Faster, Better, Cheaper

Basic Character Creation

Every character starts out with three Traits, representing three things the character is good at. These Traits can be anything, so long as the GM approves. Seduction, Looks, Kabbalistic Spellcasting, Fashion, Lycanthropy, Psychic Football Prediction... all of these and more are possible. They can be as broad or narrow as the GM will allow. A Trait does not have to be a single word, but most are.

For one Trait (the thing the character is best at), the character picks two of the following adjectives: Faster, Better, Cheaper. It's okay to pick the same adjective twice. For all the other Traits, pick one of Faster, Better, or Cheaper.

Also, for each Trait, choose a "style" adjective, representing the way the character expresses the trait. This can be any adjective other than Faster, Better, or Cheaper.

The baseline is the mythical "average". The "Faster, Better, Cheaper" adjectives are in relation to how good the average person would be at the task in question. They adjectives explain how the character is superior in the Trait. Anything the character has no Trait for, he is average in.

So, what does it mean when one is Faster at something? Just that. The character is capable of doing an average job in the Trait's area of expertise faster than normal. It takes the character less time to do what he or she can do.

What about when one is Better at something? Again, just that. The character is just better at the Trait, doing a superior job, while taking a normal amount of time to perform a task associated with the Trait (unless they're also Faster).

And Cheaper? Well, for a mercantile Trait, this is very literal, in that the character is possible of doing the task at a lower cost. For other Traits, like, say, "Ritual Spellcasting", if a character is Cheaper, the Trait takes less out of the character than normal -- that is, the character is less tired after using the Trait than other people with a similar Trait would be.

The GM should be wary of unusually qualified Traits like "Billy's Feats of Incredibly Accurate Marksmanship are Faster and Smoother". The phrase "incredibly accurate" implies "Better" -- it's obvious what the player really wants is "Billy's Shooting is Better, Faster, and Smoother."

Let's put together an example. Joe wants to make a character that's an anthropologist who is also a werewolf. The character, who Joe names Billy Talbot, is also an avid participant in the sport of rowing. Joe might design the character this way, choosing the Faster, Better, and Cheaper adjectives as well as a "style" adjective for each Trait:

Billy Talbot's Traits
Anthropology is Faster, Better, and Occult-flavored.
Lycanthropy is Cheaper and Painful.
Rowing is Cheaper and Mechanical.

Joe chose Billy's Traits this way to indicate that Billy is capable of doing high-quality anthropology work quickly and well, and the Billy tends to specialize in the occult in his research, an interest the Joe decides Billy has because of his inherited "curse" of lycanthropy. Joe has also decided that Billy is a natural werewolf, the result of generations of his family exhibiting the ability to turn into a wolf, so turning into a wolf isn't as tiring for him as it is for other lycanthropes, though it is still a painful process. Also, Billy's main advantage in rowing is his endurance, though his performance is somewhat machine-like.

Complications

These rules are optional changes to character generation. If you like the basic system, just skip them.

The GM may feel it is unfair or inconsistent that highly narrow traits are treated the same as broad traits. In that case, the GM may allow a character who takes a narrow Trait of limited use, like Cooking, to take an extra "Faster, Better, Cheaper" adjective. Note that a character can never have all three of "Faster, Better, Cheaper"; if the player takes Cooking as the two-adjective "superior" Trait, and Cooking is already Faster and Better, the character cannot be Cheaper, but he can take another Better adjective.

Similarly, the GM may feel it is inconsistent or unfair that Traits that imply abilities average characters can't perform at all, like Lycanthropy, are treated the same as other Traits. In that case, such Traits get one less "Faster, better, Cheaper" adjective. This might mean the Trait ends up with only a "style" adjective. This is okay; the advantage for the character is that they can perform the unusual task at all. (Using this rule, Billy's Lycanthropy would be merely Painful. But the advantage is he can turn into a wolf, which most people cannot do.)

