Scene resolution instead of individual task resolution

[Ferry Bazelmans]

I hope that, although I rarely post, when I do it is worth something. :smile:

I was tinkering with several ideas for interesting core mechanics when I hite upon the following...

The basic idea is that there is no need to roll for every action your character wants to take in a given situation. Most of the time all you want to know is if you're character comes out of the firefight okay. Or if your experiment works.

A character would need no detailed write-up in terms of statistics. Only a very well-defined "core" for his being (perhaps a concept such as misunderstood artist), with a pool of points with which to influence the flow of things. This pool is totally metagame; the player would be managing it.

The GM divides his scenario into seperate scenes, setting them apart on basis of locale, action or timeframe (in case your using flashback techniques and whatnot).

When the players start the scene the GM has them roll a 6-sided dice and invest a number of points from their pool. The dice represents a bit of luck (bad or good) and the points invested represent the player's (and character's) idea of how tough it is to come out of the scene in a positive way. The GM meanwhile has determined a difficulty for the scene, based on the player's preparation, what the characters know etc.
If roll + invested points is higher than the GM's Target Total, the character comes out of the scene positively. If it is lower, something adverse happens. This need not be bodily harm. If a player was starting a scene where he was patching up wounded the GM could allow one or more patients to die from their wounds.

Once the outcome of the scene is known to the GM, the traditional exchange begins (in essence, you're working the scene backwards, starting with the outcome and working your way there so it matches) between player and GM with the former stating his actions and the GM giving the results.

Apart from being quick (I think), I actually like the fact that you are "writing" your way to an ending that is already fixed (much like in Once Upon a Time).

Below is an example of play as I imagine it.

---------------------------------------------

Peter, John and Kyle are playing FBI-agents, Josh is GMing. The players are preparing to enter
a warehouse, occupied by a vicious gang of thugs. The GM has decided, after hearing the player's
plans that they would need to bid at least 10 points if they want the scene to end favourably.

Peter thinks about the clues and information presented to him and declares he's bidding 2 points.
He then rolls a 6-sided dice and gets a 5 for a total of 9. Not enough to end the scene
favourably for his character, but not enough to seriously injure or otherwise negatively
affect the character.

John hears Peter's total and decides to bid 4 points, which is a lot. Clearly, he is more
worried about what's inside those brick walls. He rolls a 6-sided dice and gets a 6 for a
total of 10. John's character will probably not get scratched and perhaps even come out with
and added bonus.

Kyle decides to bid 3 points, neatly in the middle, and rolls a 6-sided dice. It comes up 1. Sharp intakes of breath
are heard around the table and Kyle's hand trembles as he rolls the dice to see how many points he has
to subtract from his initial bid of 3. He rolls a 1 again, which solicites sighs of relief. His total is
2, not enough to come out on the good side of things, but not bad enough to kill or maim his character in
the inevitable shoutout. If he had rolled a 4 on the second roll, his character would have been in serious trouble.

Now that everyone has finished their rolls, the GM asks the players, in order of highest total, to declare
their actions. Peter means to kick open the door and quickly swivel to the right to avoid gunfire. John and Kyle
will stand next to the door on the opposite side. The GM listens to this and tells them the door swings in, but
they can't hear any noise from inside the warehouse.

Peter's turn again and he tells the GM he's moving in. John and Kyle agree and follow. Josh smiles and
tells Peter that as they moves through the door, the first gunshot grazes his left ear. A nick and some bleeding
is all he gets, but Peter wisely remarks he's hitting the floor. Peter now knows he just missed the Target Total.
Josh goes on, describing to John how he can spot a figure up to his left, aiming at him. John immediately states
he is shooting the figure. Josh tells him there's a cry from above and the man drops down, dead on impact.
John nods and declares his character is hitting the floor as well. Turning to Kyle, Josh mentions a shadow seen from the
corner of Kyle's eye. Kyle states that his character will turn to face the would-be attacker. Josh tells him
that as he turns his head, the man levels his gun at Kyle and squeezes the trigger. A spray of blood tells Kyle
that his character will not see a lot of action in this scene. Maybe the nurses in the hospital will get him some action
though.

