Topic: [UA variant] Using Conflict Resolution & Dealing w/Whiff
Started by: Doyce
Started on: 6/28/2004
Board: Actual Play
On 6/28/2004 at 7:38pm, Doyce wrote:
[UA variant] Using Conflict Resolution & Dealing w/Whiff
Hey folks,
This weekend, I had a chance to play-test a Firefly game using a stripped-down version of Unknown Armies 2nd edition. (Details on chargen are over here, but basically I just stripped magic out entirely and used the street-level campaign.)
It's been awhile since I've run a straight task-based resolution system and I have to admit that the flat percentage-rate chance of success combined with task-by-task levels of detail in conflict resolution ended up making me a bit nervous about dealing with the whiff-factor and dead-ending player involvement with 'you fail at something your good at' type of situations.
Has anyone else run into this problem with UA's resolution system or am I just imagining things? What did (or would) you do to address it? I realize it's meant to be a kind of horror-hopeless type of setting (and the sanity charts work very well for dealing with all the inner darkness you find in Firefly characters), but in this case I'm not using the base setting, so I think I might want a mix of that greasy/gritty combat and a little cinematic hoohaa.
I've given some thought toward regearing the system to be conflict-resolution, and also pondering things like spendable karma to modify results, but I'd like some input by folks with more UA-fu than myself.
Sorry for the quick and probably garbled message, but I wanted to get this off and let it percolate here while I'm AFK for a few hours. Thanks!
On 6/28/2004 at 8:07pm, DannyK wrote:
RE: [UA variant] Using Conflict Resolution & Dealing w/Whiff
Well, are you using the resolution rules as in the core book, where a failed result only means a failure if the character is really in a crunch?
I've also noticed a rather high failure rate in combat -- people emptying pistols at each other, and so on -- but I thought it fit the gritty feeling of UA.
Also, if you really want to be good at one specific thing, you can get your basic success rate up to 75% or so by putting more chargen points into it and making it your obsession skill.
If you like a comedy-of-errors feeling to the game, and a lot of niche protection (i.e., let's all let Jimmy do the fighting 'cause he's got 60% in Barfighting and gets cherries), then UA rules will be great. For fantasy, this might not be as good.
On 6/28/2004 at 8:22pm, Valamir wrote:
RE: [UA variant] Using Conflict Resolution & Dealing w/Whiff
I've only had a chance to play a couple of UA sessions, but I was not thrilled with the dice mechanic. There's an essay in the book about "why are the &ages so low" and I have to say I've never read a bigger bunch of hooey cop out in all my years reading RPG texts.
Basically, UA is a drama mechanic design, with some Karma masquerading as fortune thrown in. The fortune mechanic is one step away from being pure smoke and mirrors.
1) you are ONLY supposed to use rolls in the most critical situations...which basically means 80% of the time you don't roll...its all drama resolution.
2) when you do have a critical situation you roll. However, the mechanics basically boil down to: a) Almost never fail in your niche specialty. b) Almost always fail in your non specialties. This is one step away from being a basic Karma pass/fail routine.
I was fairly disgusted by the assumption of the superiority of Drama resolution and the sleight of hand trick played with the fortune mechanics...basically throwing a bone to those who expect dice in their games. UA, IMO, needed to either step up to the plate and use a real diceless mechanic or actually bite the bullet and write an effective fortune mechanic. I pretty much abhor the inelegant hybrid they came up with.
One solution is to up the characters to a higher power level (without actually uping play to that level) and then apply the bonus skill points to each category of skill rather than divided amongst them all. Doing that I was able to actually build a competant character who was more than a 1 trick pony.
Without that, its whiff city if you actually roll the dice...and mostly drama if you don't. I was unimpressed.
On 6/28/2004 at 8:42pm, GreatWolf wrote:
RE: [UA variant] Using Conflict Resolution & Dealing w/Whiff
Well, this is an area where Ralph and I disagree. ;-) I've run UA quite successfully, and I only recall one die roll that I fudged which, in retrospect, wasn't even necessary. So, from my own experience, the system does work. I think that calling the system a Karma/Drama cop-out is a little unfair. But that's neither here or there.
In terms of the "whiff factor", I would say that you do need to be prepared to narrate creatively. It has been noted that a "failure" on the dice in any game can represent either a failure to perform the skill successfully or a failure to produce the desired results. This is definitely true for UA. Just because the dice say "failure" doesn't mean that the character bumbles the job. One possibility is to allow the player to define how he fails. This isn't even outside the spirit of UA. After all, the player gets to choose the "fight/flight/freeze" reaction for a failed Stress check. Expand this principle to all die rolls. Let your players tell you how they fail.
