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?
no subject
Task = appropriate major Trait (Forte) + Randomizer + choesn minor Trait (Technique) = Result
no subject
Those randomizers use a kind of resource allocation, too, though: you have a pool of numbers, and you choose what number you will use, later being forced to use the "worse" numbers. If it were truly random, such as a dice roll, you get an interesting result where when something simply [i]has[/i] to succeed, you want to use your highest trait. I might consider using this technique whenever you do something in your core or class or cliche: For thiefly things, if you are a Rogue; or for priestly things, if you are a Cleric. It gives you more control over the area where you are supposedly an expert. This would especially be true if you can choose which Trait you use: on a crappy roll where you have Dex as your best trait (for example), but the task involved normally uses Con, you find some way to use Dex instead, bumping up the roll so it succeeds.
Unless you have some kind of resource pool, such as the cards, or some restriction on where it can be used, such as class tasks as I suggested, you might run into a problem whereby the character succeeds too often. In that case, there is no need for a randomizer, you just say, "It's a thief thing, you're a thief, you succeed."
However, my knowledge of indie games is poor; there might well be a mechanic that does what you describe.
no subject
no subject
- Nobilis
- SAGA (Dragonlance and Marvel Heroes)
- Marvel Heroes (last edition by Marvel comics)
- Amber?
- Riddle of Steel (only in that you get to juice your dice pool with personality traits that you get to decide when to apply, and you also get to divvy up your dice pool in combat to decide your own mixture of offense/defense)
- HeroQuest extended contests, where you start with a pool of points that you subsequently apportion out and risk over a number of fate-based contests
- Dying Earth where each attribute is really a pool you can spend (risk) over a number of fate-based contests
no subject
If the designers hadn't gotten all impressed with themselves and started talking about how much better this system was than lesser dice based games, I think there was some actual potential for the game.
no subject
Swashbuckers of the Seven Skies is worth a serious read.
The short summary:
1. Players and GM's should end their description with an ellipsis so that there's room to describe the attempt as a success or a failure.
2. As S7S does have reroll mechanics (as well as adding flat bonuses after the fact), you continue to change the description with additional sentence fragments, as you add in more factors.
3. The player narrates the ultimate success or failure, with minor editing by the GM. So he doesn't have to make himself sound like a tool.
So, it might read something like
"I sweep the count's sword aside and go for his heart..." *failure* "...but he's quick as a tiger and disengages, leaving me off balance and unable to follow up."
or for something more complicated:
Player: "I enter tiger stance and batter away at his defenses with my strength.." ".. but he's quick and pulls me off balance, but I turn my stumble into a rush..."
GM: (activating the villain's abilities) "...which he leaps over..."
Player: (activating something new) "....but leaving his ankle exposed for a moment..."
....
I don't think we ever formalized it as well as S7S does, but before I moved to California, the Seattle Spirit of the Century game had been moving to this style with the back and forth between hero and villain as they spent their fate points to tag aspects. We hadn't quite moved to all DCs being public, but I know I'd been pushing for it to be known whether a roll was a success or failure. (In other words, you never had to spend fate points to buffer a roll, 'just in case').
no subject
no subject
The 'martial arts' example I used above was me brainstorming a different cinematic setting, but it certainly presents a much more interesting flow than the typical power use I see in my D&D game. The closest thing I see in 4e for that would be the interrupt and reaction powers.
It has been an age since I played a serious Amber Diceless game, but I don't recall any of the Detroit groups I played in doing this sort of thing. It would be a very good fit though. Not surprising given the almost purely narrative structure of Amber.
no subject
Because, on a MUSH, you can't speak for someone else, it's tricky to run a fight scene without crossing that line, so you learn to end your poses and statements so the other person can pick it up. That habit translates across to tabletop, and for a long time my group never really thought about it since we had a lot of similar experiences, so everyone instinctively ended their declarations at the point of uncertainty. Chad had no such experience, and it was something we had to consciously unpack when deconstructing a session with him, and I think good stuff came of it.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Also, I recently stumbled upon this post: http://forum.rpg.net/archive/index.php/t-384462.html
Basically, you roll to see which of your traits are "effective" this round. With a little tweaking you could have:
Randomizer + all your traits = Task + Result