C2020 Redux: Core Mechanics Pt. II

Statistics are intended to describe a character’s general capability and talent in a given area of life.

Abstract Thought, General Intelligence, IQ — INT
INT represents the character’s abstract thinking abilities; a low score indicates slower and shallower thought process. INT is the relevant Stat for Skills and tasks involving abstract conceptualization, analysis of information and reasoning.

Emotional Intelligence, Empathy — EMP
EMP represents the character’s degree of socialization and in-born capacity for understanding other people. Low scores indicate social perception dysfunctions, such as autism. EMP is the relevant stat for Skills and tasks involving understanding other people.

Ego Formation, Willpower, Punk Attitude — WIL/PNK
These are actually two alternate Stats: characters who work with society get WIL, while outsiders get PNK. A character with both will find that they tend to work on cross-purposes and erode each other. Both Stats are relevant to overcoming adversity and keeping cool, but WIL also grants long-term determination while PNK helps the character thrive in crisis situations.

Applied Intelligence, Mechanical Aptitude, Technical Talent — TEK
Applied intelligence determines the character’s intuitive aptitude to using technology; a low score in TEK indicates a lack of detail-orientation, spatial awareness and mechanical intuition. The Stat is relevant to using, repairing and building all kinds of things both in the workshop and the field.

Agility, Dexterity, Body Coordination — COD
COD represents the character’s physical talents; a low score indicates a clumsy individual. COD is relevant to learning most physical body-using Skills such as shootery and kickboxing and whatnot.

Strength, Stamina, Size, Body — BOD
BOD represents the size and strength of the character’s physical body. A low value is small and weak, a high value big and strong. BOD isn’t used with Skills directly very much, but it plays a part in all kinds of grotesque flesh-related affairs, the way you’d expect it to.

Health, Beauty, Genome Quality — GEN
GEN represents the character’s overall health; a low value may be caused by injuries or inherited genetic issues. Tasks may occasionally rely on GEN, but like BOD it’s most often used as an independent factor where e.g. physical beauty influences social situations.

All Stats start at 3 in character creation, then adjusted immediately for early childhood circumstances. A number of points equal to GEN are distributed between Stats to account for in-born talent. Around puberty the Stats are again adjusted, after which during adolescence lifepath events modify the numbers further. One last round of adjustments on the cusp of adulthood, and that’s that; adult Stats can change, but it’s more rare. While low Stats are normal for children, ~5 is normal for adults; characters generally notice if their acquaintances fall outside the 4‒6 range in some Stat or other.

Stat adjustment in adulthood comes mainly from Perks (more on those later). Cybernetics can also be used to modify Stats; a drastic procedure to be sure, but sometimes necessary.

I’ll use the term Trait as a general name for things like Skills: they start at zero, are raised with Improvement points like Skills, and can be checked like Skills. Various possible Traits include things like Personality, Passions, Relationships and Reputation, and probably something more that I’m not thinking of right now.

Personality traits are deep habits, virtues or vices of the character. They’re mostly developed during character creation, usually only go up, and they change slowly; either the player or the GM may assign improvement points to them should events dictate developments. A character may call on a Personality trait to support (discussed later in detail) an action in accordance with the trait. The GM may likewise call on a personality trait to compel the character to act; the player either accedes, gaining automatic support, or resists the personality trait with other traits (TN trait + 3), defaulting to WIL/PNK. Because characters amass personality traits over their life, some people get locked down into patterns of behavior while others foster complementary Personality traits to retain more mental flexibility. Personality traits normally have a Complexity of 15.

Most Personality Traits in retrofuturistic 2020 are pop-psych type theory stuff. They are often very over-lapping, and which ones (if any) a character actually develops depends on their life history. For example:
Type A personality supports achievement and inhibits relaxation. Type B is the opposite. 2020 American pedagogy has largely accepted the typology, and public school students are generally grouped accordingly.
On the streets, Pavlovian two-factor rules: the triad of Dominance, Compliance and Excitability traits define gang dynamics and pack roles.