On 6/28/2004 at 8:51pm, montag wrote:
RE: [UA variant] Using Conflict Resolution & Dealing w/Whiff
my experience (only two sessions so far) doesn't match Ralph's. So far the system has worked well for us, especially since we're often rolling Significant Skill Checks, and with average stats around 60 that's pretty decent (plus, there's the Fear, Rage and Noble stuff).
However, our overall impression might be coloured by the following tweaks:
- Global level starting characters
- conflict-resolution, player narrates failures
- Fear, Rage and Noble stimulus may be triggered repeatedly per session
Then again, I've heard several people saying one has to "get it", know when to roll and when not and so on, which indicates that the system is indeed flawed and we maybe simply have been fortunate so far.
On 6/28/2004 at 8:56pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: [UA variant] Using Conflict Resolution & Dealing w/Whiff
Hiya,
When I ran Unknown Armies, I frequently used a device that gets 'round most whiff factors, although it can be exhausting. Basically, with every roll by a player-character, I narrated the outcomes in such a way that re-positioned all the NPCs. If things weren't going well for the player-characters, and I wanted them to do well, then NPCs would find themselves in disadvantageous positions or struggling with (for instance) other NPCs who had been tossed upon them (as I'd narrated a simple successful blow), and so on.
Such narration, when done both subtly (to hide the fact that you are essentially controlling outcomes) and flashily (to make the descriptions vibrant and fun), is an essential Illusionist tool relying on the GM's control of Effect. The "good" players in this context are the ones who capitalize on the opportunities being afforded and thus enter into kind of a creative dance with the GM, the latter leading.
When GMing in this fashion, I find it far more rewarding to focus on Effect like this than on Intent/Initiation. For one thing, I can put it on the table and make the play Participationist rather than illusion-based.
Best,
Ron
On 6/28/2004 at 9:13pm, Valamir wrote:
RE: [UA variant] Using Conflict Resolution & Dealing w/Whiff
Hey Markus, I don't think you're disagreeing with me at all. In fact, I'm not surprised you found those tweaks to work for you.
Global level characters are much more competant in the system, so you have much higher average scores (I'd play Global level characters even in street level campaigns, because street level characters are all boobs)
Conflict resolution helps to avoid the whiffage of task resolution or the irrelevance of task resolution in a non critical situation.
And player narrated failure is often effective at taking the sting from whiffs.
I'm also not surprised that Seth disagrees with me (which I already knew). But then Seth is extremely comfortable with Drama resolution and is a veteran of using Fortune mechanics which are subserviant to drama needs (which is basically how Alyria's system works).
On 6/28/2004 at 10:06pm, Doyce wrote:
RE: [UA variant] Using Conflict Resolution & Dealing w/Whiff
Thanks to everyone who's provided feedback thus far -- it's been both validating to my concerns and provided some interesting ideas that hadn't occured to me.
What I'm seeing as regards use of Illusionist techniques is... a bit disappointing (don't get me wrong -- Ron's proposed techniques look very effective, just not really what I had in mind in my role as the GM for this thing) -- I like portions of the system (such as the different tracks of madness, which really fits the Firefly setting very well -- anyone have any thoughts regarding that application of the rules?), but I'm really looking for a way to run the system as a narrativist tool. I'm also not a big fan of Drama-based mechanics (I ran/played Amber for too long with folks who think they're doing Karma and are really doing Drama.), especially as a means of circumventing the overt system.
Markus' suggestions re: some rules drift is well-taken. I really like where the stats (not skills) come out with Street-level, but I can certainly see using the Global-level for 'extra skill points' and skill caps during chargen -- that might round off the characters in the way I'm looking for.
I also liked the idea of using the system for conflict-resolution (a la Sorcerer) rather than for tasks, though it changes the way some of the skills work just a bit (like Fast Draw), but I'm already thinking of ways to modify such things.
Great stuff, everyone. Thanks again.
On 6/29/2004 at 3:46pm, GreatWolf wrote:
RE: [UA variant] Using Conflict Resolution & Dealing w/Whiff
Doyce wrote: ...but I'm really looking for a way to run the system as a narrativist tool. I'm also not a big fan of Drama-based mechanics (I ran/played Amber for too long with folks who think they're doing Karma and are really doing Drama.), especially as a means of circumventing the overt system.
