Here is a summary of one man's thoughts on role playing. This document is a combination of three different texts written by me. An old text about character creation, a newly written, but very classic, action resultion and a lot of thoughts about streamlining systems written years ago. Like most of my stuff in general, most of these texts have never been published. All the texts are modified a little to present my current (12/2003) views. Maybe in the future, after a lot thinking and writing, I'll do a new compilation.
These rules are meant to work in the background as a gaming aid.The functionality is dependent on the maturity of the players and the Game Master(GM). The system is not meant to tell them what to do, they should tell the system what to do. This system is a tool to be used as needed. The design goals are real simplicity, true speed of play (almost all systems claim to be easy and fast, but most are very slow), giving emphasis on storytelling, giving power (and responsibility) to the GM and, finally, extreme adaptability. Adaptability meaning it can handle, in addition to different genres, different themes and moods and, for example, a wide variety of realism levels.
Adaptability means also that in a Mecha game, for example, where the characters are pilots of giant robots, the robots can be created with the exact same rules as the characters themselves. High Fantasy magic items can also be created with the same rules, along with the different armies of a war-themed game, or the haunted house of the horror game. Even the competing nations of a secret agent game can be designed as easily as any other object. You can make your own additions to the system if needed.
The traditionally most common object in games is a humanoid creature called a player character (PC). This system can also be used for creating other objects, such as weapons, vehicles, creatures, space stations, ghosts or even religions. A classic good vs evil fantasy game could be given new life if the players were the ideals themselves instead of just people following them. The creation steps are listed in the order they are to be completed. Always start from step one, then on to step two etc.
1 Name and concept (main role)
The concept is a short description that captures the essence of the object. You can also name the object (a "working title" can be used if a "real name" is hard to come by now). The concept determines the basic power level of the object. A Dragon is tougher than a man. An army is tougher than a guerrilla group, which is tougher than a single man (not in all genres, though). The GM is always the final judge on who's tougher than who (or what's tougher than what). That's why it's recommended to use an intelligent GM.
2 History
The real creation of the object starts by writing a history for it. It can be as long or short as needed and wanted. The history should, at least, be detailed enough so you can determine some stats for the object based on this history in the following stages of creation. The history can reach up to the very moment (in-game time) the game starts, so you can write about even the very last seconds before the action begins. The players should discuss the history of their characters (and other objects) with the GM, and the GM should in turn tell the players beforehand about the type of characters that suit the game in question. When the history is done, you should be able to complete the remaining stages of object creation using this history as a source.
3 Basic Talents(BT)
Exactly what the Basic Talents are, is determined by the GM based on what is central in the campaign and game world. All objects of a certain type are rated with the same Basic Talents. All characters, for example, will have the same BT, and all vehicles would have their own set of same basic "talents". A modern airplane can not be intelligent in the same sense as a human, on the other hand a human can not have a flight range in the same sense as every airplane has one. The purpose of basic talents is to make similar objects easily comparable with each other when needed to. In the case of people, for instance, they can represent the genetic tendencies. For a ship or an airplane they can represent permanent structural properties. Generally speaking the Basic Talents are the unchanging, well, basic talents.
|
A basic set of BT to use in a campaign with human or humanoid characters includes Agile, Dangerous, Disciplined, Handy, Influential, Witty and Tough. The BT are joined with the appropriate level, like "Very Handy" or "Moderately Dangerous". This list should be altered to suit the tone and content of the campaign, add more, take some out and use different words. Agile measures whole body movement and coordination, flexibility etc. Dangerous measures how willing and able the character is to cause physical harm, strong or aggressive, for example. Disciplined measures discipline. Handy measures how good the character is using his/her hands. Influential measures charisma and other social influence (not related to social status). Witty measures how fast the character thinks. Tough measures physical and mental toughness, this BT is used when checking if you get hurt or can soak it up. |
4 Gained Talents(GT)
The gained talents of the characters are usually "skills". They can be talents they have learned and can improve, and acquire new ones. GTs can also be unique abilities. In case of a ship, GT can represent the skill of it's current captain and crew. GT can be named as seen best and can be as wide or accurate as needed to best describe the object in accordance of it's history. If the history is written well, there should be no disagreement about suitable talents and levels between player and GM. Gained talents can be rated with the same scale as BT in a form such as very skilled archer or fairly skilled klingon speaker. A good way to breathe life into objects is to write down GTs as descriptive sentences instead of single words.