Passions are a little bit like personality traits, except they’re emotional dependencies targeted at some focal point like an idea, thing, person or activity. Compared to personality traits they’re more powerful but also more mercurial, arising and extinguishing several times over a lifetime. Like personality traits, either the player or the GM may assign improvement points to them. Passions, however, decrease in value in every session of play all on their own. Passions can be used to inspire (gain a bonus die) or compel (as with Personality traits) the character. Passions normally have a Complexity of 5 and the TN for inspiring the character is either 6 (obvious circumstances) or 9 (mild circumstances)

Relationships are a bit different in that they quantify a social reality between two persons: the stronger the trait, the deeper the relationship. Relationships do not need to be positive, antagonists can develop a relationship as well. The trait is shared by the characters, which means that either may use or influence it; the GM or either participant in the relationship can assign improvement points to it. Relationships develop at moderate pace and normally only go up (going down requires avoiding the other person for extended periods of time). Either character can get inspired or compelled by the relationship like it was a personality trait, and the relationship can support (discussed later) the characters when they’re working together or against each other. Relationships normally have a Complexity of 15.

Reputations are more diffuse than Relationships, as they track superficial recognition and social position of a person. A character can have multiple reputations for different things, in different places. The Reputation can be tested to support social checks, or simply to recognize the character, by either the character themself or anybody meeting with them. Characters with a relationship are immune to their relationship’s Reputation; even a single point of Relationship over-rides a Reputation. (Or maybe you need a few points if the Reputation is particularly high, I don’t know.) Reputations have a Complexity that depends on the breadth of the community among which the Reputation is a thing.

Whenever a character gets any of their Traits (Skills and Stats included) up to 5+ (professional level), they qualify for gaining a Perk from that Trait. The Trait qualifies for a second Perk at 10, a third at 15, etc., but that is understandably rare. A negatively perceived Perk is called a Flaw; they work the same way, except that the character generally detests their flaws.

The character actually gains the Perk from the Trait at a suitable time, such as:

• After rolling a Cool success (result double the TN) or Bunk failure (under half the TN) with real stakes involved.
• After rolling a Cinematic success (result 18+) with the Trait.
• By expending a Practical Experience SR for the Trait after a NailBag (adventure) on the Perk instead of IP for the Skill.
• After reaching a score of 10 in the Trait without gaining their first Perk.
• By engaging in appropriate training, having cyberware installed, etc.
• As a consequence of a traumatic event.

Basically, the existence of a sufficiently developed Trait is a precondition for granting the Perk, but you also need a particular triggering event for the Perk to drop. There’s no need to be particularly hard-ass about this, but neither is it necessary to treat any flimsy excuse as a legit Perk drop. The GM should encourage a culture of considering Perks a few times per session, but not let the Perk hunt steal all the attention. They’ll come soon enough once the Traits are in place. The GM controls when Perks drop, so they can pay whatever amount of attention they consider pleasant to them; just don’t play favourites between the players, treat everybody to the same standards.

To track which Traits have dropped Perks the character sheet should either group Perks under their associated Traits, or have room for marking Perk drops on each Trait. In writing we can use a plus sign after the name of a Trait to indicate that it has dropped a Perk, e.g. “First Aid +”.

The particular Perk that each Trait drops is chosen by the GM from a range of options that depend on the nature of the Trait and the triggering condition of the Perk drop. The GM offers the Perk, and the player has the option of accepting or discarding it; if they discard the offered Perk, they might have the opportunity to gain a different Perk from the same Trait later on. The Perks gained from more interesting Traits and more interesting drop events should be more impressive; more unique, more interesting, more powerful, such that the players might grow some ambition about their favourite Skills and the Perks they gain.