Emphasis mine
If I may suggest, it would be helpful if you were to fill out precisely what you mean by a "Narrativist" tool. From my experience, the UA system can do Narrativism okay within certain constraints. For example, the system supports Director stance quite poorly, and the system application of Author stance is fairly narrow. However, this is also true of Sorcerer's system. This is not a dig at Sorcerer in an attempt to defend one of my favorite games. Rather, I'm noting that, in many ways, Sorcerer is a fairly normal RPG system with a fairly traditional approach to RPG issues, such as GM/player power divisions and whatnot. Most of what makes Sorcerer stand out from the crowd are the different assumptions of how to play the game (e.g. emphasis on Author stance, conflict resolution, etc.) However, if you look at the text, you will find that the system itself is fairly normal, compared to the radical designs that float around here from time to time (e.g. InSpectres, Universalis, and so on).
If/when I return to UA, the one major rules change that I plan on making is to allow unlimited use of Passions. I think that this one change will do wonders to expanding the Narrativist possibilities of UA. However, this is the very same change that I'd make if I ever ran TROS. (According to the text, your use of the Spiritual Attributes is limited by your...um...Willpower, I think.) One of the strengths of UA is that it allows players to create emotionally realistic characters. Strengthening the system power of their emotions can only do good things.
Also, I would not worry about the concern re: Drama mechanics in UA. I disagree with Ralph's characterization of the minor skill check rules as Drama, but, even if he is right, the rules are clear on the appropriate time and procedure to apply a minor skill check. (They boil down to "when you're doing things under non-stressed conditions", which, in the context of a roleplaying game, tends to be the unimportant actions.) UA still demands that actions performed under pressure be rolled for. Now, this does require that the GM make a determination on this, but it's not much different than a GM applying a die bonus or penalty in another game.
Finally, I'd agree with the idea of bumping your characters to global-power level. Street-level characters are supposed to be "normals" thrown into a world beyond their control, and the crew of Firefly is not a crew of "normals". Take a look at the global-level characters in the UA rulebook. Their power levels strike me as being more in accord with the competence levels demonstrated by the crew of the Firefly.
Do keep us posted on how this goes. I've debated if a Firefly RPG that only depicted the setting would even make sense, as it is such a character-driven show. Your playing the characters from the show changes things a bit for me, so I'll be curious to hear how things go.
Good luck!
(BTW, I looked over your write-up of Mal as a UA character, and I have a suggestion for a Fear Stimulus: Losing the ones he loves (Isolation). Consider how fanatically devoted Mal is to the members of his crew. "Out of Gas" gives an excellent depiction of this, but it is also a driving point in many other episodes.)
On 6/29/2004 at 4:46pm, Doyce wrote:
RE: [UA variant] Using Conflict Resolution & Dealing w/Whiff
GreatWolf wrote:
If I may suggest, it would be helpful if you were to fill out precisely what you mean by a "Narrativist" tool.
I think what I found somewhat dismaying from the comments that (Ron, particularly) made had to do with illusionist techniques used to support a result the GM already has in mind. I must admit that after playing Sorcerer in a number of one- and two-shots builts entirely off of the player's kickers (and somewhat off the fly), the idea of using illusion tricks to cover up GM preordination... wearies me.
GreatWolf wrote:
From my experience, the UA system can do Narrativism okay within certain constraints. For example, the system supports Director stance quite poorly, and the system application of Author stance is fairly narrow.
I think I agree with what you're saying here, and might also agree with that comparison to Sorcerer, excepting only that the player is given a big front-loaded dose of Director Stance at the very outset, via the Kicker. (My group also maintains some light director stance ability throughout the game, when appropriate.)
Probably the better way to say this is "I want to understand how to run the game in a way that doesn't deprotagonize the characters, due to the whiff factor." It didn't necessarily come up in the few hours we played through the test-it-out scenario, but it seemed like something that could have quickly arisen. Presumably, one would address this type of thing as suggested in the excellent passage on "when competent characters fail" in Sorcerer & Sword -- I'm curious what kind of success folks have had with that in practice.
I'm not convinced 'give them more points' really addresses the whiff factor elegantly -- it works, because it makes it less likely, but it's still there. :)
GreatWolf wrote: ... one major rules change that I plan on making is to allow unlimited use of Passions. [...] One of the strengths of UA is that it allows players to create emotionally realistic characters. Strengthening the system power of their emotions can only do good things.