I should propably emphasize here that a space ship, for example, can be handled in two different ways, either as an object itself, or as a device controlled by an object. If it's an object itself, it needs it's captain as a GT, this is not a situation of character vs character (ie. pilot vs pilot) like it would be in most systems. The traditional RPG way is that the characters have a skill and the players roll a skill roll to see if their character can fly the ship. The other way is for the pilot (be it NPC or PC) to be a GT of the ship, and the player of the ship rolls the skill roll of the ship, so, in a way, the ship is the "character" being played by the player who throws the dice. So when characters operate any machinery, situations can be machine vs machine, with the "pilot" being just a part (GT) of a machine.
5 Signs
What does the object look like, how can one see, when looking at it, that it is what it is? A character can be muscular or move softly, or have a sharp gaze. A ship could be "eaten by time" or "beautifully decorated". The signs are in close relation to BT and GT.
6 Status
When created, the status of the object is usually good, it doesn't have to be, though, and once the game starts... Status is quite clearly a measure of the "status" of the object.
|
When making decisions the GM should note the status. There can be no ready formula of applying status because the effects of status depend so much on the action in question. Let's say a character has fallen from a tree and broken his leg, his status is now Injured, if he now tries to run, he would get big penalties, but it's still quite easy for him to shoot a gun. This also means that the players must keep track of what their status means, ie. the player should write on a piece of paper "fell from tree: left leg broken from thigh", for example, or for a ship "lazer blast: ion drive's cooling system blown to bits". This helps role playing a lot. Is stead of just losing hit points, the characters have injuries just like me and you would get from the same situations. And when it's time in the game world to start healing the wounds and fixing the machines, the GM and the players know exactly what's wrong, and can role play the healing/fixing processes. |
7 Goals and objectives
Goals and objectives really only concern sentient self-aware objects.
The Goal:
The goal is the character's "goal in life". The GM can use this when creating a plot to the campaign.
The Objectives:
Objectives are smaller motivations the character sets to advance towards his goal. The GM can use these for creating plots for adventures.
Other objects can in a way have objectives and goals, too. They are still best suited for independently functioning sentient objects, though. For example, if the goal of a nation is to rule the world, it's really the leader's (or maybe the people's) goal.
The following method of creating good objectives and goals for characters is borrowed from ARC.
The GM can do a short interrogation with each player separately and retrieve information that will be useful for the game. Remember that as a GM you shouldn't force a pre-planned storyline on your players and as a player you should play your character with passion and explore all possibilities. Holding back and playing carefully so that you can keep a character alive is not fun for anyone. If your character has a Goal or an Objective calling he should respond in a way that demonstrates that. Call of Cthulhu or Paranoia are good examples of games that demand such players.
The WECD (pronounced Wicked) is an interrogation technique that GMs can use to help players create interesting and enjoyable characters that won't be out of place in the GMs campaign.
1st step: World. The GM describes the campaign setting where the character's lives will take place. It doesn't have to be too descriptive, but enough information should be provided so that the players can proceed with the next steps.
2nd step: Element. Each player takes something of interest from the setting. It could be the feel, the theme, the moral, a visual, or anything that has to do with the setting and should carry some emotional weight.
3rd step: Choice. Now it is time for the player to decide if the character wishes to support or rebel against the Element he has chosen. The player should also decide how strongly he feels about the Element.
4th step: Detail. The player in collaboration with the GM create a more detailed story of why and how the PC feels the way he does.
5th step: Repeat steps 2 through 4 until all players are satisfied with their characters.
