I'd never really encountered Fortune at the End in practice, until I bought Wushu. When I read about it in the GNS essay my response was basically "yeah, ok, that sounds weird, but it doesn't really have anything to do with me."

But, so, now I've got Wushu. I've had it for a while. I've even played it. And I still don't get FatE.

In Wushu, you basically narrate to get dice. You get one die just for doing something, plus one additional die for each "embellishment," basically cool stuff that you add to the narration.

The other players can veto any of your embellishments for any reason, and there's an upper limit on the dice you can get (the default upper limit is 6).

The rules suggest two ways to handle timing, in terms of when the actual people narrate. The basic way is just to take turns as you go around the table. The "communal" way is more unstructured, where veryone just talks and grabs dice until everyone's done; then you all roll.

Resolution is a pretty simple target number deal. Every die that comes up equal to or less than the trait you're using counts as a success. There's some special tweaks(like a Weakness gives you an automatic target number of 1 and stuff).

So, here's where its confusiong. The rules say:

"The important thing to remember is tha tResolution is a purely mechanical process. All of your narrative description, every last word of it, belongs in the description segment before Resolution. Everything the players described already happened, regardless of the successes rolled or lack thereof. The dice only tell you how well things worked, not if they worked at all."

So... what exactly are we using the "Resolution" mechanis to resolve? The above paragraph is an explicit description of pure drama mechanics. Even with the assumption that everything you narrate comes true, it doesn't seem like the roll does anything at all. It can't in form narration, because you don't *do* any narration after rolling.

You narrate a fancy way of killing someone, roll 6 dice, well, looky there, he sure is dead. He was dead when I narrated it, but 'cos I rolled those dice I know he's *all* dead, and not just mostly dead!

The only time when there's *actually* something at stake is during a combat, where everything you say *still* comes true, but you can lose Chi if you roll bad. But losing Chi doesn't really mean anything, since the definition of zero Chi is being "out of the fight."

I'm at a loss. What's the point of rolling? If there's no point to rolling, what do you need dice for? It's like a freeform system with a dead-end mechanical element grafted on.

Paganini wrote: So, here's where its confusing. The rules say:

"The important thing to remember is that Resolution is a purely mechanical process. All of your narrative description, every last word of it, belongs in the description segment before Resolution. Everything the players described already happened, regardless of the successes rolled or lack thereof. The dice only tell you how well things worked, not if they worked at all."

So... what exactly are we using the "Resolution" mechanis to resolve? The above paragraph is an explicit description of pure drama mechanics. Even with the assumption that everything you narrate comes true, it doesn't seem like the roll does anything at all. It can't in form narration, because you don't *do* any narration after rolling.

You narrate a fancy way of killing someone, roll 6 dice, well, looky there, he sure is dead. He was dead when I narrated it, but 'cos I rolled those dice I know he's *all* dead, and not just mostly dead!

The only time when there's *actually* something at stake is during a combat, where everything you say *still* comes true, but you can lose Chi if you roll bad. But losing Chi doesn't really mean anything, since the definition of zero Chi is being "out of the fight."

I'm at a loss. What's the point of rolling? If there's no point to rolling, what do you need dice for? It's like a freeform system with a dead-end mechanical element grafted on.

As far as I can understand it, it's a very smoothly camouflaged pacing mechanic. The Threat Level of an enemy/group of enemies represents nothing else but how much work it takes for you to bypass them, and Chi is a "clock" limiting the amount of actions you can attempt in order to produce the requisite amount of work.

Shreyas, that's pretty much in line with my own reasoning. The problem I have is that, since the players have unlimited freedom of narration, it's very difficult to frame the conflict in such a way that the pacing mechanic means anything. Unless the conflict is stated very vaguely ("some guys are attacking you") the conflict can be resolved instantly via narration before the requisite work is done.

So, that seems to kind of defeat the purpose of the pacing mechanics. When I ran the game, I remember feeling like the whole game was basically a tug of war between two possibilities:

GM: "The Big Evil Dude is fighting you! He's got mucho dice!"
Player: "I back flip over and kick his head off! His howl of pain is cut off as blood fountains from the stump of his neck and he dies!"
GM: "Uh..."

or

GM: "There's a conflict, but I can't tell you exactly what it is, cos I don't want you to narrate your way out of it. You sure have to do a lot of work to overcome it though!"
Player: "Uh..."

The answer is that you define the conflict in terms of what it impedes, not what is causing the impedance.

