I like how skills and the attribute they are based on is not simply added
together, rather than other systems that do (although I am not sure that
the resulting probabilities are necessarily the best way). I dislike some
other features. In this document I will suggest some possible variant
rules. Please follow-up if you have comments of them.

I don't like to have to select a career. Therefore, I can suggest that if
you do not want to select a career then you are allowed to skip that step,
and in that case, you start with an additional 30 XP which can only be
spent for skills, and all skills cost 1 XP less. (You are also allowed to
choose a career, in which case the usual rules apply instead.) (If you
don't like this, an alternative is to just allow avoiding to select a
career but not have any extra XP nor discounts for any skills. All skills
will be non-career skills.)

Talents will require more talents of previous tier; however, you might not
want all of the talents. Therefore, I can suggest two rules:

* You may select a talent with no effect, with any tier. This has the
usual cost, and has the usual requirements (more talents of the previous
tier), and if you now have enough talents of that tier, then you can add a
talent of the next tier (with the usual cost).

* You are allowed to add a talent using a higher tier than it is, if you
wish. This has the cost of the higher tier, and you must meet the criteria
to have a talent of that tier; the talent has the usual effect (it is not
increased for having a higher tier).

(In some cases, new talents might be possible.)

Skills are not specific enough. They say they don't want the skills to be
too focused, and don't want the "skill bloat", but some players might want
to make up their character is not good at all uses of a skill but only at
some of the uses. I am not sure what is a satisfactory way to handle this
(you could allow players to make up skills that are more specific than the
existing skills, but then it leads to problems due to skills that are
potentially overlapping). Some examples are:

* Alchemy: Maybe you are only good at identifying potions rather than
making them, or maybe you are only good at one kind of potions.

* Athletics: Maybe you are only good at jumping (only horizontal or only
vertical), only climbing one kind of ladder, etc.

* Brawl: You might be better at some than others, e.g. if you are more
skilled at biting than at fighting by hand.

* Computers: There are many things that can be done with computers, and
many different types of computers; maybe you will be skilled in only
programming computers, or only with operating specific types of operating
systems or user interfaces, etc.

* Cool: It has many different uses, and maybe you only want one of them.

* Magic: There are skills for different magic, but might not be specific
enough. For example, maybe you are only good at utility spells, or only at
healing spells, or only at levitating books.

* Mathematics: There is no such skill. But, if you want that your character
is a mathematician, then you should want such a skill. (You might also
specify some specific mathematics, e.g. advanced number theory.)

* Mechanics: You might only be good at building one kind of thing or only
repairing one kind of thing (e.g. the doors of one specific automobile).

* Medicine: You might be skilled at only first aid on humans, and not
other kinds of medicine or other kind of creatures.

* Melee: You might want to select only one type of weapon (e.g. a
quarterstaff), instead of all melee weapons.

* Riding: It says that in settings other than fantasy and steampunk,
you can use Survival skill; however, you might still want a separate
skill in case your character is good specifically at riding (possibly
only one specific kind of animals).

And, maybe you want to specify deliberately being bad at some tasks.

About story points:

* The GM only has one, which isn't very much. (If you give more story
points to the GM though, then now there are more story points in total
too, and that won't do. Possibly, give one that goes away after use?)

* Since they are shared, one player might use them and then other player
won't even if they want to do. (Of course, if other player doesn't want to
do, then it will work good how it is, anyways.)

* Some powers and talents cost story points to use. What if you want to
reserve a story point for that purpose (not usable for any other use)?
(Possibly add XP costs too?) (If there is only one player then of course
it is working.)

(I am not sure how to satisfactorily handle any of the above.)

The colourful dice notation is helpful, but it can be a problem if you are
writing on a paper with only one colour of a pencil, or if you are printing
on a monochrome printer, or if you are colour blind.

--
Don't laugh at the moon when it is day time in France.

On 2/20/24 6:34 PM, news@zzo38computer.org.invalid wrote:
> I like how skills and the attribute they are based on is not simply added
> together, rather than other systems that do (although I am not sure that
> the resulting probabilities are necessarily the best way). I dislike some
> other features. In this document I will suggest some possible variant
> rules. Please follow-up if you have comments of them.

I'm just starting to get into genesys! Just got my own pair of dice to
play around with actually. The main thing I like about it is the degrees
of success and failure (or both!) that you can get from the dice. I
don't know, however, that it's worth having to interpret the odd
symbols. And I do like the colors!

I stumbled across "The Goblin Pulls Out A Gun" the other day.

https://vidityavoleti.itch.io/goblin-pulls-out-gun

It is not a complete game. Just a resolution system really. But I think
that it gives me all of the nuance and story beats that Genesys does, in
a much simpler package.

I do that Genesys, as you said, allows you a novel way of assembling
your dice pool in a way other than just adding ability + skill. On the
other hand, ability + skill games (see: D&D clones) are not really ever
my first choice.

dozens <dozens@tilde.team> wrote:
> I'm just starting to get into genesys! Just got my own pair of dice to
> play around with actually. The main thing I like about it is the degrees
> of success and failure (or both!) that you can get from the dice. I
> don't know, however, that it's worth having to interpret the odd
> symbols. And I do like the colors!

I like the colours as well, although I think that making the notation
solely based on the colours has the problems that I mentioned.

Having two-dimensional results (success/failure and advantage/threat) is
also an interesting idea.

> I stumbled across "The Goblin Pulls Out A Gun" the other day.
>
> https://vidityavoleti.itch.io/goblin-pulls-out-gun
>
> It is not a complete game. Just a resolution system really. But I think
> that it gives me all of the nuance and story beats that Genesys does, in
> a much simpler package.

Unfortunately, I cannot download from itch.io on my computer. (Therefore,
I cannot comment about that.)

> I do that Genesys, as you said, allows you a novel way of assembling
> your dice pool in a way other than just adding ability + skill. On the
> other hand, ability + skill games (see: D&D clones) are not really ever
> my first choice.

I mostly play GURPS these days (which is also ability+skill), although I
have been looking at other systems even if I have not played them. (I also
had partially made up a system, although I am not sure how I should handle
skill checks. I don't want to require uncommon dice like Genesys does, but
I do like the idea of Genesys not using merely ability+skill, although I
should think that skills should give you more than that wat Genesys does,
in some way, somehow. I think GURPS is a bit more flexible in how you can
make up your character, but still it is not enough so that is why I had
made SciRPS intending to be even more flexible than that. Most of my
suggestions in the variant rules I posted for Genesys are intending to
allow more flexibility/options in character creation.)

--
Don't laugh at the moon when it is day time in France.