The problem of the holes is that constant difficulty modifiers become hard to apply in a "roll under or equal to" system (my system of choice of Gaia Gamma).
My solution approach #1 is actually pretty simple:
Gaia Gamma will not use any difficulty modifiers for most tests.
The basic idea is:
- Don't care for realism too much. We are talking about mutants and stuff here.
- Die rolls will only be necessary in difficult and challenging situations. The distribution above ensures that for almost every score there is a tangible chance of success or failure - which should be sufficient for most games.
- If you really feel the need to apply difficulty modifiers, change the target score by -5 (extremely hard), -10 (almost impossible) or +5 (not too difficult, but some serious disadvantages in the case of failure). A score of 1 always succeeds, a score of 36 always fails.
What do you think? Does a game of mutant fun really require anything more difficult? Is this too simple as an approach?
The implications might be manyfold:
- Mutant Masters (aka GMs) will not need to waste time on calculating difficulty levels.
- Many combat modifiers (e.g. range brackets for firearms, flanking, etc.) become mostly irrelevant.
- Combat probably would need to use something like (one half skill or attribute score) as a base line in order to model the inherent imprecision of shots aimed under stress.
- The absence of modifiers might foster an atmosphere of "Go for it!" as you mostly can rely on your inherent ability - which might be nice for a wild and wahoo game.
- Fans of simulation and reality definitely won't like the game - but as I said: How much simulation do you need in a game of talking plants and spontaneous mutation?
I'm really curious for feedback.
Tomorrow I will blog about solution approach #2 for handling difficulty modifiers (far more traditional and make sure that you read revision 1 of the rules downloadable from the sidebar to the right in order understand the background).