The Forge Archives

I keep coming back to writing good rules for "limits" to narration based on fighting margin.

One method would simply be to have a list over moves allowed for every type of margin in the manner of "good margin: Throw, Trip, Aimed Hit, etc; excellent margin: Pin, Damaging Throw, etc"

However it is problematic for several reasons which I won't go into (I'm trying to be brief).

A different method of defining things than move by move would be to define things by effectiveness in this manner:

Effective Hit (Good Margin)

* Give +1 disadvantage to opponent (example: throw, grab..)
* Get toughness reduction (aim to vulnerable area, aim to unarmoured area)

(some other level here)

Devastating Hit (Exceptional Margin)

* Render opponent near helpless (KO Strike, successful pin etc)
* Hit extremely vulnerable spot (hit to groin, eye or similar)
* Action with potentially fatal result (a throw while fighting someone near a ledge making them plunge to their death and so on)


This method seem to have very real advantages, but needs some complementary rules to work I suspect. I have a few ideas but nothing I would commit to writing at this point.

Anyway, I'm posting this to ask where I could look at some good, working examples of the above mentioned mechanic. I'm sure people have done this plenty of times before. (The tricky thing is to make it mesh with the rest of my ideas for Yggdrasil's combat)

So where should I look for more info, and do anyone immediately think of some major flaws with this method?

Hi Christoffer,

I confess I cannot see why you're stumbling over this issue. The rules look fine, given that you do X and Y happens. Write them out, and play them.

Obviously, you see some kind of flaw. It seems to have something to do with "limits." What you provide looks both limited and clear to me. So what's the problem?

As a more general point, it's very very hard to respond to a proposed technique rather than a proposed system. "Hey guys, what if I do this?" isn't easy to address. How about giving us a single summary of the basic mechanic?

Best,
Ron

P.S. This thread, by the way, is reeeeally close to being more appropriate for the Theory forum. Whether it goes there soon, or whether it stays here, pretty much depends on the next few posts.

Sorry, maybe I should have put this in context with the rest of the Yggdrasil rules. The quickstart rules (link in my sig) should give a picture of my first (problematic) take on it.

QuoteAs a more general point, it's very very hard to respond to a proposed technique rather than a proposed system. "Hey guys, what if I do this?" isn't easy to address. How about giving us a single summary of the basic mechanic?

I'm afraid I'm rehashing things, but ok as mentioned in the quickstart rules:

* Attacker rolls 1D12 to beat 7+defender skill-attacker skill.

* Margin is given by difference between needed roll and actually rolled number. It is further classified in groups (e.g. 0-2 = minimal margin, 3-4 good margin and so on).

* For minimal margin you get a standard hit. Simply roll damage (dicepool vs. targetnumber, successes equals extent of wound). Player narrates the attack.

* For higher margin, more types of "effects" are available to the player, as determined by the mechanic I haven't decided on and of which the mentioned mechanic is a version. Basically the idea is that the higher margin the more I can do to my opponent when I narrate the outcome.
[/list:u]
That was the short-short version of it. For more detail on the fights - check the quickstart rules.

I suspect there are a lot of games which use degrees of success to determine the amount of control you have of the opponent's life.

(Is this detailed enough, or did I miss the point?)

Quote from: Pale Fire(Is this detailed enough, or did I miss the point?)

I'm guessing the latter. The mechanic seems to work fine in the context of these rules. One would need to see it as part of a playable whole to make further analysis.

Mike

Hi Christoffer,

I'm just speculating, but I suspect that the problem you're having with this mechanism is that in the end, it comes down to giving the successful player the right to hose another player's character. Hence the desire for limits, to keep the hosing reasonable.

I'd go for the effect-based approach. There are some big advantages to having the effects list presented as "things that can happen to the target" rather than as "things that an attacker can do," as I'll get to below.

In addition, to alleviate the hosing problem, I'd let the target's player pick which effect occurs, instead of the attacker.

If you roll well, and I fall as a result, it's not necessarily because you decided to use your advantage to push me over. It could be because I had to do something to prevent your effective attack from killing me outright, and what I chose to do was scramble backward and stumble over a chair. I could have chosen instead to have my defenses reduced for the duration of the conflict, or be disarmed, or take a more severe injury, or take a penalty to my ability to attack in the future, or whatever else is on the list for that particular bonus level.

