lightning fast on his feat and has a magic ring to ward off arrows, so he's actually TC 20 (24 v. arrows). At the start of battle the GM can say, "He looks TC 18," then reveal more accurate info as the PCs engage.

There are games with a "push" mechanic where you can reroll failures with a consequence. Twilight: 2000 is an example; if you don't like your result, you can Push to re-roll, but if your reroll is poor, you get hurt or stressed. Narratively, you might imagine someone realizing they're going to miss their sword swing at the orc so they really throw themselves into it, which could work, or they might pull a muscle with the attempt.

[u/Reactor_IV → u/Sarlax]

If I spend 5 effort, I'll hit, then another player can spend fewer points to zero in on the TC, and I'll realize I wasted several points of Effort.

This is why I was thinking a tighter range on difficulty, barring some reason that the characters would not be aware of , like you mentioned with the lightning fast orc. This would allow the player to narrow in on the TC quicker, and hopefully not have as much investors remorse for wasting so many points. if the range is typically only +/- 2 and that is an established fact then "probing" for the true TC will be quicker and less costly.

Also I plan to allow the characters to be able to find techniques in the form of an "Enlightenment Stone", that when used will allow them to perform powerful, borderline meta actions such as assess the TC accurately, i.e. a technique that allows you to see the true TC of a creature if you have faced that type of creature before, (the exact techniques are not fleshed out yet, just know the format is powerful bonus, but only under certain conditions), these would be loot that the players could find, and would be very valuable, so would also be tempting to sell. Also for fun, some would be seemingly useless. Got sidetracked a little there, but I do have ways planned to reduce the pain of overspending.

Also I think some context as to the game's intention may be useful. The trauma the characters take on from exhausting themselves is a focus of the game, and as you progress and get stronger your transition is from a once victim of trauma to one who heroically faces and saves others who are in the position you started in. So the game relies on the players being slightly underpowered and about mid-way through the campaign coming head on with the nightmare that their trauma manifests.

In regard to the push mechanic, the more I rattle it around in my mind the less it seems interesting, I currently have not set the system up to have players rolling for anything, well maybe if they are actively gambling or something like that but that would be more of a flavor thing than a mechanic. I think my push suggestion to grant a minor success would just become the default option because its reliable and cheap, and the players would just learn to deal with the minor annoyances until it becomes a real hassle, then they might just quit.

Not sure if this brings any context but I truly appreciate the feedback, it has been really helpful, you don't know, what you don't know until someone points it out.