I've been working on a set of rules but the dice mechanic is giving me trouble since there appear to be to lines of thought at work in them which really don't jive well together. Or at least I think so. You tell me.

Essentially the game work by the characters being defined by descriptors which may confer a modifier on a situation or not. That's neither here nor there for this discussion.

The mechanic I'm using is esentially Craps. 7 is a success.
2 or 12 is a failure

Rolling any other number is point. The player must roll point again to succeed. Rolling 7 after a point is set is a failure.

based on the descriptors, the character could have an edge: 7 or 11 is a success.
Or a drawback: 2, 3 or 12 is a failure.
Or there can be Doubt which combines both.

I like this mechanic because it is very rules lite and, more to the point, because it's non-linear. "+1" in a skill or whatever is meaningless. You either have a higher chance of success or failure or both or neither. That's it. Check, please.

The problem is my idea on when to roll. My idea is that the player should roll when it's important. In fact, this is one of those GM-less type games when the player is essentially telling the story of his character (with the other players object or questioning actions a la Baron Munchausen).

You do not roll when your character is attempting to leap from rooftop to rooftop and a miss means the character plummets to a bloody death. You roll when a miss means you land in realative saftey ("safe" is subjective) and the story continues. You roll when the story could go either way and you need to decide which way it goes.

Herein is my problem. I have a rather nice mechanics albeit simplistic that is based on the Old School of game design with % chances of success while trying to use it in a manner of story directing that I'm not sure if it really fits very well.

So how would you handle this?
I've been driving myself crazy trying to figure this out.

Hey Jack,

We're talking about a primarily Narrativist game, right? If so ...

I don't think the probability/old-school issue is really a problem. Any fortune method ultimately makes use of percentages. The trick is for a fortune method to enhance and help create story rather than to keep stonewalling it.

I think you're exactly on the right track in keeping attention focused on conflict resolution, and defining success and failure. In fact, you might not want even to use the terms "success" and "failure," not for mere semantic failure, but because it's not what you're doing with the dice anyway.

So - the question becomes: what is the Fortune mechanic FOR? In Sorcerer, for example, it's mainly about the uncertainty of dealing with demons. In Castle Falkenstein magic, it's about finding what different magical "elements" are interfering and interacting as you try to cast a given spell. In The Pool, it's about the player gambling with his or her ability to influence the story as a Director.

Back to Premise, is the key.

Best,
Ron

Related to the anti-success/failure division, why not try out something like

If they make their point they get to describe what happens, if they "fail" (in the craps sense) the guy sitting next to them decides what happens...in one of those "lets see how you get out of this one Mr. Bond" kind of ways.

I'm using a variation on this idea in my Universalis game and so far its working very slick.

Furthering Valamir's idea (only with success):

When you succeed, you could "let it ride", and go for a critical success (or whatever) by continuing the rolling. Conversely, you could have supporting characters lend aid by "betting" on hard ways. If one of the hard ways is rolled, you could allow the supporting character to add one sentence to the victory dance.

Anyway, just tossing in ideas.


Dav

Dav,

Thanks for the idea. However I don't wish to borrow too much from Craps. Besides, I seem to think that would overcomplicate things.

I had already taken what I wanted from it, anyway. The non-linear dice mechanics where the numbers are meaningless unless you want (or don't want) to roll them.


Valamir,

I'm kind of, sort of working along those lines, but not exactly. I'm considering a round robin GMing deal. But actually I'm leaning toward group GMing where anyone w/o a character in a current scene may act as GM (this is one use for the tokens, you see) Ultimately, it's the player who is the GM of his or her own character using author stance I guess. The others just help shape what happens.

I think how I'll use this mechanic is that it's what the character wants to do that determines what's success or failure but it's the player's indecision in what happens that determines if a roll is necessary or if a certain outcome simply happens.

Yes, Im being sketchy about all of this. Sorry. I'll let you know when it's ready for public consumption.

Ron,

interesting advice. I'll have to dwell on it.