To make it absolutely clear, the mechanic here is in no way directly linked to the character creation above. The modifiers used should be assigned by the GM based on each individual situation. Defining these situations clearly is important. Situations can vary in complexity and duration without limit. Anything happening in the game universe can be solved using none, one or many dice rolls. Needless to say, this mechanic could be used with any other type of object definition besides the one above, as long as it's informative enough to help determine the modifiers.
| Modifier: | Success: | Failure: |
All you need is the task resolution mechanic, the rest of this stuff is just to convince you that this one rule is enough: Roll 2d6 and add modifier. If the result is eight or more it's a success. If the result is seven or less it's a failure. The modifier is a number added to the result of the 2d6 roll. It can range from -3 to +3. The table shows the exact propabilites of success with all modifiers. The table is there to give the GM a feel of how to decide the modifiers. It's important not to think about stuff like that when playing. Instead, think of +1, +2 and +3 simply as good, better and best chances. An unmodified roll can be considered challenging.
|
|---|---|---|---|
| -3 | 8,4 | 91,7 | |
| -2 | 16,7 | 83,4 | |
| -1 | 27,8 | 72,3 | |
| 8+ | 41,7 | 58,4 | |
| +1 | 58,4 | 41,7 | |
| +2 | 72,3 | 27,8 | |
| +3 | 83,4 | 16,7 |
You can concider all natural results of 2 (both dice show 1) to be critical failures and all results of natural 12 (both dice show 6) to be critical successes. These critical results are more radical and unpredictable than normal successes and failures. This rule can be optional. To grant players more control over the faiths of the objects they control, you can give them one karma point whenever they roll a natural 2 or a natural 12. Karma points are tied to the object, not the player. Karma points can be used as additional +1 modifiers on any task attempted by the object. When objects "die" their karma points are lost. If an object breaks down to smaller objects, the GM can decide which objects get the karma points. The points can also be lost. If an object is merged into a larger object, again, the GM decides. This rule can be optional.
This isn't really a "system". It's more like a lesson in philosophy. It's not a set of rules, it's a guide to a new approach to any traditional tabletop role playing game.
RPGs can be played without any rules, but often this requires a not-so-serious attitude towards the adventure at hand. When playing "the big campaign" many use a commercial rules system in a game set in the "official world". Many people do play "the big games" in self made worlds, but still use a commercial rules system, or a free system equivalent of commercial ones in complexity and detail. If you are happy with this, good for you. I don't like the "standard level" of complexity in RPG rules systems today. Why do we need so many rules? Well, because we need to be ready for everything! RPG characters have infinite possibilities, so, in theory, we need an infinite number of rules. So all game systems are really compromises between slow complexity and fast ease of playing. The level of rule detail is quite standard between the differnt commercial systems and the serious free projects. The point of having a lot of rules is to make things easier especially for the GM. The GM saves time and effort when he has the rulebook as his teacher and fellow authority. He doesn't have to come up with rules himself and he can just say "the book says so" to end arguments with players. Hopefully the time and the effort saved by the GM is used to enhace the gaming experience of everyone present. Rules are a necessary evil for the whole event to maintain some order and consistency, and to create a sense of playing a game. Without rules it would just be people talking about other people who don't exist.
Too much rules results in a "book", the players and GM do nothing if the rules do everything. Too little rules results in a story told by the GM to the players, it's not a game anymore if the GM decides everything. The GM should be the absolute power when it comes to the world, but the rules improve the gaming experience of everyone present. The game is more exiting for everyone (GM included) when some events are random and some decisions seemingly out of even the GM's hands.
I think we should be able to handle more compromises without losing anything necessary. My goal is thus a system as simple and fast as possible without pushing to the GM the essential responsibilties of the rules. A system that can handle anything but still be as fast and playable as possible? Isn't that the goal of every system out there? Well, it is, and it apparantly leads to systems too "heavy" for my taste. That's why I would do things a little different, present some new ways of handling stuff.
Almost all systems are made to certain "formula". There's one basic mechanic which is improved upon and altered to hadle those nasty special situations. Most often the basic mechanic includes numerical statistics of one or more characters compared (maybe to another number) and some dice being thrown. The outcome of this test is supposed to give a random but "realistic" answer to weather the character succeeded in what he was trying to succeed in.
