[The Puddle] Middle Earth game and rules questions

[CPXB]

Since I'm one of the players, here, I'll chime in, again.

I like dice rolls.  I like the feeling of gambling they provide to a game; I think it heightens tension.  So if my character had died, I would have shrugged and worked on another.  After all, John killed my TROS character and that's what I did, hehe.  I understand that when you play tough guys, you'd better be prepared to make a lot of characters.  ;)

However, one of the things I'm feeling reasonably strongly with The Puddle is a pretty potent whiff factor.  The reason I throw all my dice on martial exploits is because I'm playing a martial character.  It doesn't take too much thinking on the odds to realize that to "save my pool" requires my character being real so-so in a fight.  While I'm enjoying the game a great deal, I am finding the whiff factor slightly off-putting.

[Cassidy]

Hi CPBX,

Do you have a couple of whiffy like examples from play?

Regards,

Cassidy.

[Mike Holmes]

First, I often feel ambiguous about whether or not to give info. That is, I like to randomize things where not getting info is potentially as interesting as getting info. If not getting info brings things to a screething halt, then, of course it comes out. But if one bit of info not percieved won't cause that, then that's what the dice are for.

Springboard, right, Ron?

So I try to have a lot going on in terms of what the characters are noting, and then have them roll to note even more. It's the combination of what they're currently imput that, IMO, produces interesting results. Per rolls just mix that up, IMO.


In any case, in terms of the whiff factor, there are a couple of ways to look at this. In one interpretation of the original pool, success or failure wasn't at all determined by the rolls. Only who narrated. Also, even when one does fail, this is conflict resolution - meaning that you don't have to narrate the character being bad, just not losing.

So, in a case where your character is trying to kill someone, instead of:

"Jorn son of Jirn swings his axe and misses his opponent by a mile."

Narrate,

"Jorn son of Jirn swings his axe with tremendous skill. And it's only his opponent's amazing agility that he manages to retreat madly from the assault, trembling with fear. But Jorn is too good, and manages to maneuver him into a corner, preparing to cleave his opponent in twain. Suddenly a door opens in the wall, and Jorn's foe falls back through it out of site as it just as suddenly snaps shut again."

Example one, Jorn is a wimp. Example two, Jorn is a scarry badass, and the opponent was extremely lucky to get away with his life. Kills the whiff factor dead.

Mike

[johnmarron]

In any case, in terms of the whiff factor, there are a couple of ways to look at this. In one interpretation of the original pool, success or failure wasn't at all determined by the rolls. Only who narrated. Also, even when one does fail, this is conflict resolution - meaning that you don't have to narrate the character being bad, just not losing.

[good example deleted]

Mike

Mike,
   I had this exact same discussion last night with Chris (CPXB), using a very similar example.  Unfortunately, I think he saw this as so much "hand-waving" or semantics, since in the end, the character didn't achieve his stated goal.  I definitely think your second example isn't deprotagonizing in any way, while still dealing with the "failed" roll.

John

[Cassidy]

Mike is right on the money. As far as The Puddle is concerned the outcome of the dice roll merely determines who gets to narrate, not what they narrate.

If no +'s are rolled at all the GM narrates. The GM can narrate a good outcome for the character, a bad outcome or anything in between. The fact that the player failed to roll any +'s does not necessarily indicate that the character "failed", although that may indeed be the outcome the GM chooses to narrate. The GM can just as easily narrate a successful outcome if they wish.

If two or more +'s are rolled then the player gets to narrate. The player can narrate any type of outcome they wish, good, bad or indifferent. Rolling two or more +'s does not necessarily indicate character "success", although that may indeed be the outcome the player chooses to narrate. The player can just as easily narrate an abject failure if they wish.

The only caveat to the above rule is that when only a single + is rolled the GM narrates and is required to do so in a way that creates an outcome that is generally beneficial or favorable for the character in question.