Game Mechanic: the "Wobble" factor

[DevP]

Instead of "success/failure" task resolution, this idea is based on increasing the "wobbliness" or "wonkiness" of certain tasks, while looking for certain dice-patterns instead of numberical results. What's the point?

* Numbered Stats / Results / Target Numbers / Math is not used much
* Die pool usage is for generating "wild" results
* An interactive sort of task resolution
* Enable some stupid-cool stunts

The basics:

* Characters are defined by a list of a few descriptive traits/cliches (ideally w/o numbers).
* Six-sided die are used.
* Snake-eyes (two or more ones) are bad.
* Box-cars (two or more sixes) are good.

Task resolution:

(1) The GM defines the task, as well as several discrete Complications that may make this a challenge. The GM will also pick a "Wobble" rating inherent to the task (-1 to 2) relating how unpredictable the task is, but this is kept secret.

(2a) Firstly, the GM puts down two six-sided die, plus one for each Complication, describing them in turn.

(2b) The player will invoke as many traits as she likes, describing how each either contributes to the task or coutners a Complication; as she does so, she may add/remove one die for each invocation. If the GM feels that a trait is being misused/overused/overstretched, he can overtly add extra die to the pool for each misusem, or may silently augment the Wobble factor, reflecting the increasing "trickiness" and improbability of the task.

(2c) The GM then can invoke whichever negative traits or wounds he wishes, adding/removing die to the pool. The player will then counter by invoking more traits to counter only these NEW circumstances, and rules of overuse/misuse/overstretching still apply.

(3) When both are done, the GM will add however many die to the pool as the Wobble rating.

(4a) If the die pool is 1 or less (snake-eyes are not possible!), then the Default result is used (prob. a success, but see below). If the die pool is more than 7 (or whatever the limit is), it's an automatic failure. Otherwise, the pool is rolled.

(4b) If there are two or more ones (i.e. any snake-eyes), then critical failure: the player narrates messing up. Else, go with the Default result.

-=-

And, some flaky parts to clarify.

Default Results: If the player has used his traits to adequately counter the Complications, then the Default is a success. (Weak uses of traits or overuse of traits would add to the Wobble Factor, however.)

Stunt Tokens: Pay a Stunt Token to make box-cars count as such:
(4c) If there are two or more sixes (i.e. any box-cars), then critical success: player narrates awesomeness. If there are both snake-eyes and box-cars, go with critical-failure. (Bad luck trumps good.)

-=-

So that'd be it. I'd love criticism.

[xiombarg]

I think you need a full example of how this works before I'd understand it...

[DevP]

Sure. Example:

GM: "You're trying to open a door. (Puts down two default dice.) The door is made of elven metals which betray no handle (+1), but instead are covered by a strange old-elvish script (+1). And there's lasers guarding it. (+1)"
<there are 5 dice on the floor; the extra Wobble is zero>
Dev: "Okay. Luckily I'm an expertly skilled Doorologist (-1); my pickpocket skills let me deftly avoid the lasers (-1) while my Elvish upbringing helps me figure out the script (-1); and I also probably have experience with elvish metals, too (-1)."
<GM decides the Complications are adequately handled, so the default result is that this is a basic success; but the 2nd and 4th embellishments are a bit weak, so the GM silently adds two to the Wobble rating. Currently one die on the floor.>
GM: "Oh, but your hand was wounded earlier, and you're still drugged. (+2)"
Dev: "But I'm determined to find the Thing Behind the Door, at all costs, lest the lives of my countrymen be in vain! (trait invocation here, -1)"
<GM now adds the Wobble Rating to the pool. Final Pool stands at 4.>

4 Dice are rolled: 1 4 5 1. There is a pair of ones, so the result is a Critical failure, that Dev must narrate.

[contracycle]

I can only say "very interesting" at the moment.

I'd be interested in an expansion on the intent behind exploiting the wobbliness.  What exactly are the consequences that you forsee over the course of many iterations; what arises from looking for the patterns.

Secondly, is there a particular subject matter for which you think this would be appropriate?

[Mike Holmes]

Very confused.

What happens in the example if I roll the follwoing examples on the four dice?:
1234
2345
3456
3466
1166

If I reduce the dice to zero I can't get a critical success?

Mike

[DevP]

About the numbers:

1234, 2345, 3456: no pairs of 1s or 6s, so the Default result. (prob. a yes if the player addressed the Complications.)
3466: box-cars. IF the player spent a Stunt Token on this, then that enables a critical success.
1166: snake-eyes and box-cars. Even if the player spent a Stunt Token, bad luck trumps good, and it's a crit-fail.

If I reduce the dice to zero I can't get a critical success?

Intentional, in a "no pain no gain" sort of way, and we DO allow the players to add dice instead fo removing them.

I'd be interested in an expansion on the intent behind exploiting the wobbliness. What exactly are the consequences that you forsee over the course of many iterations; what arises from looking for the patterns.

Secondly, is there a particular subject matter for which you think this would be appropriate?

Addressing both questions: the subject matter is not specific, but definitely gear towards genres filled with sorts of rogueish folks; improvisation, arrogant exaggerations ("of course I can fly!"), wicked/stupid stunts, and gambling metaphors are all welcome.