The elements of a basic mechanic are "the stat", "the roll" and "the x". The stat is the part that depends on the character in question. Many systems have "an attribute" and "a skill" that are added up (or otherwise taken notice of) with situational modifiers to form "the stat". The roll is the random element, which adds exitement an uncertainty to suitable situations. The "roll" doesn't have to be dice, but almost all systems have some random element. The X is the target of the characters actions, or more accurately, the difficulty this target causes the character in this particular event of interaction. The x can be anything in the gameworld, another person, a physical object (like a lock or a computer), an astral force, the character himself, or anything else.
So now we know the elements of most "basic mechanics" and we know the reason why they exist. The stat representing the character, the x representing what he's up against, and the roll representing the apparent indeterminism of the word around him, with them all affecting wether the character succeeds in his action. Well, so what? Think about it... That's all that any game system needs to have, a basic mechanic, thee elements. Everything else is disposable. Now that we know what we cannot abandon, we can, without mercy, attack all the other rules in any role playing game's rule system.
Later note: the task resultion system presented above combines "stat" and "the x". What we make of this is that a "character", like any other object, is a part of the world, not an outside force. Now we have just two elements, let's call them "the roll" and "the situation".
When you skim through most rulebooks, or rule chapters, you can see that most actions are simply made according to the basic mechanic. Some systems have different basic mechanics for different types of actions, but still, you can easily "recognize" the basic mechanics of any system. Almost always the most exeptions, the most special rules and the most detail can be found in combat rules. Even with a common basic mechanic, it still often seems like combat is a system of it's own, separate from all other parts of the rules. It's clear that the place to start getting rid of unnecessary rules is the combat section.
The problem usually is that Combat sections are tricky bastards. All the rules seem to be useful in the situations they describe. You feel that if you drop too many rules, the combat looses some of it's complexity that makes it interesting. That's something we didn't want to do, drop out essential elements. On the other hand, almost all systems I've played have had many annoying limitations, although being very complex in other areas. Why can't you attack more than once every ten seconds or three seconds? Why can't you use two weapons? Why can't you kick while you swing a sword? Why can't you attack multiple enemies? If played by the book, most combat systems are very complex, but still so limited it feels almost criminal.
I feel most combat systems fall into a trap trying to demonstrate damage too accuretely. Many systems are also way too much like strategy games with their turns and movement points and all stuff like that. These kind of elements slow a game down and can also prevent the characters from doing stuff they really should be able to do quite easily. Rules like this aren't really necessary. A system needs to cover attacks from swords to assault rifles, but having a rule about attacking someone with an assault rifle doesn't automatically have to mean the damages caused by each bullet need to be rolled with dice separately.
We need a different approach to combat. Something much faster and with more freedom. We need new priorities, and we have to reconsider the part the rules play. What do the rules have to tell the GM and the players, and what could just as easily be figured out with out having rules for it?
My idea is to take any system you know, use it's basic mechanic and cast aside all the other rules. You just make your characters, start your adventure and handle all situations with the basic mechanic. Is it too simple this way? Well yes it is, but all you need is a few innovative ways of using the information on the character sheet in a manner that doesn't need additional complexity beyond the basic mechanic.
What follows next is a few simple "tricks" with which to streamline and replace those slow and complex rule monster systems. I still want to point out that if you like a lot of rules and complexity and are happy with the system you use, then please continue using it. But if you don't like the rules you are using at the moment (because they are slow to use, and yet you feel the combats are more like a recreation of a computer game rather than a recreation of actual combat) please read ahead.
Many systems could also do with less adding up of die results. Adding up dice results in't hard, but adding up many dice results isn't fast either. Systems need to be simple to be fast, but added simplicity is not needed if it does not bring speed. Added speed is a goal, added simplicity is just a tool. A fast system falls to the background and makes it easier to role play instead of rule playing.
Later note: One reason I chose a 2d6 mechanic above has to do with adding up. Many systems use 3d6 and I can understand why, but for me, it's just too slow. Perfection is always a compromise.