In other words, "108 ninjas are blocking the escape route out of the hidden temple!" is important because of blocking the escape route, and there're no way to get to the escape route without surmounting the challenge. If the ninjas are defeated, then holy crap! We didn't see that pit of boiling tar! The tar golems are attacking!

Which is not to say that you are stating the conflict in vague terms - it simply means that the statement of the conflict does not have to be a constant, and there is a certain line somewhere that one cannot cross with narration alone. (I'm not sure whether the rules as written support this, but I believe that this is essentially the only way to make sense of Wushu.)

Hey Shreyas,

Shreyas Sampat wrote: In other words, "108 ninjas are blocking the escape route out of the hidden temple!" is important because of blocking the escape route, and there're no way to get to the escape route without surmounting the challenge. If the ninjas are defeated, then holy crap! We didn't see that pit of boiling tar! The tar golems are attacking!

Paganini wrote: So, here's where its confusing. The rules say:

"The important thing to remember is tha tResolution is a purely mechanical process. All of your narrative description, every last word of it, belongs in the description segment before Resolution. Everything the players described already happened, regardless of the successes rolled or lack thereof. The dice only tell you how well things worked, not if they worked at all."...

... You narrate a fancy way of killing someone, roll 6 dice, well, looky there, he sure is dead. He was dead when I narrated it, but 'cos I rolled those dice I know he's *all* dead, and not just mostly dead!

Tony, that post makes a lot of sense in practical terms, but you've directly contradicted the Wushu rules text, and, IIRC, the examples given. What you describe seems to me how the rules *should* be writen, but my understanding is that the players are allowed to narrate literally anything they want. Am I misreading something?

Paganini,

The players do not have unlimited powers of narration... but the text forces each individual group to come up with their own "reasonable limits".

From my copy of Wushu:

Of course, the GM (and the group) has the right to veto any Embellishment for any reason. Usually, this means reigning in players who want to deviate from the desired tone of the game, making things too gritty or too cartoonish. Creativity is our friend, but even friends can wear out their welcome. Just make sure everyone agrees on what kind of game they want to play before you get started.

Dan Bayn has said that, for much of his own gaming, clear social contracts handle a lot of "genre emultion" that some would do via rules/rewards etc. A big part of that contract is understanding (I'd say outright defining) where both Mook and Nemesis conflicts begin and end. (I think the Wushu text would be greatly improved if this were made more explicit.)

I have a lot to say about Wushu, but I've already said it here so I'll just provide some links:

Wushu Stuff
Wushu: hard work, but rewarding

The first thread deals more with the fortune-at-the-end issue.

Sorry I'm late to the party, but I think the replies so far have things well in hand. Let me off the following as points of clarification...

- Regarding Nemeses, I never let players narrate killing a Nemesis because Nemeses should always get a chance to defend themselves. In Cut-Fu and Pulp-Fu (written with the benefit of some playtesting that the core book didn't get), I call this the Coup de Grace rule: You have to save your "finishing move" for when your enemy is already defeated.

- In mook fights, I _never_ speficy how many mooks there are, where they are, or even what they're doing. I let the players do that for me. They can kill as many as they want, but if there's any Threat left, there are always more on the way. If anyone tried to say "I mow down every last mook" as part of their Description, I'd veto it. There are always more ninjas.

I do plan to write a follow-up to the core rules, when I get a chance. It'll incorporate all the tricks from the supplements and use the same expanded format as Pulp-Fu (complete with character templates, villains, and some sample settings). For now, Pulp-Fu prolly contains the most complete version of the Wushu rules set.

To return to the original question, the Resolution step is, as stated above, basically a pacing mechanic. It just tells you when to stop fighting ;) In non-combat situations, it's a more traditional measure of success quality.

L8r, --Dan

Paganini wrote: Tony, that post makes a lot of sense in practical terms,
but you've directly contradicted the Wushu rules text, and, IIRC, the
examples given. What you describe seems to me how the rules *should* be
writen, but my understanding is that the players are allowed to narrate
literally anything they want. Am I misreading something?

Stalker whirls on Hortense and charges (+1), snarling like a rabid
dog (+1).
Hortense, taken by surprise, drops into a sacrifice throw (+1) and hurls
Stalker through the room's floor length window (+1). Flipping back to her
feet (+1), she fires her crossbow at Vulture (+1), aiming to bury the bolt
deep in his diseased brain (+1). Vulture, already limping towards the door
(+1), rolls sideways to avoid the shot (+1).