Flaws are dropped and gained the same way as other Perks, except they’re generally consequences of traumatic events rather than positive successes, and the GM usually needs to sweeten the pot to make the player accept the Flaw; the Flaw basically replaces some more serious consequence that the GM might be willing to apply instead. Better crippled than dead, amirite?

Note that because cheap (low complexity) Traits are relatively cheap to gain, the GM cannot treat Perk drops in an overly mechanical way; more consequential Traits drop better Perks, and the Perks of simple Skills and other cheap Traits mainly relate to the immediate scope of the Trait. This could all be arranged into a more formal mechanical constellation, but I don’t believe the overhead to be worth the effort, so for now the Perk drops remain hand-tailored by the GM.

The game needs a prepped selection of Perks for the various kinds of Traits as a starting point for a GM to work with, but for now, a few examples suffice to make the point. I consider the following wildly speculative for now, as they pertain to parts of the game that I haven’t considered carefully yet; they’ll serve to sketch out some of the possible use cases for the concept of the Perquisite.

A character write-up consists of their Stats, Skills and other Traits. All Traits can be trait checked by the unified check formula:

[Trait rating] + [Personal modifiers] + d10 vs. [Target number] + [Circumstance modifiers]

The check succeeds if the final sum on the left side (the check result) equals of exceeds that on the right side (the final TN). Furthermore:
Rolling a natural ‘1’ indicates a Complication.
Rolling a natural ’10’ explodes; roll again and add to result.
A result equal to final TN is a Flimsy success; a result one point lower is a Flimsy failure.
A result under half of the final TN is a Bunk failure. A result double or over the TN is a Cool success.

The basic check formula may be modified by a number of resolution modes, some of which can be in force simultaneously:
Defaulting from a Trait to a less relevant Trait adds one or more penalty dice to the check.
Routine check drops the die roll altogether, removing the chance of Complication.
Careful check gains a +3 personal modifier to the check; the die does not explode on a ’10’.
Inspired check gains a bonus die. Any die showing a ‘1’ gains Complication.
Panicked checks are forced to Default (or fail if there is no Default); the primary Trait supports the Defaulted trait.

When modifiers are applied to Trait checks, each should be accompanied by a clear explanation of how the modifier relates to the fictional situation depicted by the check. This is to keep the players honest. The number of individual modifiers per check should consequently be relatively low, as we don’t have all day to talk about the particulars.

Personal modifiers originate in the particular circumstances of the character attempting the check. Their sum total cannot be more than the value of the primary Trait; in other words, personal modifiers can at most double the Trait value, or drop the total to zero in the case of negative modifiers. The most important types of personal modifiers are support Traits, Perk bonuses, assistant support, equipment bonus, tactical bonus and distraction penalty.

Support Traits are character Traits that pertain to the circumstances of the check but are not the primary Trait to be tested. The most common situations are useful secondary Skills and situation-matching Personality Traits, but you can figure out more opportunities easily. The one important limitation is that a Trait cannot be added in Support if another overlapping Trait is already factored in: a Stat cannot support a Skill based on that Stat, a Personality trait cannot be added if another similar Personality trait is already factored, and so on. When a Trait supports, it grants a +1 personal modifier if its value is at least one half the value of the primary Trait, or +2 if its value is equal or higher (or +3 if it’s double, I suppose). Traits weaker than one half of the primary Trait do nothing in support.

Perk bonuses are rather varied, as Perks do not have a standard format, but the common Specialization Perk offers a straight +2 personal modifier to a Skill check when the Skill is used in a situation in line with the specialty.

Assistant support is relevant when the task is one where the character can use a helper. Note that this is not the same thing as a cooperative task, which involves the combined efforts of many people; to count for support, the assistant’s participation must be optional. When assistance applies, the assistant’s primary relevant Trait supports just like an inherent support Trait. Characters may need some sort of leadership or teamwork check when the nature of the task or the number of heads involved makes utilizing assistants difficult.

