Wushu stuff

[Jared A. Sorensen]

I posted this over at RPG.net in the comments for the Wushu review:

Here's my problem with games like this. I describe an incredibly cool manuever (5+ dice), but for some reason things don't work out and I miss the roll.

So the GM says, "Um, no...here's what happens instead."

So now I'm a chump. Man, I hate that.

How I'd do it:

If you make the roll, you describe the *action* the character attempted. Roll another die. If you make THAT roll, describe additional details. And so on, up to the limit of your character's abilities.

Then I was like, hey that's kinda cool. Does anyone see possible pitfalls *or* cool spin-offs to something like this? Basically, a system where the action already succeeded before it was described and the player can push it to add more description/effects.

- J

[Matt Wilson]

I get where you're coming from with the chump factor. I'd almost want the cool description reward to be a guarantee of some kind.

In your option, though, the reward system is completely different. Instead of extra dice being the reward, you try to earn the right to describe more cool stuff.

[Emily Care]

Hi Jared,

Sounds like Fortune in the Middle.  Which zaal wrote about in this thread.

Makes good sense.

--EC

[Jared A. Sorensen]

FitM, sure.

As for the reward, the actual reward is the right to add an additional die. That right is "paid for" with enhanced descriptions. Once the description is said, it stands as fact.

And I stand corrected (via RPG.net) as Wushu says that extra description is fact, regardless of die results. But still, I like the idea of post-die roll descriptions purchasing bonus dice for the same roll.

- J

[John Harper]

I ran Wushu last weekend (man, I gotta get that Actual Play report up here). It was loads of fun. We played it by the book, which means that everything the players narrate happens. Stuff doesn't happen after the dice are rolled, it happens right when the player narrates. This takes a lot of getting used to, but it's very cool.

The end result is that the players have total control over how cool their characters are, while simultaneously determining the "physics" and realism of the gameworld. For example, a player can narrate how their Kung Fu expert strikes at the throat of an enemy Ninja (+1 die) but is blocked by the Ninja's Clever Eye defense (+1 die) which the Ninja shifts into a Brilliant Wave reversal, throwing the PC across the room (+1 die) allowing the PC to flip in midair (+1 die), spring off the far a wall (+1 die), and come flying back to smash the Ninja with a Sparrow Kick (+1 die).

All of that happens before any dice are rolled. And all of those bonus dice are for the player's roll, even though she narrated stuff that "hurt" her character. The roll then determines which character gets hurt and which does the hurting. The players quickly learn that if they want "realistic" action, they shouldn't narrate stuff like cutting an enemy's head off with the first blow (because if the dice come up in the enemy's favor, then he's gonna keep fighting, with or without his head).

What does all this mean? Protagonism. The PCs act precisely how the players want. Players can narrate flawless actions if they want to seem perfect, or can narrate screwing up, missing, and being blocked -- and they earn extra dice for it! I have more to say about this game, but I'll hold it for the Actual Play review.

[Jared A. Sorensen]

What does all this mean? Protagonism. The PCs act precisely how the players want. Players can narrate flawless actions if they want to seem perfect, or can narrate screwing up, missing, and being blocked -- and they earn extra dice for it! I have more to say about this game, but I'll hold it for the Actual Play review.

I'm a lil' confused. What do the dice do?

- J

[Daniel Solis]

So the GM says, "Um, no...here's what happens instead."

The mechanics I'm working on with PUNK are meant to avoid this, as it's pet peeve of mine as well. Essentially, the first thing players do is figure out what they want to do in a scene, determine what traits are relevant to achieving that goal, roll the dice. Up til this point, no actual narration happens. It is only after the dice are rolled, and the players know the outcomes, that they narrate their character's cool stuff.

It needs work, but so far players have liked it because it lets them minimize the effects of bad rolls through clever description. ("Jimmy is kicked out of the window and takes this damage, but fortunately he lands in a passing garbage truck and escapes." It also provides opportunity to emphasize the uber-coolness of their character while preventing twinkiness. (You can describe your ninja's absolute lethality all you want, but you already know how much damage you've done for this scene.)

In any case, it's pretty well negated the chump factor. However, I wonder if doing "combos" (one successful action leading to an opportunity for another) would be a less clunky method.

[John Harper]

I'm a lil' confused. What do the dice do?

