This can be considered a follow-up to the article "Agonizing over margin-based effects".
After a little playtesting think I nailed down what the real problem is.
By introducing effects (before it was move-based) it would seem I didn't so much create new problems as reveal the inborn flaws.

To recap, the basic mechanism consists of a simple to-hit roll from which a number (the "margin of success") is somehow derived. At that moment - when you have the margin of success - you have to decide what to do with it: damage, disadvantage etc.

You finally take whatever combination you decide on and roll for the effects.

An example:


GM: roll 1D12 to attack the ratling.

Player: I roll a 5.

GM: Ok, minimal margin. That means damage or a single disadvantageous effect giving him +1 disadvantage until recovering from it.

Player: "I cling to the spear desperatly to prevent my imminent demise" - for disadvantage to him.

GM: Ok, the ratling, still holding onto his spear... rolls a 5 and an 11. Because of being disadvantaged he has to roll an extra die and pick the lowest (5). A miss.

GM: "The ratling furiously tries to attack you but your grip on the spear efficiently prevents that".

GM: You have an advantage if you drop the grip on the spear while attacking now, you then roll 2 dice, take the highest.

Player: Alright I will... 6 and 8. An 8.

GM: that's 4 points of margin: you can get effect + damage, or hit a vulnearable area or 2 effects giving disadvantage of 2 extra dice to him. It's your choice.

Player: Alright I hit in in the head and try and KO him.

GM: Damage for the head is greater. You get extra damage on rolls 11-12 and his toughness of 6 is reduced to 4. Roll your 4 damage dice.

Player: 11, 8, 5, 4. And an extra die of 8.

GM: well that just kills him outright. It probably mashes his head in. Go ahead and narrate.

Player: "I bring down a powerful blow on the ratlings head snapping his neck with the force."



The above example (edited from a playtest) is a little confusing because the player states the head attack and then sticks with it. In actual play the player only needs to select "advantageous area hit" and doesn't need to decide until after damage is rolled if it's hitting the head, the heart or whatever.

The combat sequence goes through these stages:


1. Establish hit or miss, and margin in case of hit.
2. If hit, then decide on mechanical effect (limited by margin) otherwise go to narration.
3. If the mechanical effect requires an effect test, roll this effect otherwise proceed directly to narration
4. Narration limited on effect test and chosen mechanical effect.


Now, the problem with the above is that the mechanical effects possible from a margin might not be fully balanced in sense of efficiency. In addition, the actual result of a chosen effect is not clear until all effect tests are rolled. Even if all attacks would require effect tests, I harbour the suspicion that they will not be equally useful.

Secondly, by first dealing with effect ("+1 disadvantage") and then trying to reconcile that with stats, we might either be violating "reasonable results" or we might be violating the FitM idea.

Let me take an example:


Bob the Hobbit gets a result to either give the opponent a disdvantage or give damage from his dagger.

Bob's opponent is an armoured elephant, and correctly supposes that his dagger (with a damage rating of 1) will do very little damage on the elephant.

Instead, Bob's player thinks of the great idea of distracting the elephant for a greater advantage next round.

Bob's player says that it's due to Bob running into the elephant's side - making it tip over - that the elephant has this disadvantage.



In this case do we rely on the GM to disallow such blatant assaults on reality? Or do we have a secondary mechanism to determine if Bob succeeds to give that disadvantage or not?

In the second case we run into a situation where Bob's player has to narrate twice, once stating the attempted action, and once stating the outcome of it.
On the other hand, attempting damage Bob would roll damage and then choose the narration afterwards.

This is obviously problematic, the whole point of FitM seems to be obfuscated. But really, is the other solution better?

Ok, so what about the second method: the GM disallows the push. Isn't that good?

Well, consider as an example "Rogger the giant with 7 damage dice" fighting a puny ratling. Rogger can with a poor margin result either crush the ratling into oblivion with immense damage, or at the most give it a small disadvantage to defend next round. Rogger can't say "grab the ratling and throw it 10 yards" - even though it's quite within the capabilities of the character - because Rogger isn't a good fighter.

In one case we have a character where the optimal move is always to try special effects and on the other corner the character who benefits mostly on basic attacks.
These examples firmly points out that the method is flawed.

So what do I want?

Well in a perfect world it would look something like this:


1. Establish hit or miss, and margin in case of hit.
2. If hit, roll effect test slightly improved by margin otherwise go to narration.
3. Create narration as based on effect test and stats of the combatants.


In other words a single, unified effect test which then later is compared with relevant opposing traits (damage vs. toughness for damage, strength vs. strength for pins and such takedowns etc) to decide limits of narration.

The above is an extended version of the original AHQ damage mechanic. You rolled damage and that was it. There was only a single typ of effect test so the mechanic was trivial to work out.

So, I'm a little at loss of how to achieve it. Any pointers to games that solved this or something like it neatly would be appreciated.