Think of any RPG system as a car, and the basic mechanic as it's engine. What we want to do is make a race car. The engine is the one part that makes a car go, so we keep the engine. Everything else we either throw away or replace with carbon fibre and other durable light materials. A race car is simpler, faster, safer, lighter and more beautiful than a normal car. In a similar way I want to make the "race system" simpler, faster, safer, lighter and more beautiful than the "normal system". Well, maybe not safer. (You think I don't know that tuning the engine is what really makes a car faster? Well, when tuning the engine you replace parts with lighter ones and... well you get the point)
So you want to transform your rule monster into an elegant solution? The few things you need to do are the following.
Although not the biggest problem, you might want to start by making the basic mechanic as simple and fast as you can. Could you use smaller numbers? Could you roll less dice? If you are familiar with many different systems, use the clearest and fastest basic mechanic you know (and like).
The combat system is the real problem. First of all we need to get rid of rolling dice for damage. It's important to know where your character has been shot at, and that it hurts like hell, but there's just no point in knowing if there's five or six points worth of damage. So damage points are not necessary. It follows that rolling for damage points is no longer necessary. At this point (without damage rolls every combat round) many systems are already almost twice as fast as before. How to keep track of damage "realistically" while ignoring it completely when making attacks? Simple, we use something else to determine who will stand and who will fall. Damage comes and damage goes, the GM and the players can record wounds and decide hit locations if they like, but there's no need to slow down the whole system because of that. When the are no rules to keeping track of damage, it starts a kind of a chain reaction in the whole combat system. You don't need to know hit locations, you don't need to know how many bullets hit the target, you don't need damage stats for weapons. Nothing is taken away from you, these things just don't have anything to do with the rules anymore. They are relevant information for the GM and for the players, but not for the system, not relevant when all we need to know is who wins. The system should do it's job and nothing more, and it's job is to tell who wins. Wounds and wounding are way too complicated issues for a system of rules to handle. You have imagination, use it. Role play your damage.
Later note: Hmmm.... "The system should do it's job and nothing more, and it's job is to tell who wins". Now that's poetic... And, I think, also the essence of the mechanic presented above.
We need a new kind of stat to keep track of how combat events affect characters. Something that doesn't necesseraly tell as much about the character as it does about the story. We need "story stats" in addition to "character stats". The three elements that make a role playing game are the gameworld, the character and the story. The gameworld should be a world as complex as our own, and thus rule systems and world descriptions are usually complex. The chracter should also be complex, but a complex character is a very good thing, unlike complex rules. A character is in the middle of the elements, a part of both the story and the gameworld. The story is what happens to the character, but in a role playing game the story is not complete, it's forming as play progresses.
When we role play, we mainly care about the story. What will happen next? Too much detail about how things exactly happen is not always needed. So, in stead of having the rules of the game trying to describe the gameworld, a world as complex as our own, why not use the rules to describe the story. That's what we need to know and want to know, what happens in the story, not what exactly happens in the gameworld. If authors wrote books like most of us play RPGs, all books would be essays on physics instead of good stories. Let's not even try to have rules that describe accurately what happens in the gameworld, let's instead have rules that describe what happens in the story. A story after all, as any example will show, is much simpler than the the world it takes place in.
Stats tell about the character. Normal stats that game systems have tell about the character in relation to other characters or in relation to the gameworld. We'll call these stats character stats. Basically all stats do tell about the chraracter, but the story stats are separated here from the other stats for purposes of explaining my point. They tell about the character in relation to the story being told. Many systems have some sort of luck points. They are used as luck. They don't explain what happens in the game world, they explain what happens in the story, the character gets "lucky". Luck is a sort of a story stat. What we need is a story stat to determine who will triumph in combat. We can call it "hit points" or "hits" to honor our past.
It's combat and our character is attacked. It doesn't matter to the story but as a dramatic element wether with fist or with shotgun. All we must know in the end is who stands and who falls. That is what the rules must tell us and all they need to tell us. Any more information generated by rules would be there just to kill our imagination. From a story point of view, damage can be easily handled without rules. Just decide yourself according to how things go in the gameworld. Usually the wounded are taken to a hospital and so on. All we need to know after combat are the general locations of damage and wether it's bad enough to be fatal. We're creating a story not a medical essay. The rules don't need to determine everything exactly. They just need to tell us who wins. We are free to come up with the rest ourselves. Let's all shoot as many bullets and hit as many punches as we just can in any given time frame. Let's have spectacular movie-like fights with pyrotechnics and stuntmen. We can, if we have no unnecessary rules slowing us down or unjustly limiting what our characters can (try to) do.