Equipment bonuses are gained when the character is performing the task with equipment that is not only sufficient for the task, but actually sophisticated. To qualify for an equipment bonus, the situation needs to be one where the basic TN of the task is calibrated with the assumption of inferior equipment. The equipment bonus is a +1 (or a -1 for inferior equipment, I suppose), or a +2 for outright futuristic, computer-aided Skill use. If the task utilizes several pieces of equipment in non-overlapping, distinct roles, the equipment bonus has potential to be higher, but that’s probably a bit rare.

Tactical bonuses are gained when the character sets up a combo move by chaining multiple tasks (or other circumstances) together. For a tactical bonus to apply, the character needed to set up a circumstance in advance to make the later task easier for them; e.g. preparing distance markers for a firing zone before a sharp-shooting task. Integral preparations that do not depend on external circumstances do not count; those are factored into the Skill value. The tactical bonus is a +1 (or a -1 for inferior tactics, I suppose) or a +2 for dramatically decisive maneuvers.

Distraction penalty is a bit of an exception in that although it’s a penalty and would thus be easier to apply as a circumstance modifier, it’s also inherently a personal character issue, so… Either way, the distraction or depression penalty is caused by a character refuting a Trait compel, such as when the character is doing something they find distinctly unpleasant or unsuited to their talents. Its value is -1 to -3 depending on the strength of the originating Trait.

Circumstance modifiers are applied by the GM to modify the initial difficulty class of the check. The difficulty classes are rough steps of 3 points each, target number zones intended to be distinct enough for the GM to be able to determine the appropriate difficulty class of a task with relative ease. Circumstance modifiers exist to make analytical determination easier: to arrive at a final Target Number, you first imagine the task in white room conditions, determine the difficulty class, and then apply the distinct circumstances involved in the actual situation. Circumstance modifiers are usually positive and therefore make the task more difficult, but exceptions do exist.

The exact types of circumstance modifiers depend on the nature of the task; a Skill list or similar could ostensibly include Skill-specific modifiers for common situations, but we’re probably better off training the GM. The general principle is that minor factors are worth a +1 and major factors are worth a +2; if the circumstance factor is relatively more powerful than that, the task is generally not possible at all without first addressing the adverse circumstance. For circumstances that make the task easier, the reverse holds true: if a -2 does not suffice to reflect the significance of the factor, the task should probably be construed differently to account for the overwhelming circumstance factor involved.

Common circumstance factors that come up in a wide variety of tasks are things like:
trying to perform the task under time pressure (it’s more difficult because you have to move and think faster),
being externally distracted (the task is usually performed without loud noises etc.),
the task being unusually expansive (more concurrent mental load than usual),
having to improvise on key task elements like e.g. tools (having to replace standard procedure with on-the-spot solution)
wearing constraining equipment (when the task is usually performed unencumbered)

Although a single factor should never modify the check by more than 2 points, multiple factors may, of course, cause greater swings. When faced with dominant circumstance factors the GM should generally reconstrue the task in light of the circumstance, which may mean switching to a different Skill altogether, and the task becoming significantly easier or harder, and its outcome – consequences of success or failure – shifting around. For example, if a character is trying to shoot at a target in low-light conditions, and you determine that a +2 modifier is insufficient to express how much more difficult this is than the white room scenario of the shooting range, this is an indication that it’s too dark to shoot! Deal with that, perhaps by chaining Stealth and Shoot checks to sneak closer and shoot from point-blank range.

Circumstance modifiers can be secret. While making outright secret resolution rolls is a traditional technique, I think it’s overall more trouble than it’s worth. It is also rare that the difficulty class of a task would be completely opaque to a character. However, the GM is encouraged to be clear to the players about the concept of secret circumstances; whenever a character does not know of a circumstance while initiating the task, the GM might not tell the player about the circumstance either. They would only reveal the modifier’s presence after the roll. This is not the same as deciding on the modifier after the roll; the GM should determine all modifiers (except the gut correction) in advance for reasons of procedural hygiene and only rely on post-facto fixes when obvious mistakes have been made. If it helps the process, the GM should write down the secret modifiers in advance to the roll and reveal the note afterwards to make it clear that modifier comes from a secret, pre-established circumstance and not an off-the-cuff fudge after the roll.

