Friction Between Rules & Common Sense
W.F. Smith at Prismatic Wasteland challenged bloggers to invent and name a new resolution mechanic for a TTRPG to commemorate the new year. In my typical fashion, I'm going to flip the challenge under the guise of participating in the challenge, and then transition to tangentially related that I was really wanting to talk about.
50-50 Resolution
If a character does something whose outcome is uncertain or contested, flip a proverbial coin. If the outcome is more likely than not, it might as well succeed. If it is more likely to fail, it might as well fail. Stakes and outcomes are open to negotiation, in-character or not.
That’s all there is to it! I've really liked this approach because I've felt lately that universal resolution procedures like the archetypal d20 system are hard to justify in their formal rigidity, and also tend to block interesting developments in play. They just don't make sense to me, and make less sense the more I think about them. What's the expected success rate of a heart surgery performed by a doctor versus one performed by a normal person? 95% versus 5% if we're insanely generous? What's the DC and what's the modifier? DC 20 but the doctor has a +18 bonus?
So then maybe it's like, okay, something like DC 20 only makes sense for things that require incredible skill anyway, so it would make sense if the skills with the most significant modifiers are ones that only apply to tasks with the highest DCs. But that is literally the same outcome as playing it by ear except with a bunch of caveats to justify it within the confines of a system that, by itself, doesn't make much sense.
After having enjoyed relatively freeform role-play over the past year, being faced with a formal resolution procedure feels arbitrary, restrictive, and difficult. It's less that I think one needs to pick between freeform abstraction or complex models, and more that I feel like the abstractions that a system like d20 relies upon don't mesh with its more-or-less simulationist orientation towards gameplay.
Here's the kicker: the d20 system exists because D&D is a combat system in its bones, so by extension it's easier for every situation to have the same math even if it doesn't make sense. Look at the rulebooks emulating pre-2000 D&D with their d6 skill systems and d20 combat systems. It definitely makes more sense, but it's also definitely more annoying. So, what's the solution? 50-50 resolution plus a weirdly detailed combat system?
Maybe if you're a wargamer, or if you take for granted that a highly detailed combat system is an intrinsic part of a D&D. Like for sure, even while playing a story-driven campaign, the symbology of that story is violence. Then the question becomes one of staging the violence in such a way that satisfyingly develops the story without feeling contrived, so that the story feels real and well-earned. That is precisely why people choose to play D&D, rather than something better suited to "story-telling": the simulation generates the appearance of its own reality.
What sounds more interesting (and sustainable) to me is reducing the significance of combat to that of everything else, rather than modeling everything after what is deemed necessary to simulate combat. Going to get crucified for this, but I feel like FATE—if reinterpreted as a deterministic ruleset—could be a useful framework to adjudicate and negotiate the outcomes of events. If heart surgery is a DC 4 task but a doctor has +4 in the skill, whether they succeed is not a question. Meanwhile, the average person has a snowball's chance in hell, in which case the player needs to either (a) negotiate their character's fictional positioning, (b) spend plot points to get anywhere, or (c) pray that the dice roll well if all else fails.
I guess I ended up answering the prompt in the end! Really I just want to say I don't think it's worth thinking about it in terms of flat distributions or bell curves or skill bonuses or dice algorithms. Instead, I think it helps to approach situations with common sense while being open to (diegetic or extradiegetic) negotiation of stakes and outcomes. That's something that formal systems can work around, but not something they can do for you.
The Trophy post feels relevant to this, somehow.