This would be essentially a concession system, in which the concession is chosen from a list of effects corresponding to the success level. The attacker could still get to narrate it, after the opponent has chosen the concession.

The key to this is that the effects have to be described in terms of their effect on the overall conflict, just as in your second proposed method. For instance, a fall that's easy to get up from (e.g. requires spending an action to do so) is on a different list from a fall that's difficult to get up from (e.g. requires succeeding in an opposed action to do so). It's not that you fall, it's how hard it is to get up. It's not that you get disarmed, it's how hard it is to re-arm yourself.

This can be very flexible. For one thing, it can be self-adjusting to situation. For instance, suppose the least severe list includes "disarmed (temporarily)" and a more severe list includes "disarmed (no immediate recourse)." I get hit by someone with a result in the more severe effect range. Here's the thing: normally I could choose "disarmed (no immediate recourse)" and the attacker could then narrate how my sword gets kicked away down the stairs. But if my character happens to also be wearing a brace of daggers, or if the fight is taking place in a room decorated with ceremonial swords on every wall, I simply can't choose the "disarmed without immediate recourse" effect because there's no plausible way for me to not have immediate access to another weapon. I have to choose something else. (Or, perhaps I can choose "disarmed...", but the attacker is then allowed to narrate other facts as needed to give the effect the significance it's supposed to have, such as that my brace of daggers has already been lost in the scuffle or that the decorative weapons are securely bolted to the wall).

As another example of flexibility, if it comes to combat vs. non-humans, you won't end up trying to figure out whether someone can "throw" a horse or not. The list of bonus-effects are "things that can happen to the target," not "things the attacker can do," so opponents of special types could have special bonus-effects lists. "Fall" might be on the list for a horse, but for the horse it's it a more severe category than it is for a human because horses have more difficulty standing up. (Not saying that's actually true; just a hypothetical example.) A ghost can't fall or be disarmed, but it could have its ectoplasm shorted out or something.

Similarly, GMs or source books could provide special effects for special situations. Fighting underwater on a coral reef in SCUBA gear? Then you can remove "pinned to the ground" and add "air hose rendered non-functional" and "limb caught in coral" to the effects lists at the appropriate severity levels.

- Walt

First, let me say I understand now that I was a bit unclear about what I wanted with my first letter. I was mainly thinking I would get some suggestions on games that use margin to gain effects rather than moves.

I wasn't expecting people to analyze my mechanic for me (unless they for some reason was really into Yggdrasil and had read all about it). Sorry for being unclear about that.

Anyway, that said, Walt does an excellent job giving suggestions nonetheless. Maybe it's a coincidence, but what you describe Walt, reminds me a lot of Andrew Martin's games.

"The opponent hits, so you have to pay concessions which can be damage or disadvantages."

This method has a lot going for it, but one thing that strikes me as a problem about the "the opponent chooses the concession"-method is that it seems to eliminate attacker choice ("I hit him in the groin"). Am I misunderstanding things? Or does one need to add rules additional rules to cover that?

Re: Concessions, why not have a meta-stat like Heroism, Luck, Fate - or to call it by its true name, Protagonism.

Guy with highest Protagonism gets to narrate (except perhaps on critical success/failure as appropriate).  If the attacker has it, they get to whack 'em in the sack (to use your example).  Defender has it, they choose the pain.  

Explains why the action hero suffers fleshwounds but the minor villain gets kneecapped.

While working on my FRPG I was examining a similar option based on success levels--

Essentially the player spent earned successes for a variety of effects--impairing the enemy, weakening their defenses. They did have to narrate the how of it in addition to spending the earned successes. They could also spend the successes to aid their compatriots in fighting--essenitally teaming up their results in order to bring down tougher foes.


The players disliked it, I'm not sure it is a symptom of the players or the system however much like you there is just something for me that doesn't quite click with such a system.

Oops. Here I'm in the middle of implementing the rules and you raise a warning sign all of a sudden, Sidhain.