I definitely agree that this might be very useful in that regard, and I've made that modification to the notes on the wiki page regarding this game variant as well.
I've also toyed with the idea of allowing more than 3 failed/hardened notches to starting characters, if they come from the sort of background that warrants such things (it seems that a soldier in the Unification War would very likely have quite a few more notches in the Violence meter if they lived this long). Alternately, I might more enthusiastically encourage the "Paradigm" mind skills for such characters -- I didn't in the first go-round, since skill points were at something of a premium... moreso than they would be later.
GreatWolf wrote: Finally, I'd agree with the idea of bumping your characters to global-power level. Street-level characters are supposed to be "normals" thrown into a world beyond their control, and the crew of Firefly is not a crew of "normals". Take a look at the global-level characters in the UA rulebook.
A good suggestion. I'm certainly going to up the 'extra' skill points available and raise the 'starting cap'... my only reservation on Stat points is that the descriptions in the book for each 10-point grouping are very evocative and people start to get a picture in their head of where their character should fall -- I've found that most folks are quite satisfied with where they end up with the 220 stat points, and find the Global level stats "too good... I can't make him a high-school drop out unless he's got 80s in everything else". YMMV, certainly.
As for the Firefly characters -- I'd say they are definitely very skilled and well-trained... are they particularly beyond-the-pale in terms of physical and mental attributes? (aside from River)... that I don't know if I agree with.
GreatWolf wrote: Do keep us posted on how this goes. I've debated if a Firefly RPG that only depicted the setting would even make sense, as it is such a character-driven show. Your playing the characters from the show changes things a bit for me, so I'll be curious to hear how things go.
I should clarify that: we are actually coming up with characters that are not the characters from the show (I should be able to get those 'new' characters up on the site Real Soon Now (tm)) -- other crews of other ships, et cetera. I am trying to build accurate-feeling versions of the characters from the show using the rules as a way of calibrating the character generation -- if I can build those characters in a way that feels true to the show, then a player should be able to build a character for the game that feels like they "fit" in the setting... at least that's the theory.
Plus, I'm a fanboy geek and I enjoy using the stat-out work as an excuse to watch the episodes over and over. :)
Good luck!
GreatWolf wrote: (BTW, I looked over your write-up of Mal as a UA character, and I have a suggestion for a Fear Stimulus: Losing the ones he loves (Isolation). Consider how fanatically devoted Mal is to the members of his crew. "Out of Gas" gives an excellent depiction of this, but it is also a driving point in many other episodes.)
I need to get my write-ups for the other characters up on the page. Soon.
Excellent point. I and my players had talked about how UA *can* give the characters/players a chance a cinematic moments by being able to invoke their Passions -- I'd wondered how well the game system would really be able to handle something like Mal striding into the ship (in the Pilot episode) and capping the federal agent right in the head... while we talked about it, it became clear that this would probably trigger his Rage Stimulus (vs. Betrayal), AND his Noble stimulus (helping the helpless).
That reminds me -- has anyone ever been in a scene when a player could logical call on two different passions for the same event? Would you as the GM allow both to affect the same roll (such as allowing both a re-roll AND a flip-flop), or simply say that they could affect the same scene, but not the same roll?
On 6/29/2004 at 6:28pm, John Harper wrote:
RE: [UA variant] Using Conflict Resolution & Dealing w/Whiff
Ralph is on the money about the Drama/Fortune hybrid thing. I happen to like it. Ralph seems to feel that UA shot his dog. :) YMMV.
I have used techniques similar to Ron's to run both UA and Godlike (which has similar issues) and they work very well. I found that the UA system makes a lot of sense if the skill percentages are *almost* an in-game element. The characters themselves need to be looking at a situation and thinking, "This is gonna be a coin toss. Do we put our lives on the line with a 50/50 shot? Damn."
In play it turns into a lot of Drama/Karma to maneuver the characters into a situation that is then resolved with Fortune (if it's stressful/under pressure) or Karma (if it's not). Having to roll the dice usually means that you've been caught in a situation that you don't control and you have to just blaze away and hope for the best. Do this a little too often and you end up dead. This suits the UA universe very well, and I think it could work for a certain interpretation of Firefly too.
The reason the UA system works is the madness meters. Everything you do has the potential to change you, even if you don't have to roll for the task. You can set up an ambush and murder 12 men without a single roll, but you gotta face the Violence/Self check. Task resolution is a pretty minor system component by comparison.
Let the meters drive the game and UA shines.