The GM then moves back to Peter and so on and so on.
---------------------------------------------

Of course, some people will think I am a looney. Some will think I ramble on (and you people are _definitely_ right).

All I want is some insightful criticism. Burn me, for I am your flamepuppet. :smile:

Crayne

[Ron Edwards]

Hey Ferry,

A couple of distressingly clever game designers have been here already. One of them is Christian Aldridge, with his game Maelstrom (later altered and refined into Story Engine). The other is, of course, Robin Laws, with both the Simple and Extended Contest mechanics for Hero Wars.

Best,
Ron

[Jack Spencer Jr]

On 2001-10-30 09:05, Crayne wrote:
I hope that, although I rarely post, when I do it is worth something. :smile:

I was tinkering with several ideas for interesting core mechanics when I hite upon the following...

The basic idea is that there is no need to roll for every action your character wants to take in a given situation. Most of the time all you want to know is if you're character comes out of the firefight okay. Or if your experiment works.

A character would need no detailed write-up in terms of statistics. Only a very well-defined "core" for his being (perhaps a concept such as misunderstood artist), with a pool of points with which to influence the flow of things. This pool is totally metagame; the player would be managing it.

Up until this point, what you were describing is The Wheel.  Seriously.  The "Misunderstood Artist" would be a character's One Word (you can use more that one word for a One Word) the points pool are Tokens and the way the game is suggested to flow up to this point is very, very similar to The Wheel.  Especially since I'm kicking the dice mechanic to the curb.

You veer off on two points immediately after that.

• having a GM
  
• having a fixed ending you're working toward
  [/list:u]
  even then, you're not that far off.  I'm planning on GM-less mostly for experimental purposes.  But thatnks to Ian Millington's pages, I will probably mention the need for a "chairman" and "referee" as per his article here.  However, I suspect that the need for an official chairman or referee is minimal.  Whenever you get a group of people together, someone winds up as top dog or group leader.  This is just natural human social behavior.  This person should simply keep the game on track, the main job for a chairman and referee, w/o an official title.  
  
  The Wheel has fixed "endings" in the form of Agendas.  The bigest difference is they are not endings so much a a planned goal for the session, and they are not an immutable.  In the course of play an Agenda can change drastically.  The purpose of Agendas is not to work towards them but to assure that the players have at least an idea of what they're going to do when they sit down at the table.  
  
  It's nice to see people create games so close to mine and it's nicer still when it veers wildly off in different direction, like SOAP  :wink: .  It shows I am on some kind of right track yet not so close as to be directly copying someone.
  
  
  AFA your idea, the points above are the main things I have problems with, but you should see where I'm coming from on them, so don't worry about that.
  
  The thing I am wondering about, not concerned yet, is the whole concept of scenes resolving "positively" or "negatively."  This is a point I've been having trouble with myself, so it's not that big a deal.  It's an outgrowth of our conditioning from playing pass/fail mechanic games. This ws also a source of confusion when reading James V West's The Pool.
  
  The sticking point is this assumes the player wishes the scene to resolve positively.  Maybe he wants his character to fail so that it's a better story for it.  In this case, the player could simply bid no point, of course, but it seems to be missing something.
  
  The other problem with this is the either-or set up.  Some things have degrees or multiple possible outcomes of equal value.  This leave it purely up to the GM to choose which.  In fact, most of the work is on the GM's shoulders, deciding the target number, figuring out what the results actually mean, and then guiding the whole scene to it's fruition.  This seems like a lot and you haven't got any tools to help the GM with all of this {yet}.
  
  I don't thing I like the idea of guiding the scene to fruition.  It's needlessly fatalistic IMO.
  
  Perhaps, and this is a half-assed idea I just got, the opening die roll and bidding sets up what the ending will most likely be, but then when the scene is actually played out, the player can gain or lose points which can change that value, making a positive a negative or visa versa.  The exact means I'll leave up to you.  It could be bonuses from the GM for good RPing or ingenuity or come from the other players' pools.
  
  I dunno.  How about that?