You might want to take a look at the resolution rules in the simple Tiny Dungeon rules (originally of 2014, by Brandon McFadden, and still findable, but commodified and gussied up by Alan Bahr as a game book with the addition of 2e to the title). It has antecedents in more complex rules, like the forgotten One Braincell RPG (2000), before which was the breakthrough resolution rules for Over the Edge of 1992 (despite the worst setting ever). Behind that lies the Shadowrun game of 1989, and before that the Ghostbusters RPG of 1986. Now you're getting back to much more complex resolution rules, which were nevertheless seen as rules-lite at the time of their publication. Anyway, the Tiny Dungeon D6 and its kin may be up your alley. There are three settings: regular, "advantage" (you have a trait or favorable circumstance), and "disadvantage" (unfavorable circumstances or drawback). As with your 50-50 rule, the odds are determined relative to the PC's ability and the need for a special trait (like a skill or ability) to accomplish the task or not. The Tiny [X] D6 games are all very customizable and you can make your own in a flash with lists of traits. For example, EZD6 is effectively a thoroughgoing rewrite of Tiny Dungeon D6, adding complexity and PC builds.
ReplyDeleteI think your 50-50 resolution should work, as it does in your FMC:B, where, by the way, "advantage" has nearly identical odds results as the same thing in Tiny Dungeon.
I think FATE is pretty underrated. Its universal resolution system "just works" in a way that d20 attempts to do the same don't. I think its because everything is on a consistent scale and you just interact with Stress/Skills in different ways. In a less combat focused game, there's nothing wrong with just having a "Combat" score and then being done with it. The figure stronger at Combat wins, with some element of chance.
ReplyDeleteI'm a combat head and like OSR games because of the combat system, but I think a lot of players/refs would be better served looking elsewhere.
Happy New Year from Brazil. I'm building my own system, with blackjack... I mean, coins as a randomness factor. As there are 4 coins in the throw, the Gussian probability is there. In combat, the results are between 4 and 8 (37.50% of giving 6).
ReplyDeleteI use the mechanics of War (1972 board game, inspired by the American translation Risk, from 1959, of the French original La Conquête du Monde, from 1957). Assuming a round of Melee Attack (AM) between doll 1 (b1) and doll 2 (b2), both will throw 4 coins (l), adding their Fç (Strength) and, if any, Combat Skill (HdC), like Sword or Capoeira, we have: AM=l+Fç+HdC.
Since there is attack against defense and in case of a draw, the defense wins, without damage to the parties involved as if it were a parry or block, in GURPS. Who attacks first is only decided in a situation of mutual agreement between the fighting parties, such as in fencing or martial arts competitions, where the doll with the highest Rd (Speed) will start, make a coin flipping in the event of a draw. However, in other situations, whoever declares attack first attacks first. From the result of the attack minus the defense we obtain the damage (d) to be deducted from the Fç of the losing side. Therefore: d=AMb1-AMb2. If the result is positive, the attacker succeeds in striking, and the defender loses Fç. If the result is negative, the attacker took a counterattack, and loses Fç. At the end of the round, if it continues, the combat roles are reversed. When the doll has Fç less than or equal to zero (Fç≤0), it loses its senses and needs medical care. Damage below zero is now deducted from the Biological aspect (B), which reduces Speed (Rd), too. If it continues to take damage, the doll will die when B is less than or equal to zero (B≤0).
The Skill Throw (LH), where heads is equal to 0 (zero) and tails is equal to 25, will be rolled up (the higher, the better) also, in the easy (25%), normal (50%) and difficult (75%) degrees. The levels of Skills are, from high to low, we have doctor, master, bachelor, secondary and fundamental. Being fundamental 25%, secondary 50%, bachelor 75%, master 90% and doctor 100%. However, the test against a master/doctorate will only have 90%/100% in the case of specialization. If not, it's a difficult test (75%). Let's see, you are a master of smooth surface climbing, but you face Tibetan climbing. Since specialization is not the focus of your master's degree, your skill number on the test is 75%.
I hope Google Translate translated my speech, not confused.
Deletehi xikowisk, sorry blogger had incorrectly put your comment under spam! (it happens sometimes, no clue why but it's frustrating.) that is really neat! i like that the skills become increasingly specific and then only apply to specific situations :) thank you and happy new year!!
DeleteReminds me of this game by John Harper: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NLD_KhZwrKRz3sIquZDSW_Wx__7My6Kdg1Jbk6hF7Mw/edit
ReplyDelete