Also, GMs who like Advantage/Disadvantage systems might enjoy the concept of Negative Traits. A Negative Trait is a Trait the character is bad at. For a Negative Trait, the player chooses any number of the following adjectives any number of times, up to a limit set by the GM: Slower, Worse, Expensive. The player also chooses a "style" adjective for the negative Trait. For every two "Slower, Worse, Expensive" adjectives the character has, the player gets another "Faster, Better, Cheaper" he can put elsewhere. Note, once again, a single Trait cannot have all three of "Faster, Better, Cheaper". Obviously "Slower, Worse, Expensive" represent the opposite of "Faster, Better, Cheaper" from the baseline.

So, if the above rule about strange Traits and the Negative Traits rule is being used, Joe could decide that Billy's Fighting is Slower, Expensive, and Panic-Stricken, giving him the extra adjective he can put in Lycanthropy, allowing him to have the "Cheaper" adjective he had in basic character generation.

Really odd GMs might allow Traits to have both positive and negative adjectives, so long as they don't conflict. That is, Joe might be allowed to say Billy's Fighting is Faster, Worse, Expensive, and Panic-Stricken. (But he couldn't have a Fighting Trait that is Worse and Better, as those are opposites.)

Conflict Resolution

Every character has a pool of dice set by the GM. How big this pool is and what dice are used in it (all the dice should be the same) are decided on by the GM. The more dice in the pool, the more competent the characters will be. The smaller the die type, the more effect Traits will have, which also increases the competence of the characters. Decreasing the die type also increases baseline competence. PCs with a pool of 10 four-sided dice are much more competent than PCs with a pool of 5 twenty-sided dice. The GM may want to do a couple of "test runs" with different pool sizes and dice types, to figure out what he thinks would be best for the campaign.

(Note that while the die size never changes, the number of dice in a character's pool goes up and down throughout the game.)

Whenever the character is doing something important (in the GM's estimation), the GM can call on the player to roll dice. (If the action isn't important, success or failure should be determined by GM fiat, based on the character's Traits. Generally, the characters should succeed at unimportant actions.)

When it is time to roll dice, the player decides how much of his current pool to risk. He then rolls that many dice, up to the number of dice currently in his pool. The target number is equal to half the die size, that is, 2 for four-sided dice, 5 for ten-sided dice, and so on. Every dice that meets or beats the target number is a Success. The more successes, the better the character did. No successes, and the character failed, which the GM narrates, with an intent of creating an interesting scene. (That is, the character doesn't merely "miss" or "whiff", but the GM narrates circumstances that get in the character's way, maintaining the character concept.)

That base target number is what you're aiming for for an average task. The GM can modify the target number up or down depending on how hard or easy what the character is attempting is. Higher is harder. Generally, there are no opposed rolls in Faster, Better, Cheaper, so if the character is facing tough opposition, the GM should increase the target number.

For each success, the player makes one simple statement about the success and/or the scene the success takes place in (assuming it doesn't contradict anything that's been established so far), and then the GM uses those statements to describe the result. (The GM is the final arbiter as to what constitutes a "simple" statement.)

For example, let's say that Billy is trying to scale the walls of a pit to escape a pack of wild dogs there. He currently has 10 dice in his pool, and the GM is using d10s. The GM, noting the walls of the pit are pretty rough, declares the difficulty number to be average: 5. Joe decides to use 5 of Billy's dice, as Billy really wants to get out of the pit. He rolls 5d10 and gets 4 1 3 7 8. Two successes. Joe's states: "Billy climbs up the wall before the dogs reach him. Also, the noise of the dogs covers the noise of him scrabbling up the sides of the pit." The GM says: "Billy climbs quickly up the side of the pit, leaving deep furrows in the earth on the side of the pit as evidence of his passage, escaping just before the dogs get to him. The noise of the barking covers up the sound of Billy's ascent."

Note that the player does not have to announce the character's specific, actual, choreographed action prior to the roll. The player does state the general intent, but does not state the actual, physical, detailed action. That waits until after the resolution, when the player makes statements after the roll. This way, when the roll is a failure, the character does not seem helpless, but a dramatic set of circumsances can be narrated that indicate why the character fails. (Player: "My martial artist going to try to hurt this guy real bad.... uh... I fail." GM: "Your form is perfect, but it seems your opponent is familiar with your Crane Style. He grabs ahold of your leg when you try to kick him.")

