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 ordinary (six-sided) dice set by the GM. How large to make this pool at game start is decided on by the GM -- we suggest eight dice. (Note that 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 3. Every die 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 the 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. If a GMC is taking action against other GMCs, the GM simply decides what happened. If a GMC is acting against a PC, the player gets to roll to add facts to what's going on. For acting against other PCs, see below.

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, The GM, noting the walls of the pit are pretty rough, declares the target number to be average: 3. Joe decides to use 5 of Billy's dice, as Billy really wants to get out of the pit. He rolls and gets 2 1 1 4 5. Two Successes. Joe 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 die that comes as a 6, the pool is increased by one. So, if in the above example Joe had rolled a 6 instead of an 5, Billy's dice pool would have been 8 after he climbed out of that pit.

The player can also choose not to use his extra Successes for narration, but to increase his pool of dice. At least one Success must be used for narrating a fact, but any of the remaining Successes can be used to increase the pool by one instead of narrating a fact. In the example with Billy, Joe could have narrated that "Billy climbs up the wall before the dogs reach him" and left it at that, using his second success to increase his pool by 1, meaning Billy's dice pool would have been 8 after he climbed out of that pit.

If PCs are in conflict, all make rolls simultaneously (each secretly deciding how many dice to roll beforehand) at the average target number of 3, and take turns narrating facts, until all are done narrating facts or out of Successes. One can "pass" on one's turn to narrate, but only if one has narrated at least one fact already, and only if one plans to turn that Success into a bonus for the pool rather than a fact. Once one is out of Successses, one doesn't get any more turns to narrate, obviously. The player whose character is Faster chooses whether to narrate first or last, or if both characters are equally Fast, whoever has the most Successes gets to choose who goes first, or in the case of a tie, randomly determine who decides. If there are more than two participants, the person who narrates the second fact is determined the same way, and so on, until an order is determined, tho they cannot trump the previously-decided order. (This is simpler than it sounds, see the example below.)

For example, let's say Billy attacks John, a PC played by Sue, who says John is fighting back. Fred says his character, Andrew, is interfering. Each player has 5 dice in their pool, and they all secretly decide to roll 5 dice. They roll at the same time. John rolls 2 1 5 1 6. Fred rolls 3 2 1 4 5. Sue rolls 1 2 2 3 5. For the sake of the example, let's say Billy's "Beat People Up" Trait is Faster, and the other two characters have no Traits that are Faster. Joe decides to narrate first. Fred got more successes than Sue, and decides to go last. (If he decided to go "first", he would go after Joe, as his preference cannot "trump" Joe's.) So the order is Joe, Sue, and then Fred.

Joe is first, so he states: "Billy kicks John in the head." Sue is next, and she states: "John knees Billy in the groin." Fred is next, and he narrates: "After those two blows, Andrew interposes himself between the two." Joe then narrates: "Billy accidentally punches Andrew in the face." Sue decides to turn her second Success into a bonus for her pool, and passes. Fred then narrates: "The struggle doesn't make much noise at all." Joe and Sue are out of Successes, so Fred uses his final Success to add the fact: "Before the fight started, Andrew made sure his helmet was on." (Note how the order of narration has nothing to do with when anything happens.)

The GM then weaves this all together: "Okay. Andrew puts on his helmet, turning around to see Billy kicking John in the head. He interposes himself between them after John kneews Billy in the groin. Billy punches Andrew, but his helmet deflects the blow. The struggles doesn't make much noise, with Billy on the ground holding his crotch and John is somewhat dazed from being kicked in the head."

After this altercation, Joe has 3 dice in his pool (because of the 6 he rolled), Sue also has 3 dice (as she converted a Succcess into an extra die), and Fred also has 3 dice, as he got three Successes, all of which he used for facts.

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 -- see also above. In addition, on a roll of 6 the pool is increased by two instead of one for a Faster character, so the character gets dice back faster than other characters on a lucky roll.

Note that a player can use a Success to narrate that his task is performed faster than usual, but this means the task is only slightly faster than average; a character with Faster is always faster than a character without Faster.

If the character is Better at the task in question, add one 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 pit example above, if Billy was Better at climbing, the 2 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 -- a "natural" 6 is needed.

If you're Cheaper, that means you get to keep one failed die out of each roll.

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, and gets three dice for every 6 rolled instead of two. A character with Better twice gets to add two to each die. A character with Cheaper twice gets to keep two failed dice in his pool. And so on.

The "style" adjective can serve as a Faster, a Cheaper, or a Better, if in the GM's opinion the action particularly reinforces the adjective. The GM can change what the style adjective serves as for each roll. For example, when Billy becomes a wolf, which is Painful, and if, say, the player uses a Success to talk about how Billy howls in pain, startling nearby fauna, the GM might decided that Painful counts as Faster for that roll. Later, if the GM thinks the Painful applies at all, the GM may decide that the Painful works like a Better adjective.

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. Also, on a 6 a "Slower" character only gets an extra die 50% of the time (roll an extra "chance" die for each 6, they get the extra die on 1-3). "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; two "Slower" adjectives and the character only gets an extra die on a 6 with a roll of 1-2 on the "chance" die, then (Slower x3) only on a 1 on the "chance" die, and a character with Slower x4 doesn't get extra dice on a 6 at all.

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.

I'd also like to thank Mike Holmes and Josh Neff for playtesting and advice -- this version of the rules owes a lot to Mike's comments in particular.

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 2003.