So "hits" measures how well the character is doing in this particular combat. A simple mechanic is that one attack makes one point of "damage". When someone's hits reach zero he's out of the combat and the winner decides what happens to him. Hits are not a measure of balls, not a measure of toughness, not the ability to absorb and withstand damage. It's a measure of how well you are doing in the combat. The less hits the shittier the situation looks to you for one reason or another. Loosing hits doesn't have to mean you are getting damage or losing hope, it just means you are nearing defeat in any dramatically suitable way. If you, for example, happen to win a boxing match you can decide a dramatically suitable fate for your opponent. You can say you knocked him out (if the win was easy, for example), or that you won in points (a close match) or anything else usually considered a defeat in a boxing match. Death due to massive head damage could be an option, but maybe only if it was an illegal no-rules boxing match or your character is very strong or something. If you say your opponent got his head cut clean off or that he died of blood loss from multiple cut wounds, that would be a tad inappropriate. In a barbarian sword duel to the death, though, both would be quite normal endings. Exact damage is important and something that the players and the GM should describe well, but that can be done without slow rules. Rules tell who win, the rest is just flavor. Just as damage is part of the gameworld, so is healing, and I think every GM can handle the return of hits as he sees best for the story. Again, role play your woundings and healings. This much easier if you just write down a description of your wounds in plain english, instead of playing around with numbers.
I hope you understand the concept of story stats now. I usually like to have two story stats, the physical "damage" and the mental "damage". These two should handle many situations. Everything "combat" is measured with hits, anything "mental" with mental hits. Seduction competitions between seducer and "victim" can be handled similarily to sorcerous brain twisting competitions. The end results are different but the mechanics the same. So, the big idea is to take any system's basic mechanic and use it as it is for determining anything. All the more complex stuff can be handled by coming up with a suitable "story stat". This way the GM still has the system supporting all his decisions, but the system isn't slowed down with complexity. A complex world would need complex rules to simulate it, but a simple story goes well with simple rules. The free bonus is the added freedom in storytelling for the players and for the GM.
Later note: to use this "ground breaking new uber rule" with the other stuff above, just give any amount of "hit points" to any object for each combat situation. A story stat can be bound to both the object and the situation. No permanent stats are needed.
Here's my idea of basic combat. The combat begins with initiatives being determined. Use one suitable basic roll. This determines the order the fighters start attacking. Next everyone takes turns rolling attacks against an opponent of choice. The attacker takes his "attack stat" and rolls. The defender takes his "defence stat" and rolls. If the attacker wins, the defender looses one hit point. If the defender wins he evades or blocks the attack. The combat, for any one character, continues untill his hits reach zero. After that he's at the mercy of the character who took his last hit point. All the detail is left for the players and the GM. They can make anything happen in any battle without using any rules. Fast. Don't be too tight about time usage. Let things just happen like they often do in action movies. It could be wise to determine any exact physical damage only after the combat, looking back at what has happened. That way the options stay open and anything can happen.
The common modifications to the above system (to make it even faster) are either not to roll NPC skill checks or not to have defence rolls. When not rolling for NPC skill checks, the GM just assumes all rolls rolled for NPCs come up average. So whenever a player attacks a "non-player" or vice versa, only the player rolls and the non-player is assumed to get an average roll. The other mod is to make every roll as an attack. That way there are no attackers and defenders, the looser always looses a hit point. The problem with this is that only one skill will combine both attack and defence. This can pose limits to character designing. These two modifications can also be used simultaneously. Other kind of mods are also possible.
Later note: The problem noted, that of having to make both offence and defence based on one skill... With now having just "the roll" and "the situation" (remember), we have no skills in the sense implied. My current combat preference is to make it about situations instead of attacks. A situation is viewed from the point of the most important object involved, usually PC (player controlled). This way, no matter who is attacking who, there is always one roll per situation. That one roll can be attacking, defending or anything else. This is just one way, but a fast one.