The Welshman has Outrider cornered in the latter's
seedy hotel room. The duelists draw their blades: an elegant cavalry saber
and a wickedly curved shamshir, respectively. Suddenly, Gavin lunges
forward for an overhead slash (+1), but changes direction at the last second
and goes for Outrider's sword arm (+1). Outrider jumps back onto the bed
(+1), flips over Gavin's head to the desk behind him (+1), and kicks a lamp
at
his face (+1). Gavin spins around to slash at his escaping adversary (+1)
while ducking under the flying lamp (+1).

Meanwhile, across town, the Ronin finds himself ambushed by a gang of
street punks (Threat 9). He draws his father's katana and slices the gun
hand off of the nearest one (+1). As the others charge, he dispatches three
more with a series of slashing spins (+1), his trench coat fans out around
him (+1). He ends the last spin with a violent kick (+1) that reduces one
mook's nose to a spray of blood and bone (+1).

Maven jumps through the door (+1), does a flip over Mama Mojo (+1),
and
plants her heels in the face of the nearest mook (+1) for 4 dice. Aleister
raises his gold-embroidered arms (+1) to trace an arcane pattern in the air
(+1) and engulf Mama Mojo in a pillar of flame (+1) for 4 dice. Mama Mojo
pulls out an Aleister doll (+1) and pokes two black pins into its eyes (+1)
to
blind him with 3 dice.

Blinded, Aleister throws up a force field (+1) and tries to defeat Mama's
mojo by sheer force of will (+1); he rolls 3 Yin dice, but will have to use
his
first success against the blindness. Mama Mojo pulls out her Desert Eagle
(+1) and lays down cover fire (+1) while diving left to escape the flames
(+1)
with 4 Yin dice. Maven grabs the knife arm of an attacking mook (+1) and
Judo throws him into the fire behind her (+1), then spin kicks the next one
in
the face (+1) and throws her big ass bowie knife (+1) into the throat of
another (+1) for 5 Yang dice and 1 Yin die.

Tony,

Heheh. Thanks for doing all that. That does help clear things up.

Damn, this looks like a sweet game!

I'd posted these to RPG.net, and it was pointed out a similiar thread existed over here- dealing with Wushu's 'wacky fortune at the end'-ness :) These are meant for a highly cinematic, superspy adventure.

WuShu - Types of Challenges

Challenges have four parts: The Difficulty, the Danger, the Time, and the Type

Difficulty is the number of Offensive successes you'll need to finish the Challenge and reach the Goal.
Danger is the minimum number of Defensive successes you need to avoid losing a Chi. Unless otherwise stated, this is 1.
The Time is the number of die rolls everyone gets before the Goal becomes inaccessible. The Boss escapes, the target is kidnapped, whatever. The Time may be extended by someone sacraficing a Cool.

The Type is the general class of challenge. It helps define what type of narration is and is not appropriate. Examples are...

Combat: Narration has to do with beating people up. Or shooting them. Whatever.
Diplomacy: Narration has to do with convincing people to do as you say peacefully.
Chase: Narration has to do with a chase scene.
Infiltration: Narration has to do with gooing undetected while sneaking in somewhere.

Rules of Narration
WuShu uses Fortune at the End. The Dice only indincate how close to being overcome the current Challenge is. Cool is used as a combination vitality and safety net, to make Challenges easier to overcome.
While narrating, you're naming Facts. Just like the GM, you can describe anything you want, and if everyone accepts it, the embellishment stands. However, the GM reserves veto rights for two types of Embellishments.
A) Those which dictate success in achieving the Goal before the Challenge is overcome, unless the Goal slips away in the same narration.
B) Those which dictate the continued viability of a Mastermind or Henchman that has 1 or more Cool remaining. No killing them until they're at 0 Cool.

If an Agent hits 0 Cool and then loses another for any reason, they are down and out for this and the next Challenge. They may not be dead, but they're too far gone to be of any use whatsoever.

An Agent may get up to 6 dice from an Action and Embellishments. However, these must be split between various Skills- an Agent can have no more than 4 dice in any single Skill. Thus, getting the full benefits of the roll requires bringing in multiple of your talents.

Yeah, I'd always thought of the "anyone can veto" rules as making it impossible that a player will hose the game by narrating too much too soon. Go ahead and narrate what you want. If the GM no like, the GM say no.

Paganini wrote: So... what exactly are we using the "Resolution" mechanis to resolve?