[Ferry Bazelmans]

Damn it to hell and back. Just my rotten luck. Unoriginality bites me in the ass once again. :smile:

Still, I'm sure I'll be able to find some small niche in which to shine with this thing.

As I said, I actually like the implications of determining the global outcome of a situation and then working your way towards it, filling in the detail as you go.

Plus, if players knew the outcome, they could edit the story themselves, providing their own take on what happens to the characters (with more points being earned for this).

But on a tangent, I haven't read Hero Wars or Maelstrom/Story Engine.

Does being ignorant of others' achievement grant a positive edge to game design?

What I mean is: is it easier to see the forest for the trees if you have no idea what a tree is? :smile:

[Ferry Bazelmans]

Up until this point, what you were describing is The Wheel.

Hey, join the club. Apparently, Mr. Aldridge and Mr. Laws have swept my game designing legs from under me already. :smile:

The thing I am wondering about, not concerned yet, is the whole concept of scenes resolving "positively" or "negatively."  This is a point I've been having trouble with myself, so it's not that big a deal.

The idea is that positive and negative are relative to the situation at hand. The player (or GM) can fill in the details as to what negatively or positively actually means.
In the example fire fight, if the character whose player got a negative outcome needed to take out one specific NPC, the GM could construe that "negative" means that the NPC gets away. It could also mean bodily harm of course. The entire fun is working something positive or negative into the scene to get that ending.

The sticking point is this assumes the player wishes the scene to resolve positively.  Maybe he wants his character to fail so that it's a better story for it.  In this case, the player could simply bid no point, of course, but it seems to be missing something.

The character prepares for a scene and wants it to be resolved positively (in an abstract way of course - no character goes around saying: "I want this fire fight to end positively for me"). The player might not and he could of course manipulate the flow of things, but what is wrong with that?

The other problem with this is the either-or set up.  Some things have degrees or multiple possible outcomes of equal value.  This leave it purely up to the GM to choose which.  In fact, most of the work is on the GM's shoulders, deciding the target number, figuring out what the results actually mean, and then guiding the whole scene to it's fruition.  This seems like a lot and you haven't got any tools to help the GM with all of this {yet}.

Well, not necessarily. Players should be encouraged to take the scene into their own hands and put in their own accidents and little fortunes.

Fer

[James V. West]

"On 2001-10-30 10:19, Crayne wrote:
Damn it to hell and back. Just my rotten luck. Unoriginality bites me in the ass once again. :smile:"

It bites us all in the end.

"Plus, if players knew the outcome, they could edit the story themselves, providing their own take on what happens to the characters (with more points being earned for this)."

From a player's perspective, I'd prefer it if I DIDN'T know the outcome first. I'd rather make my roll and not know the outcome. The GM can run the scene and lead me to believe I'm kickin' ass until something makes it painfully obvious that I failed that damn roll. But that's just me. Seems more fun to not know.

"Does being ignorant of others' achievement grant a positive edge to game design?

What I mean is: is it easier to see the forest for the trees if you have no idea what a tree is? :smile:"

Sometimes ignorance is bliss, sometimes its hell. I think its important to know what's come before you so you don't make a fool of yourself by claiming to have invented point-based characters or character classes or something. BUT--I don't believe it is highly important to read every game that might be similar to yours. In fact, for me, I prefer to wait until I've finished my own western story before reading somebody else's. I don't like the feeling that I'm somehow copying something that has recently entered my brain.

But that's one great thing about The Forge. You can lay down your ideas and people will quickly tell you if you're bolding going where many, many have gone before.

James V. West

[JSDiamond]

Crayne, I wouldn't worry about it.  In nearly two decades of role-playing, the only time I ever notice a system is when the it isn't very good (d20) or when it's just too much die-rolling (Warhammer Fantasy springs to mind).

I suspect that I'm not too different from other RPers when it comes to cursory examination of the core mechanic.  I pay more attention to the setting and premise. Seriously, I really don't care if my superhero character has a light-density sensitivity of 99.3 on the Planck scale; all I know is that he can see through solid objects.  

Run with it.