Hidden Mechanisms

[Simons]

[contracycle]

	Logged

Impeach the bomber boys:
www.impeachblair.org
www.impeachbush.org

"He who loves practice without theory is like the sailor who boards ship without a rudder and compass and never knows where he may cast."
- Leonardo da Vinci

[Vulpinoid]

I'm a fan of the concept where the active character's action is derived from a constant plus a randomiser, and the defensive target also has a result derived from a constant plus a randomiser.

At least with this method, a 4 might prove successful in one round, while a 7 might prove unsuccessful in the next.

If the players are just told the final result after the randomiser is added, they have an idea of what to aim for, but still don't have a specific knowledge of their opponent's constant value. Sure a few more rounds might lead them to a general idea of their opponents capacity, but it will keep changing from round to round so nothing can be guaranteed.

V

[David Berg]

Simons,

I've experienced much of what Contracycle describes, but I've also had some success with a version that goes like this:

1) The character creation and improvement rules make the players aware of how good their characters are at things, relative to easily-understood real-world "skill levels" -- "novice", "trained", "professional", "expert", "master", "supreme uber grandmaster", etc.  (Numbers optional.)

2) The resolution mechanics make the players aware of how well their characters perform at a specific attempt.  This means roll dice -- if you roll high, your character performed realtively (to his own skill) well -- if you roll low, your character performed relatively poorly.

3) The GM makes the players aware or ignorant of how difficult a task is depending on info that their characters have.  If they can see the pit they're trying to jump, tell them, "An expert jumper could clear it easily; a novice, probably, but not guaranteed."  If they're facing a new monster, tell them, "You have no idea if your sword will penetrate its armor."

4) GM does all the number crunching of skill + die roll vs difficulty.

The result of tackling unknown obstacles has, in my experience, ranged from extreme player caution to high character fatality rate.  I've found that extreme player caution can be either immense fun or an absolute fun-killer, depending on other play priorities.  For my own preference for suspenseful mood and thrill of exploration, it works quite well.  For my buddy's emphasis on optimizing tactical position above all else, it also works quite well.  But the two of us can't play this way together; we bore each other to tears.

[Creatures of Destiny]

Old school D&D had elements of this - the svaing throw tables for example were kind of ambiguous so it was the DM's call what the players had to roll, also the use of to hit tables meant that unless players had them memorised (and many players did) the exact to hit numbers were uncertain. Furthermore the DMG had a clear "Don't read this if you're a player" message and this meant that while players knew some of the rules, they never knew all of them. This is what Paranoia parodies pretty well - and the game actually encourages the GM to change rules that the players have figured out (so the player gets used to the plasma thrower being highly reliable, then one day rolling a 1 causes it to explode or whatever) and denounce players that demonstrate rules knowledge as traitors (so the other players usually kill their character for kicks and the praise of the Computer). Something as exreme as Paranoia works though because it's meant as a joke and that's clear from the outset.

In D&D 3E of course players even know stuff like how many encounters they're supposed to face and call "cheat" on the DM if a 5th band of orcs turns up after they've had their 4 encounters for the day. Most D20 players see the "sometimes need to roll high, sometimes low" as a fault, while old-school players see it as a good thing - the DM can say  "roll a D20 and it could be a save versus a hidden trap (roll high) or a Wisdom check (roll low).

Things that are mundane should be fairly predictable - a sword will kil a guy with no armour but have trouble killing someone in full plate unless they can hit a weak -point (this should eb predictable to warrior charactes, but when a non swordsman attacks the roll could be much more random, a kind of "beginners luck" table), whereas what a sword might do to demon might be a total mystery (and there is no reason all demons should be the same). This mirrors many horror movies where the first encounter is doubly dangerous because the characters have no idea how to harm the monster (say the zombie needs to be hit in the head and gnores anything else). You have to play on description and build up clues - the less rules dependent the players are the more likely they are to accept this stuff (rules lawyer type players may complain that their sword +4 vs undead should kill a zombie in one blow).

So I think the best choice for this kind of game is a clear division of rules- characters should know the rules for simple things their characters know, but many things might be a mystery (for example you might keep the magic rules secret, letting wizard players know how their wizard's school of thought uses magic but giving them no information on how others use it).

Non numerical values can be good too: Typical, Above-Average, Good, Excellent etc... rather than +0, +1, +2 etc... as they show relative ability but keep the maths in the background.

There is some reason to the GM behind a screen approach.

[Paul T]

Another factor to consider is how explicitly your game deals with "intent" (by the IIEE definition).

A lot of "Forge/Indie" games deal with resolution in a very intent-relevant fashion--players state what they want, and the dice determine whether they get what they want or not.

In a "traditional" RPG where resolution tends to be closer to task resolution, there is less clarity about what the dice actually decide. Often, it means that a) the players are not clearly stating what they want to achieve, and b) the mechanics do not actually tell you whether they get what they wanted. The GM ends up deciding what happens, often based on nothing more than a guess of what the player wanted.

For example, a character watching a crowd gathered outside the Palace might say, "I throw a rock into the crowd!" The GM, having no idea why the player is doing this, might ask for some kind of roll and narrate an outcome. From the player's perspective, the outcome is very unpredictable and "mysterious". From the GM's, not so much.

However, there are other ways to get unpredictable outcomes. Including the input of several players is one way. Mechanics that produce an unpredictable combination of results is another. For instance, imagine a system where every player names a possible outcome of an action or scene, then rolls a die. Anyone rolling 5 or higher has their outcome take place. This would lead to very unpredictable scenes, quite possibly giving you very much the effect you're going for.

Other methods exist as well, like the scripted combat in Burning Wheel or the way conflict resolution includes initiative/ordering in Sorcerer.

Hope that helps,


Paul