The dice are there just to generate numbers for the game system. If the numbers go your way, you get closer to winning the conflict. If they don't, the enemy gets the upper hand. The dice don't determine what happens, they determine how much of an impact on the conflict your actions have. So, the player is free to narrate kicking the holy hell out of a guy, but if the dice come up badly then that ass-kicking becomes Color -- the in-game obstacle remains to be dealt with.

The cool part is that while the dice rolls determine final effectiveness, narration determines how many dice are rolled (and thus drives the game). So, colorful description is not only ultimate player power (everything you narrate happens) it's also a mechanical bonus in the game system.

[Matt Wilson]

If I understand what John's saying, the player describes the actions and general cool moves, and a color equivalent of the effects, and the dice roll determines the progress of the fight.

That is, I do a flying kick and wallop the bad guy in the kisser, and the dice roll tells me if that feller is gonna get back up and keep fighting.

If that's the case, that's monster cool.

[John Harper]

Yep, Matt has it right. At least, that's the way I read the rules.

[Jared A. Sorensen]

Ah, I don't like that. It's the player saying what happens and the dice saying what the players wants to have happen.

ie:
Player: I spin kick the goon and knock him into the hi-voltage control box.

Player's implicit question: does he crash into the electrical controls and flail around like a fish on a hot sidewalk as 120,000 volts surge through his body?

Dice (rolls, result is bad): No.

Just seems off.

[Blake Hutchins]

Yeah, me too.  Building the results explicitly into the description seems susceptible to derailing if the dice don't come through.

Best,

Blake

[Matt Wilson]

Player's implicit question: does he crash into the electrical controls and flail around like a fish on a hot sidewalk as 120,000 volts surge through his body?

Dice (rolls, result is bad): No.

I don't think the dice say "no." The dice say whether or not that fella is going to fry into a crisp and still go another round.

Comes down to a narration agreement similar to what happens in Trollbabe, I think. You have to take responsibility for how much narrative control you assume in your description.

[John Harper]

Here's how it goes for mooks.

Player: I spin kick the goon and knock him into the hi-voltage control box. He flails around like a fish on a hot sidewalk as 120,000 volts surge through his body (+3 dice).

Dice (rolls, result reduces threat rating, but not to zero)

GM: The two goons near the vending machine freak out when they see their buddy fry and cut loose with their mini-uzis, screaming "This is for Johnny!"

The exact number of mooks in a scene isn't ever specified, so as long as their threat rating is above zero, there are always more to smash. The player can narrate the entire action and its consequences, and nothing is ever "taken back". The player doesn't have to ask the GM for permission in his narration, ever. The implicit question Jared mentions can be sidestepped by simply narrating the outcome the way you want. It's the GM's job to deal with the outcome of the dice and narrate how the fight continues (if it does).

In Wushu, the players decide what is a reasonable or acceptable action. The GM gets no veto power and can't say, "That doesn't happen." Whatever you narrate happens. The dice roll result acts as a gauge for who's winning the conflict from moment to moment.

Like I said before, a player could narrate cutting off the Big Bad's head during the first round of combat. But, the dice are unlikely to come up with a total victory, so the Big Bad is not defeated. He's headless, and blood is shooting everywhere, but he's still in the fight! The player's narration has just shifted the "realism" factor into the realm of Evil Dead. If players don't want this, they can adjust their narration.

Edit: Yeah, what Matt said.

[John Harper]

I like to think of the Wushu system like a videogame. When you're on the "mook stage", mooks keep coming until the level is over. You can kill as many as you want, any way you want, but they'll just keep coming until you make it to the exit (i.e. reduce the mook threat level in Wushu to zero).

On the "boss" level, there's a big red bar at the top of the screen. You bring down the pain on the Big Bad, and the red bar gets smaller. Sure, on-screen you're launching rockets into the guy's face and setting him on fire and breaking his limbs, but as long as the red bar is there, the fight goes on. Of course, he's a threat to you, too. From moment to moment, you're hurting him or he's hurting you, or both. But you never have to "take back" your rocket attacks or bone-crunching moves. They happen as soon as you hit X-X-Y-B.

Of course, Wushu games don't have to be as over-the-top as a videogame, but it's up to the players to determine how tame or crazy the action is, by managing their narration.