I started a thread over on the game design forum (Alternative Combat Round), not realizing this forum was probably more appropriate for what I wanted to talk about :P . So I'm moving my "tangential" disussion over to here. The parent message can be found here.

Mike Holmes wrote: As such, FitM is used very much as I've done in the example above to avoid the "whiff syndrome". It also fixes other problems. Like when playing a James Bondesque character, and failing a seduction roll. If the player has already said that the character is asking the girl to his room, then a failure means she shoots him down. If the actin has not been declared, a failure can be determined to be circumstances making it so that an opening does not occur. Thus, the cool Spy doesn't look like a schmuck ...

Further, there are several other nifty techniques that FitM allows.

Heh, I was going to split off into basically the same thread - looks like you beat me to it. Let me add something to the topic, and I'll use Exalted as the example (instead of my own system).

I think me and Mike were talking 'past' each other a little, facilitated by a confusion of terminology. After reading through some of the archives on Fortune in the Middle, I would say I've been playing that way all along...though not as it is commonly defined.

Adding some modifications to the Exalted system, let me illustrate - and if you agree Zaal, these mods might solve some of your Exalted problems.

Modifications:
Make defending an action. Exalted already has a half-assed system for this: Reflexive Actions.

Add consumable roll modifying tokens of some sort to play. For example, Luck chips which add an extra success to a roll.

For the sake of arguement, ignore simultaneous resolution and the fact that you now need a bathtub full of d10's.

Combat Progression
The attacker states specific intent, as per Fortune in the End. With Exalted I don't think you can escape this, as so many of the charms adjust your dice pool.
I charge in and activate Elemental Strike of Eye Pokey with my sword

Decide if the action can be resisted. If it cannot be resisted assume success and move on to the next action - no additional narration is necessary. If it can be resisted the defender states general intent, as per Fortune in the Middle.
Oooh, my eye...I dodge

Resolve nothing, neither the action nor defense has completed yet.

Roll dice, and apply any tokens to effect the results of the dice.

If the attacker wins the roll the action proceed as originally narrated - the defense did not occur or was for some other reason unsuccessful, much like the action never being resisted.
If the defender wins he narrates how he prevents or avoids the action.
Not: You miss
But: I nimblely step off-line of the Elemental Strike of Eye Pokey, and give him a kiss

Resolve the details of the action, like damage

End

With the Exalted stunt system this could add some interesting description wars to play as the defender attempts to out-cool the attacker to get more bonus dice. But, as you stated Zaal, these dice would have to be held over until next turn if you wanted to keep it Fortune in the Middle.

Fortune in the Middle seems to be commonly defined from the perspective of the action. Can you not instead define Fortune in the Middle from the perspective of the resistance to an action? Focusing on the defense as the 'important' element instead of the action being the most important element. So it's never a question of whether the mage can cast a fireball, only a question of whether his target can avoid it. Bond does not fail his seduction roll, his prey is just to clever to let him succeed.

Is this method truely Fortune in the Middle, or is flowing from Fortune in the End at the beginning of narration to Fortune in the Middle for final resolution some sort of bastard hybrid?

Hmm. It's FitM aplied to the resistance roll, to be sure.

But, interestingly, this basically does exactly what the simultaneous resolution does. Essentially, you place the protagonism in the hands of the winner, instead of "deprotagonizing" the loser. It's not that Bond failed, but his esteemed adversary succeeded.

It's just as important to avoid the whiff syndrome in terms of the bad guys. That is, you have to maintain their "antagonism" (as opposed to protagonism). If they are not seen as a credible threat, then it's not very dramatic when you off, them. Thus, a success over the enemy should not be seen as a failure by the enemy so much as just another amazing success by the protagonist.

And this is where you're system is problematic. While you make it so that a successful defense roll is a positive thing, a failed initial roll is still a bad thing. OTOH, if we don't use the initial roll until compared to the second roll, then we're talking about something different.

To the extent that these are generalized, and the intents made more nebulous, you are simply doing Simultaneous resolution. Most of the systems I advocate are, in fact, a roll vs. a roll, much like you describe. As such, you may be one of those people I mentioned in the other thread who just do FitM naturally.

Realize, however, that most people playing Storyteller don't play this way. The way they read it, a failure to make an attack is a miss, and described that way.

Further, we're talking about the most general description of FitM. To make FitM more potent, a system that encourages it will allow a player to select mechanics effects in addition to cool description. For example Zenobia, in which the player chooses after his roll whether or not his suuccesses mean a change in position, or an actual attack. Each of which are handled differently mechanically. That's true FitM. Where there are mechanical choices to be made not only before the dice roll, but after. Here you can really see how the "fortune" is in the Middle of the resolution. Other mechanical "non-fortune" steps happen before and after resolution.

Another common example of this is like in Hero Wars. Where you have Hero Points that you can burn to bump up your level of success. Simple, but effective. You see that one a lot in games that would otherwise be FatE. The problem is that while you have the mechanical effects, you don't have the descriptive effects. A "I swing at his head" is still, "I swing at his head" plus, now, I hit (or hit well). In a true FitM system with such bumping mechanisms, the action turns into "I swing at his head, and deftly cut down his cheek creating a nasty scar, and then continue through to cut his arm off, thus taking him out of the battle". That's just not allowed in a FatE system. It wasn't the "declared" action.

If you allow such modifications to actions after their declaration, and to the extent that initial requirements of declaration are slim, the more FitM your play is. The only question is why have any declaration at all?

One of the things that a lot of players find "realistic" (note I continually quote that term for a reason), is that they know that in the shifting back-and-forth of combat, that combatants aren't always able to decide what to do until an opening occurs. As such, a success in combat in this sort of system simulates finding such an opening, and exploiting it. The cool part is that you get to decide what that explotation looks like after the fact (as long as it matches the mechanical results). If you want it to be more of a Sim, then require the narration to always start, "PC finds an opening, and..."

Again, I can see wanting more detailed combat. In TROS, you can even declare that you are doing something as complex as a Bind. But the way it works, you can still narrate the results after the roll in a protagonizing way, and, further, there are mechanics like Luck that make it fully FitM. As such, TROS gives you the best of both worlds.

But that game focuses on detailed combat. In a game less devoted to combat, such detailed rules are unneccessary. In either case, however, you can employ FitM to some extent.

Mike

zaal wrote:

Further, there are several other nifty techniques that FitM allows.

Like what? Come on, Mike - don't leave me hanging!!! ;)

Heh, Mike...I love it, I think we agree just fine on both simultaneous resolution and FitM, I just didn't realize it.

Despite preference differences about the number of phases needed for resolution, level of detail in combat, and whether Initiative serves a worthwhile purpose - the description of action resolution follows basically the same flow. Though, the angle it's taken from varies a little (just so I can get those pre-roll penalties, like called shot, and fancy system, like elemental strike of eye pokey, in there.

Outside of combat the flow is even more similar, because I don't feel so much like breaking down events into tiny little chunks.

However, this does point out a need on my part to make sure I've made the prefered (I hesistate to use the word 'best') resolution flow implicitly defined - at least as an option.

cruciel wrote:
However, this does point out a need on my part to make sure I've made the prefered (I hesistate to use the word 'best') resolution flow implicitly defined - at least as an option.