Can you tell me a little more of your implementation and what people disliked about it? That might get me a long way figuring out if I really need to worry or not.

Maybe I should give some clues as to what I've been toying with.

Basically the margin gives you how much extra lethality or control you have beyond that of the basic damage you will inflict.

However, an effect can be "challenged" by the defender. For example the GM says my opponent kicks me off my horse. I counter by arguing that my superior balance will keep me on the horse. So, I get to roll a balance roll (or whatever is applicable) if my balance is above a certain threshold rating.

To give a simpler example, consider a grapple. In that case the threshold might be the opponent's strength as compared to mine. That is, I only get a "challenge roll" if my strength is higher than that of the opponent.

To amplify the chance of taking out someone despite their potential "challenge roll", you can use margin levels to add disadvantage dice to the opponent's challenge roll (this would be automatic I guess - any level not used would go to making the challenge roll harder to succeed with)

A challenge roll isn't limited to resisiting an action. It can also be used to avoid the full effects of a narration. Think of it as a way to stop the full effects of a narration.

For example, my opponent has enough margin to throw me off the cliff into the ocean. With the appropriate skill or stat I could maybe make a challenge roll to alter that to me being thrown off the cliff but managing to grab something on the way down (if the GM says this is possible).

Outside using skills and stats to avoid things, you can also use your "mythrating". Basically if your myth is higher than that of the attacker, you can try to avoid an effect by using your myth to resist a deadly or embarrasing attack.

I was thinking of making the above simpler, with the effect that attacking someone with higher myth simply reduced your margin by one for every point above yours.

Basically the way my implementation worked is certian things required a certian level of skill/success--the more you earned the better a normal task was done. In combat those could be traded off for effects to alter the odds--impairing, tripping, disarming, or wounding. Now the players biggest problem was that it also included /killing/ a foe--that is you got enough successes and bang he was dead--now the successes could be shared throughout the round--one person adding to the previous earned  ones to get a success- I think the problem is unwillingness to share spotlight in an FRPG they want their "really good with sword person" to use it well and not /add/ to the less skilleds person "success" --although realistically speaking this could occur (a foe being distracted defending oneself)--fundamentlly I think they felt it robbed certian roles of their flavor because /anyone/ could be next to do well by stealing the thunder they earned.

Sidhain,

Ok, that sounds not quite like what I'm doing. My system (as I envision it) starts out with the basic "hit does damage". Then on top of that comes the margin which grant exceptional effects.

So you can be "skilled and master the opponent" or "strong and kill with a single blow". There also is no pooling mechanism or "gathering of margin" like in your system. Think AD&D with only a handful of hitpoints with an effects-system like yours grafted on top of it (not 100% accurate description but...)

In other words, you don't ever need a hit beyond "just a hit" to win or dominate a fight.

Would that avoid the problems you encountered?

Hi Christoffer,

So what's the big deal? You know what you want, and you have rules that promote it.

We can go around and around forever about "how much is too much." The only way to resolve it is for you to play the game, and for you to decide whether the rules actually work.

Listen, just because you write it into the rules now doesn't mean it's done and set in stone for all time. Until you play, it's all provisional.

"I want exceptional effects on top of damage."

"But they can't be too much!"

"But I want them to be there."

"But they can't disrupt things too much!"

Etc, etc. Enough already. Write the paragraph, mark it mentally "May be changed following playtesting," and get to the next section.

Best,
Ron

Or better, don't mark it mentally...mark it explicitly.

Put a side bar into the text outlining exactly what your concerns are and asking playtesters for specific commentary on that issue.

IMO, the best way to convert "I like the game but its broken" feedback into "aha, yes, you're concern over issue X as you outlined does actually lead to unfortuneate results and heres how I'd change it" feedback.

Quote from: Pale FireSidhain,


In other words, you don't ever need a hit beyond "just a hit" to win or dominate a fight.

Would that avoid the problems you encountered?

I'm not sure, I think the effect is kinda backwards to my style of play (that not bad just different) to me--I want to give the players a tool to allow them to define the nature of their character doing well. Are you just aiming for an effects system? How does opponants actions work into this?



What exactly do you see as the goal of this system from your POV?