stevekenson (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
stevekenson) wrote2009-05-04 08:47 am
stevekenson) wrote2009-05-04 08:47 am
Entry tags:
[RPG Theory] That would have been cool...
One thing I’ve noticed from our recent D&D 4e game is a phenomenon that’s not unique to D&D but pointed out somewhat by the game’s lack of a “do-over” or “mulligan” mechanic like the various Hero/Action/Fate points of other RPGs (since D&D action points have a different use).
Generally, RPGs have an action resolution structure along the lines of:
1. Player describes desired action/outcome.
2. GM applies appropriate game rules and calls for whatever resolution roll/mechanics are appropriate.
3. GM interprets results and tells player(s) what happened.
This leads to a certain amount of “wow that action sounded really cool when you described it, too bad you bricked the roll and there’s no way it’ll happen.” It can create a certain amount of anticlimax, in the sense that the “big reveal” of the cool action comes first, and then it either succeed as-described (no real increase in “wow” factor other than “yay, it worked!”) or it fails to succeed as-planned (kind of a let-down). D&D 4e seeks to mitigate this somewhat by having daily abilities do something even on a failed roll, so the effort isn’t totally wasted, but it doesn’t apply much beyond that (as I learned from my rogue’s streak of failed Thievery rolls to overcome locks, traps, and basically to do all the roughish things expected of him).
I wonder about mechanics wherein success or failure, or good/bad dice results, instead grant a degree of narrative control to the player/GM to then make up some action(s) that justify the result. So, if a combat conflict results in a “setback” (but not an outright defeat) for the PC, the GM gets to say, “in a clash of blades, the Count sweeps your sword to one side and it becomes stuck in one of the wooden support beams!” or something like that, rather than having to decide up-front that’s what the Count was going for, and then rolling to see if he succeeds or fails. It seems like it would fill some of the “negative space” of conflicts that just end in “nope, that attempts fails”.
On the other hand, such a nebulous mechanic would make it more difficult to bring quantified game traits into play unless you could do so after the fact. That is, test first and see what kind of roll/result you have, and then decide what trait(s) to apply to it. An interesting outcome of this would be the ability to either play to strengths (high value traits able to fill-out lower results or push higher ones over-the-top) or apply less valued traits to unexpectedly good results, provided the player has a story reason for it.
This inverts the usual formula of:
Task = appropriate Trait + Randomizer = Result
to
Task = Randomizer + chosen Trait = Result
Maybe even doing away with the “Task” portion. So, “figure out how to get past this locked and booby-trapped door” might be the task. The player gets to roll and, based on that roll, choose the trait or traits to apply to the task, explaining to the GM how they apply, to provide a particular outcome.
it’s an approach I’d like to play around with it a bit more. Anyone know of games that apply this approach, or something like it, to good effect?
Generally, RPGs have an action resolution structure along the lines of:
1. Player describes desired action/outcome.
2. GM applies appropriate game rules and calls for whatever resolution roll/mechanics are appropriate.
3. GM interprets results and tells player(s) what happened.
This leads to a certain amount of “wow that action sounded really cool when you described it, too bad you bricked the roll and there’s no way it’ll happen.” It can create a certain amount of anticlimax, in the sense that the “big reveal” of the cool action comes first, and then it either succeed as-described (no real increase in “wow” factor other than “yay, it worked!”) or it fails to succeed as-planned (kind of a let-down). D&D 4e seeks to mitigate this somewhat by having daily abilities do something even on a failed roll, so the effort isn’t totally wasted, but it doesn’t apply much beyond that (as I learned from my rogue’s streak of failed Thievery rolls to overcome locks, traps, and basically to do all the roughish things expected of him).
I wonder about mechanics wherein success or failure, or good/bad dice results, instead grant a degree of narrative control to the player/GM to then make up some action(s) that justify the result. So, if a combat conflict results in a “setback” (but not an outright defeat) for the PC, the GM gets to say, “in a clash of blades, the Count sweeps your sword to one side and it becomes stuck in one of the wooden support beams!” or something like that, rather than having to decide up-front that’s what the Count was going for, and then rolling to see if he succeeds or fails. It seems like it would fill some of the “negative space” of conflicts that just end in “nope, that attempts fails”.
On the other hand, such a nebulous mechanic would make it more difficult to bring quantified game traits into play unless you could do so after the fact. That is, test first and see what kind of roll/result you have, and then decide what trait(s) to apply to it. An interesting outcome of this would be the ability to either play to strengths (high value traits able to fill-out lower results or push higher ones over-the-top) or apply less valued traits to unexpectedly good results, provided the player has a story reason for it.
This inverts the usual formula of:
Task = appropriate Trait + Randomizer = Result
to
Task = Randomizer + chosen Trait = Result
Maybe even doing away with the “Task” portion. So, “figure out how to get past this locked and booby-trapped door” might be the task. The player gets to roll and, based on that roll, choose the trait or traits to apply to the task, explaining to the GM how they apply, to provide a particular outcome.
it’s an approach I’d like to play around with it a bit more. Anyone know of games that apply this approach, or something like it, to good effect?