The decisions of the palyers (and non player characters, too) can earn bonuses or penalties. Trying difficult maneuvers is difficult. Bonuses should also be awarded for great descriptions of the combat action (but maybe not for NPCs). You can basically come up with rules for anything and just agree on them before starting play. Just use only the basic mechanic, it's fast and it's all you need. You can award added "damage" for very successfull attacks if you want. You can award bonuses and penalties to attack and defence for quality of equipment and weapons. You can take anything into account without slowing the game if you just use the basic mechanic. Read the rules of the system you snatched the basic mechanic from taking notice of all the bonuses and penalties mentioned. That way you can get a feel for what's a big bonus and what's a small bonus. If you take alot of stuff into account, the bonuses can become too big (trivializing the die result). If this happens, just make the stuff one simple "general advantage bonus" of suitable scale.
There is one apparent problem in using story stats. For example, if a character wats to aim a punch to the head. The GM says "sure, just roll at -x because the head is harder to hit". The player thinks "what's the point?" If I make the harder roll, the opponent still loses only one hit point. Seems we still require additional complexity. Well, think about it... Simply just give the opponent penalties for future rolls because he is a bit stunned because of the hit to the head. That doesn't slow the game down at all. You can have many rules and many little added details, but as long as you handle all actions with one basic roll (and make all "complex stuff" just simple story stats) your custom game is lightning fast. You can have special consequences for different hit locations and other similar rules, just handle them without slowing the game. If some player strongly insists that he wants to end a gunfight with one clean shot to the head, you can just let him roll and roll, and when the fight is over (and if he wins) he can just declare "I finish him with a clean shot to the middle of the forehead, he's dead". Gunfights require understanding of how the story stats work. Loosing a hit point doesn't have to mean you are really hit, it just mean things don't look as good for you (storywise) as they did a moment before. You can loose all your hit points (and thus lose) in a gunfight with out getting any damage. Your opponent has just out smarted you and now holds a gun to your head. You see this stuff in movies all the time. Next time you see an action film, think about how easy it would be to create similar dramatic fights with stupid combat systems out of the way...
Later note: If I'm so obsessed with speed, why not just make one single roll to see if the whole campaign succeedes or fails and be done with it? I want to emphasize that the time used to describe and talk about even the most miniscule detail is not wasted. The time used on rules is wasted. I don't want to make playing fast, I want to make rules fast to free more time for playing. Now that I think about it, I could try that sometimes, solving the whole campaign with just one roll. That would create a different gaming session, using eight hours just to talk about what wen't wrong (or right).
It could be best to keep all characters in a fairly good condition until they drop down to just one (or two) hit point(s). Although the story stat can be confusing at first, it's really a matter of perspective. You just simply need to start paying less attention (rules wise) to exact damage. The players could maybe come up themselves with the details of the possible damage their characters have aquired. In the end it comes down to winner deciding it all, so that's really the phase where "big damage" is inflicted (if ever). Usual endings for NPCs are graphic death or a stuntman-assisted plunge into unconsciousness. Usual endings for PCs are getting captured or being left bleeding on the side walk to await revenge. The situation determines alot, there was a comparison of boxing and sword-duelling above. Let the situation lead to logical consequences, instead of having complex rules forcing stupid and weird stuff to happen.
Later note: The examples here were "cinematic", but it's just as easy to use any other theme or style as long as all players agree and understand these flavourings.
What about stuff that isn't "combat"? Well, you can almost always do it like you did it before transforming your system. Just one basic roll with modifiers. Almost all systems use just one roll for skills like stealth and lockpicking. If the player characters are in a gunfight with some goons and one of the palyer characters is on a nearby rooftop with a sniper rifle, he isn't really in the battle. He can just pick an enemy (the GM decides who he can see) from the combat field and try to drop him. The GM assigns penalties for range and target movement, bonuses for rifle accuracy and aiming and so on. The sniper rolls a basic roll and if he hits there's no need to figure out exact damages, a bullet from a sniper rifle is bound to hurt like hell and drop the bastard (maybe leave him one last hit point so he can still crawl around and menace the player characters who are actually in the combat). It's also possible to give "unimportant NPCs" only a few hit points to begin with. Thay way they can be asily handled on the side even in a combat situation while concentrating on bigger villains with more hits.