The special circumstance modifier of the GM gut correction is a +1 or -1 on the TN that you can throw in for whatever petty reason you’d like. Even just to mess with players relying on the TNs being relatively stable. Call it the inherent imprecision of the resolution system, the white noise in the sensors. Its best use is in satisfying the GM’s intuitive feel that things are being too easy or too difficult; no need to be able to justify it in any way, unlike other circumstance modifiers, which you should all be able to name and explain when asked. Unlike other modifiers, feel free to do the gut correction after the roll if that’s how you roll; I don’t care.

An on-going task is one that has the potential to be interrupted by external events. While the concept is usually relevant for tasks requiring hours and days of work to be accomplished, even a momentary task may be interrupted by e.g. specific enemy action intended to disrupt the task. In this sense all tasks are “on-going” while they are in the process of being executed.

The detailed timeline of events while resolving a task is needed when there is a chance of the task being interrupted. Like so:

1. The task is established by describing what the character is trying to do. The players discuss the parameters of the task, such as how long it is expected to take, what tools and resources it requires, what Skills are relevant, the difficulty class and Target Number of the task, etc.
2. The player of the character attempting the task makes the task resolution check. At the same time the character begins the task in the fiction. The players see the outcome of the check, which is for now called the prospective result of the task; for short and simple task the prospective result almost instantly becomes the final result, but not so for an on-going task. The prospective result is better understood to be an indication of whether the task is on the way to successful completion right now, given that nothing unexpected occurs to derail the outcome.
3. Once the task has an outlying prospective result at hand, the players may move on to focus on other concerns running concurrently in the game; the on-going task will keep. The GM will come back to it when it’s time to figure out any possible interruptions.
4. Task interrupts are outside events that impact the planned performance of a task, invalidate the prospective result and require the task resolution to be redone. The GM determines whether an on-going task is interrupted by the usual event management processes (of which I’ll write more specifically later); basically, the more protected and routine the on-going task is, the less likely anything is to happen to interrupt it.
5. If a task interrupt occurs, it is dealt with as any other event, after which the player has to decide whether their character is going to continue with the on-going task. At this point some of the time and other resources committed to the task have already been expended, and the task itself has progressed to some extent; giving up on the task means that those commitments are a loss, but the interrupt may have made continuing infeasible.
6. When the task resolution is redone, the resolution particulars are usually basically the same as the first time, excepting any changes explicitly caused by the interrupt or task progression. The result of the last task check made on the task becomes a major personal modifier for continuing the task, so the check gets a +2 if the last check was a success (the task was proceeding towards success before the interrupt), and -2 if the check was a failure (the task was veering towards failure before). The interrupt itself, and its handling, may also well cause a separate circumstance modifier if the interruption affected the task.
7. The play continues normally, with the on-going task continuing to progress in the background until interrupted again or coming to completion.

This interrupt-based task management system has a potentially confusing feature in that the player of the character sees in the prospective result whether the task is progressing towards victory or defeat. This means that they have an inherent interest in attempting to interrupt the task and redirect it towards success if the initial check was a failure. This self-interrupt is an intended feature: the difficulty class for saving a task headed for failure is usually at least one step higher (need to notice the problem and correct for it both), and the character still suffers the -2 personal modifier for continuing off a failed roll, but it is possible to attempt a correction. Correcting a quick action is of course more difficult still, as it leaves the character with very little time to realize the problem and fix the issue, but a master swordsman is indeed theoretically able to initiate a strike, notice a problem and correct in mid-swing to succeed after all.

