Resolution Mechanics: Omnisystem

Omnisystem is a generic formal RPG system published in 2005 as one of the many responses to the d20 system that were published at the time. It's kind of D&D 3.5e equivalent to what Ron Edwards would call a "D&D Heartbreaker". Like all of the "D&D+" systems published at the time, its primary focus lies in the resolution mechanic.

A LOT of people have a problem with the core mechanic. Enough people that an entire generation of RPGs were published by dissatisfaction alone. I already discussed the swing problem, but there's more to it than that. Omnisystem deals with the arbitrary nature of ability scores and ability modifiers.

In D&D you roll dice to determine ability scores and then compare those scores to a chart to determine the applicable modifier. When you roll an attack or check, the modifier applies to the die roll, but the score itself becomes almost irrelevant. The modifiers are also so small compared to the die rolls that the modifiers also wind up being mostly irrelevant. Many people feel cheated by this system which is almost a complete gamble. Omnisystem attempts to deal with this by inverting the system so that modifiers come from the difference between your score and the task DC.

The idea is pretty simple: scores and DCs should represent the same scale, while the die roll represents situational deviation from the character's norm. To do this, when a character attempts a task the player subtracts the DC from the applicable score. The difference is then applied to a d20 roll. The result of the roll is then compared to a chart. How well  (or poorly) you rolled determines not only whether you were successful, but also the degree of success you experience. Very good rolls get bonus effects, and very bad ones get additional penalties.

The genius of the Omnisystem is that it includes degrees of success. It isn't black-and-white binary the way the D&D core mechanic is. It gives the DM a cue for when something should happen mechanically based on a high or low die roll, introducing the effect of fumbles and crits without necessitating the effects to be as extreme as some DMs treat them. And, of course, it does achieve its goals: scores and DCs are relative.

However, it has a number of flaws.

First, in order for anything to be done, the player must be directly informed what the DC is. While many DMs do this in any system they run, it's actually counter to design. The players aren't supposed to be gaming the system, they're supposed to be playing the experience. Pulling the curtain back and showing the inner workings of the game eliminates all mystery and reveals the game as a system of number comparisons. It sucks the life out of the game and leaves nothing to surprise. Omnisystem can only have secrets if the DM does the rolling for the players.

Second, it is inefficient. In D&D, you roll a die, add a number (usually a value less than 10) and compare it to a DC. 3 simple steps. The resulting binary condition (pass/fail) requires no further interpretation on a mechanical level. Omnisystem requires a subtraction equasion, a die roll, an addition step to make use of the previous result, and a chart reference. While it is possible to be more efficient (use the subtracted result as a base and add the die roll to it; memorize the chart) the fact that it is reductive makes the system counterintuitive. Most people can't throw their brains into reverse easily and handle subtraction by counting backwards. It doesn't matter that our education system fails to teach effective subtractive logic to most people, it's just the way it is. This slows play because a significant number of players have to stop and "figure out" their roll modifier, slowing play.

Omnisystem still uses a single die for its resolution mechanic, resulting in a flat distribution of results. In other words, it suffers from as much swing as D&D and all other single-die systems. I've already covered the problems with swing in another article.

Overall, Omnisystem is basically D&D turned inside-out. The priorities were focused on simulationist objectives without consideration for playability, resulting in inefficient play characterized by very large points of contact.

For those not in the know, a point of contact is an occasion during play during which players stop role-playing in order to reference, execute, or maintain the system. Examples include...

• Referencing a rule.
• Erasing or rewriting numbers on a character sheet.
• Using a calculator.
• Asking function questions like "what mod do I use?"
• Declaring game values.
• Disagreements over rules or system.
• Placing or moving minis on a map on the table.
• Searching for, rolling, or counting up dice.

Generally, in game design, you want to minimize your points of contact as much as possible. You want them to be infrequent, minor, and otherwise fun in their own right when they are necessitated. Games with many points of contact are considered "rules heavy" games with major points of contact, feel sluggish because people spend "too much" time crunching numbers and referencing tables. Games with boring or unpleasant points of contact are characterized as boring or annoying games. Omnisystem fails on all three fronts.

1. Omnisystem focuses on its core mechanic. It is clearly designed to facilitate the check-heavy play characteristic of 3.5e era gaming. This means that its core mechanic is a frequent point of contact. While not bad in and of itself, this is design suicide when combined with a failure in the other two objectives.
2. Omnisystem has an inefficient core mechanic, which means every time it happens, players take time to exercise the system, interrupting play. This makes the game drag and feel slow. People spend more time doing less compared to other generic systems.
3. Finally, Omnisystem's core mechanic is simply unpleasant. It's math for math's sake. It doesn't feel exciting or risky because there's no mystery. You know exactly what the numbers involved are and exactly what your odds of success are. You aren't really taking a gamble, you're just executing a rule.

People have often asked, what use is RPG theory? The use is that a knowledge of game design will prevent you from making obvious mistakes like what was done in Omnisystem. Someone set real-life stakes on that product as something that could make them a living. People put money and real work into it. Have you ever heard of it, aside from my discussion of it here? Omnisystem was forgotten like so many other poorly designed RPG heartbreakers out there. Someone put time and passion into this thing only for it to be forgotten before it even made an impact. Someone tried to make a living off of this.

If you want to do something professionally, you need to make sure that your service or product can live up to expectations and satisfy the demands of its application. You need to provide what you advertise. If you can't, you won't make it in the market. RPG theory is the technical knowledge to make viable products in the already over-saturated RPG market.