Here is an example to describe more the flow of the game rather than the rules, since the rules depend on the basic mechanic you use. In this example we have one PC (many hit points) fighting without weapons with one NPC (three hit points) in a seedy motel room. The PC rushes into the room and spots a goon relaxing and watching TV. Both are equally stunned by this sudden encounter. The PC wins the initiative so he attacks first. He decides to jump right on the goon. He charges towards the goon sitting on the couch. The goon gets a better roll so he evades the attack (no one loses hit points). The GM describes the goon swiftly rolling to the floor and turning around to face the PC, who's now flat on his face lying on the couch. The goon tries to grab the PC. He succeeds in the "attack" so our PC loses a hit point. Now the PC tries to break off the hold. The player describes the character hitting the goon to the sides with his elbows, and then trying to throw the goon down if his grip loosens. This is a complex maneuver so the GM decides to give a penalty to the attack, but if it succeeds the goon will get penalties to his next attack, too (lying on the ground and all). But no such luck, the goon's grip holds. Now the goon attacks (without any penalties, of course). He tries to ram the PC into a wall. This time the PC's roll wins, so he defends the attack. The player describes how the character rises his feet against the wall to take the impact. Now on his own attack he pushes back with his feet as hard as he can to get the goon off balance and to loose the grip. The PC wins the roll and they both plummet across the room landing on their back the PC on top of the goon. The goon looses one hit point and his grip is lost because he got the air punched right out of his lugns. The PC rolls to the side to catch his breath, too. He tries to get up, but the goon (his attack now) tries to trip him. The PC (who wins) jumps over the goon's feet. The goon is now trying to get up. The PC grabs the goon's jacket and tries to kick him with his knee. The PC wins again and the goon drops to the ground again (loosing a hit point again, now has just one point left). Now the goon grabs the PC's leg trying to ram him against a wall again, this time back first (maybe he's learning). He wins, and so our hero looses a hit point again, now back against a wall with the goon at his feet. The GM points out that the goon has just one hit point left, so maybe the PC could try to finish him off with style. The player smiles and describes the PC grabbing the goon by his waist trying to throw him head first through the window. He succeeds in his final attack and decides that the battle ends for the goon by him falling twenty floors and landing on a parked car with a mighty crash. The people on the street start screaming and the car alarm system activates. The PC looks down from the window. He then turns off the TV, catches his breath for awhile and continues his search through the building. Hopefully nobody heard the sounds of the fight (the GM rolls in secret).
To sum it up once more: Use the basic mechanic to roll one single test when ever anyone does anything (that requires a roll). When a situation is clearly combat (or other competition) use the story stats to simulate the flow of the struggle. Assign suitable bonuses and penalties to rolls. That's fast, adequate and easy.
Later note: What in the name of all that's sacred and holy made me write all that bull when what I want to say can be said in just three sentences?
When streamlining any system it's good to start from the ground up. First figure out the basic mechanic. Then create a character. Look at how damage and other complex stuff are handled. If, for example, the system gives characters twenty or a hundred "hit points", you should divide the calculated hit point sum so as to get a scale suitable for a story stat (maybe 5-10). If a system doesn't really have any "hit points", look at what affects damage resistance in your system of choice. Use these same stats in figuring out a suitable way to calculate the hit point story stat. One additional thing to take in to account is the range of bonuses and penalties. Systems that are based on a percentile system, for example, can consider bonuses and penalties of ten points small, while just two points can be a big bonus in systems with small stat ranges.
All you really need is a normal character and the basic mechanic. Figure out how to get story stats to a range suitable for the game style you want. That's it.
Later note: I could have left this chapter three out, too (there is a chapter four). The reason this chapter is still here is for you to be able to absorb some of my opinions, but not all, and chop down any system to any degree, if you want to. To go beyond the method above, drop the story stat as a stat for the object, use suitable amounts of story stat points for each individual conflict.
Conclusion: Use my task resultion, or use any other, or use no dice. Check out my object creation and (ab)use it, or use your own. Use story stats if you want to.