Another common source of interrupts is when the initial task check rolls a natural ‘1’, resulting in a Complication. I’ll discuss Complications more thoroughly later, but for our purposes it’s relevant that often a Complication is also an interrupt, requiring the task to be rerolled. (I’m saying “often” instead of “always” mainly because I want to be clear that it’s not a formal relationship, but rather one based on the fiction: sometimes a Complication may allow a task to proceed uninterrupted and only come to bear afterwards, in which case there’s no interruption.)

The third common source of interrupts are composite tasks: when it is natural and interesting to construe of a task in terms of several discrete sub-tasks, that’s a composite task. The sub-components of the overall task may consist of multiple similar tasks utilizing the same primary Skill, or they may involve entirely different Skills. For example, a “sail to France” task might involve both a Sailing and Navigation task for the poor bastard whose GPS breaks down.

Composite tasks should be handled as on-going tasks with a mandatory interrupt: you check the appropriate Abilities for each sub-task, and the overall success of the task depends on whether the chain of mandatory and possible external interrupts ends up successful in the end. Just like a single-Skill on-going task, it’s just that you already know going in that there’ll be multiple checks along the line.

When a Trait activation check die rolls a ‘1’, you get a Complication. Complications are unexpected interruptions in resolving the task. The exact nature of the Complication depends on the situation, it can be internal or external, minor or more serious than the task it Complicates. A sudden heart attack would be a Complication, for example, and rolling a ‘1’ obligates the GM to establish a Complication that could at worst be something like that.

If the nature of the Trait activation does not give rise to a Complication, no Complication occurs. If several resolution dice are used and more than one ‘1’ is rolled, the GM may wish to introduce several Complications at once. Complications usually interrupt the task and therefore require the task to be either aborted or continued with a new task check (accounting for the success, or more likely, failure of the initial check that caused the Complication).

I don’t know yet how the exact nature of the Complication is determined. C2020 classic would say “random table” (you can look at the fumble tables in there for ideas), but I’d rather get by without that. I’m leaning towards running with whatever good idea anybody shouts up on the spot in reaction to the dice roll, arbitrarily, but there are some minor issues with that as well. Ultimately this has to wait until I have a clearer sense of the way content gets introduced into play in general.

Normal results, success or failure, are the baseline interpretation for task outcomes; the GM may ignore the other degrees of success and failure whenever they feel like it. They’re intended to be useful, and there’s no guarantee that they will always be so.

A Normal Success in a task check indicates that the character achieved what they set out to do. The consequences of the success are determined by the GM, and they are generally of the nature expected. A Normal Failure likewise indicates that the task failed and the effort expended in it was wasted, which may well have its own consequences.

A Flimsy Success or Flimsy Failure are similar to their normal counterparts, except if the task can only fail or succeed partially, it does that. Sometimes a flimsy result is the same whether success or failure, while at other times there are differences. Either way, on a flimsy result it is obvious to witnesses that the character struggles with the task. The task may be immediately tried again if a more conclusive result is required. Flimsy results count as only minor modifiers (+1 instead of +2) for task chains.

A Cool Success indicates an effortless virtuoso execution of the task. The Skill on display is evident to witnesses. The Practical Experience award for the situation gains a +2 to Study Rating. As performing the task does not require the character’s full attention, a Cool success allows them full multitasking, support opportunities, outcome synergies and follow-up combos as per the nature of the task.

A Bunk Failure indicates a failure caused by clear lack of competence on the part of the character; it’s their fault, not the circumstances as such. Any witnesses will realize that the character is not up to the task. The character cannot self-interrupt or otherwise retry a Bunk Failure, and an on-going Bunk task will usually terminate shortly and spectacularly.

A new resolution mode called Ascension: An ascended check is made when the character has superhuman potential. The check uses a d20 instead of a d10. Both a natural ’10’ and a natural ’20’ explode. Circumstance modifier factor cap doubles in ascended checks (so maximum +4 instead of +2). Playing your theme song lifts the personal modifier cap altogether.