For each die that is not a Success, the character's Pool is depleted by one. So, in the above example with Billy, three of the dice were failures, so Billy's pool drops to 7 dice after he gets out of the pit. A character's pool can never go below 1.

Also, for every dice that comes up equal to the the highest possible roll, the pool is increased by one. So, if in the above example Joe had rolled a 10 instead of an 8, Billy's dice pool would have been 8 after he climbed out of that pit.

How do the adjectives fit in? Well, there is an effect for each of Faster, Better, and Cheaper on the die roll or the task itself if the character has a Trait relevant to the task at hand.

If a character is Faster, well, he just performs the the task faster than normal, or gets to go first, whichever seems more appropriate.

If the character is Better at the task in question, add one (or some other pre-determined number, at the GM's option) to each die roll, which should result in more Successes. However, the raw, unmodified die roll is used to determine if the die is lost from the pool. (In the above example, if Billy was Better at climbing, the 4 he rolled would be a Success, but it would still be removed from his pool.) Also, for determining if the pool increases, consider only the raw roll. (On d10s, you get an extra die in the pool only when a 10 is rolled, not for rolling a 9 and being Better.)

If you're Cheaper, that means you get to keep one failed die out of each roll. (Or two dice, or three dice, or whatever the GM prefers, as long as it's made clear before the GM starts.)

If you have one of "Faster, Better, Cheaper" multiple times, then the effects stack. A character with Faster twice is faster than a character with it only once. A character with Better twice gets to add two (or two times a certain interval) to each die. A character with Cheaper twice gets to keep two failed dice in his pool. And so on.

The "style" adjective has no game-mechanical effect -- it's just a matter of style and description for the Trait in question.

If the GM is using the optional negative adjectives, the negative adjectives have the opposite game effect to the positive ones. "Slower" characters take more time to perform tasks, or go last where turn order is important. "Worse" characters subtract one to all die rolls when that Trait is an issue, but the unmodified roll determines whether the die exits the pool or not. "Expensive" characters lose one successful die from their pool when the Trait is at issue. And so on... like positive adjectives, these adjectives stack.

Character Advancement

At the end of each session, each player should write down how many dice are in the character's pool. That's the size of the character's dice pool in the next session. One way to reward players is for the GM to give them more dice in their pool for next session.

The GM might want to hand out "experience points", or XP, as well as (or instead of) dice for the pool. Characters shouldn't get a lot of XP, maybe a point or two every couple of sessions.

For 1 XP, the character can learn a new Trait, with one "Faster, Better, Cheaper" adjective and one "style" adjective.

For a number of XP equal to the number of adjectives in a Trait (including the "style" adjective), the player can add another of the "Faster, Better, Cheaper" adjectives to a trait. However, a character can never have all three of "Faster, Better, Cheaper" in a Trait. That is, if a character is already Faster and Better, he can take another Faster or Better, but he can never be Cheaper.

After any given session, the player can change one of his "style" adjectives for free, representing a change in the character's style.

If the GM is using negative adjectives, by spending a number of XP equal to the number of negative adjectives in a Trait, one negative adjective can be removed. And, yes, negative adjectives do count as adjectives for the purposes of being a new "Faster, Better, Cheaper" -- and any positive adjective bought cannot contradict a negative adjective.

Credits

Clinton R. Nixon deserves a lot of credit for this game, since he came up with the best way to handle "Cheaper", and his game Donjon inspired the "one statement per success" mechanic. Thanks, Clinton! And thanks to everyone at the Forge for the encouragement and commentary. Jonathan Tweet's revolutionary RPG Over The Edge was also a strong influence, not to mention James V. West's The Pool. If you have any comments, feel free to email me.

Design Note

Why did I design this? The idea was for a game where the same "score" (number of adjectives) in a similar attribute would have very different qualitative differences in how they perform, while keeping the game simple. Plus, I work as a contractor for NASA.

All text copyright Kirt A. Dankmyer 2002.