I also very much like that fact that I can mechanically alter the success probabilities, while minimzing/removing the need for numbered/ranked abilities or using numbers in play. While playing the Window, I really liked that numbers were able to fade a little bit; I toss my players a die, and I let them assume the default TN (6) which is for almost all tasks. (There I did a similar thing; if I thought their actual skill was being "stretched" by circumstances or otherwise, I gave them a weaker die.) Resultingly, numbers didn't feel as central to task resolution. (One of my GMing hangups is asking for numbers in the middle of a resolution.)

To clarify complications, here's another example: Firing a gun at a mook is no task at all. Probably 0 Wobble factor, 2 default die. But what if it's a long range (+1) or a REALLY long range (+2)? And you're moving (+1)? And on fire (+1)? Your skill with Firearms is training for "firing guns", but is not training for "Long-range sniping while on fire on a train", which is precisely the skill that would be helpful here; the fact that you're "stretched" here makes the actual task much less feasible, with a greater chance of critical failure, but also makes an actual success that much more amazing.

[Daniel Solis]

I like that the resolution is more right-brain visual than left-brain pip-counting. However, it's the early parts concerning the GM adding or removing dice that rather confuse me. Can you clarify a bit? Just rephrasing it would be helpful, I think.

[DevP]

So firstly, there have to be two dice down be default, so there is very basic minimum chance of critical failure/success. (Pairs of 1s/6s.)

So dice can be added/removed to this pool in two ways:
* overtly, i.e. the dice is just added to the pool
* covertly, i.e. the GM keep track of it, and doesn't add those dice until the very end (so the player doesn't know *when* the GM chose to add dice to teh pool)

And dice could be added/removed to the pool for these reasons:
(+) a GM mentions a Complication to the task (like being underwater)
(+) GM invokes a negative player Trait that works against him in the task
(-) the player invokes his own positive Trait in attempting the task
(+) GM decides player is overusing a single ability (e.g. the "gunman" trait is being used against the "long range", "armored" and "dark" Complications on a firearms task)
(+) GM decides player is overstretching a single ability (e.g. using carpentry skill to fight a samurai)

[Daniel Solis]

Okay, that's what I thought. Just to play devil's advocate, a lot of people consider "plus-anything" being a bonus and that "minus-anything" being a penalty to be the most intuitive mechanical infrastructure.

However, the wobble mechanic might work if the game's setting lended itself to having the system treat dice as a metagame analogy for an in-game burden.

[Lxndr]

It just seems to me that, the way you've set it up now, the Wobble rating completely cancels out "iffy" uses of traits.

Dev: "Okay. Luckily I'm an expertly skilled Doorologist (-1); my pickpocket skills let me deftly avoid the lasers (-1) while my Elvish upbringing helps me figure out the script (-1); and I also probably have experience with elvish metals, too (-1)."
<GM decides the Complications are adequately handled, so the default result is that this is a basic success; but the 2nd and 4th embellishments are a bit weak, so the GM silently adds two to the Wobble rating. Currently one die on the floor.>

Since each embellishment subtracts one die, but judging them as "weak" adds one die, judging them as weak basically says "no, that doesn't work at all."  This is just a really complicated way for the GM to say no, in other words, and it doesn't sit right with me.

[M. J. Young]

Increasing the number of dice increases the probability of a critical failure, but also of a critical success; decreasing the number of dice decreases the probability of both.

So in what way is it an advantage to decrease and a disadvantage to increase the number of dice? Get down to one and you can't have a crit either way. It isn't until you reach the point that two pairs (ones and sixes) become likely that the extra dice become problematic.

(At four dice, that chance is 12/1296, or 1/108; without crunching numbers I'd guess you've got to be around eight dice before the odds of rolling both a pair of ones and a pair of sixes on the same roll entered the realm of real risk, but that's just on the feel of the thing, and I could be wrong.)

--M. J. Young

[DevP]

As a sidenote, let me mention one very small side-goal of this system: not requiring an excessive number of d6s. I have vain hope that a lack of numbers in the system and using gambling idioms instead of numberical ones could be comforting to newer players; also, I would think having a relatively small # of d6s is also helpful. (Yes, these characteristics do match my preferences as well.)

Since each embellishment subtracts one die, but judging them as "weak" adds one die, judging them as weak basically says "no, that doesn't work at all." This is just a really complicated way for the GM to say no, in other words, and it doesn't sit right with me.

On one hand, if you're embellishing to counteract a Complication, you're shifting the Default success (justifying a success over a victory) in exchange for an increased chanced for some critically crazy outcome; I think that's okay.

Your point about embellishments being cancelled by Wobble is important, so let me change it a bit: Wobble factor should go up for a pattern of either overstretched or overused Traits. So, closer to adding a fraction of a die for each stretched player-die invoked. (Of course, not as actually discrete as all that.)

Increasing the number of dice increases the probability of a critical failure, but also of a critical success; decreasing the number of dice decreases the probability of both. So in what way is it an advantage to decrease and a disadvantage to increase the number of dice?

I first thought of this as a bug, but then reclaimed this as a feature: I liked that those really wierd stunts either failed big or paid of big (and that playing it safest won't net you much glory, etc.).

Then again, I can see that adding/dropping dice could become purely a function of the players willingness to gamble, so I'm still thinking of a way around it. I've had some half-ideas, such as different pools for critical-sucess/critical-failure, but I've not been able to a single one I liked/could express clearly alongside my head-ache, so if I can I'll come back to clarify a bit later.