I posted this over at RPG.net in the comments for the Wushu review:

Here's my problem with games like this. I describe an incredibly cool manuever (5+ dice), but for some reason things don't work out and I miss the roll.

So the GM says, "Um, no...here's what happens instead."

So now I'm a chump. Man, I hate that.

How I'd do it:

If you make the roll, you describe the *action* the character attempted. Roll another die. If you make THAT roll, describe additional details. And so on, up to the limit of your character's abilities.

I get where you're coming from with the chump factor. I'd almost want the cool description reward to be a guarantee of some kind.

In your option, though, the reward system is completely different. Instead of extra dice being the reward, you try to earn the right to describe more cool stuff.

Hi Jared,

Sounds like Fortune in the Middle. Which zaal wrote about in this thread.

Makes good sense.

--EC

FitM, sure.

As for the reward, the actual reward is the right to add an additional die. That right is "paid for" with enhanced descriptions. Once the description is said, it stands as fact.

And I stand corrected (via RPG.net) as Wushu says that extra description is fact, regardless of die results. But still, I like the idea of post-die roll descriptions purchasing bonus dice for the same roll.

- J

I ran Wushu last weekend (man, I gotta get that Actual Play report up here). It was loads of fun. We played it by the book, which means that everything the players narrate happens. Stuff doesn't happen after the dice are rolled, it happens right when the player narrates. This takes a lot of getting used to, but it's very cool.

The end result is that the players have total control over how cool their characters are, while simultaneously determining the "physics" and realism of the gameworld. For example, a player can narrate how their Kung Fu expert strikes at the throat of an enemy Ninja (+1 die) but is blocked by the Ninja's Clever Eye defense (+1 die) which the Ninja shifts into a Brilliant Wave reversal, throwing the PC across the room (+1 die) allowing the PC to flip in midair (+1 die), spring off the far a wall (+1 die), and come flying back to smash the Ninja with a Sparrow Kick (+1 die).

All of that happens before any dice are rolled. And all of those bonus dice are for the player's roll, even though she narrated stuff that "hurt" her character. The roll then determines which character gets hurt and which does the hurting. The players quickly learn that if they want "realistic" action, they shouldn't narrate stuff like cutting an enemy's head off with the first blow (because if the dice come up in the enemy's favor, then he's gonna keep fighting, with or without his head).

What does all this mean? Protagonism. The PCs act precisely how the players want. Players can narrate flawless actions if they want to seem perfect, or can narrate screwing up, missing, and being blocked -- and they earn extra dice for it! I have more to say about this game, but I'll hold it for the Actual Play review.

Feng wrote: What does all this mean? Protagonism. The PCs act precisely how the players want. Players can narrate flawless actions if they want to seem perfect, or can narrate screwing up, missing, and being blocked -- and they earn extra dice for it! I have more to say about this game, but I'll hold it for the Actual Play review.

So the GM says, "Um, no...here's what happens instead."

Jared A. Sorensen wrote: I'm a lil' confused. What do the dice do?

If I understand what John's saying, the player describes the actions and general cool moves, and a color equivalent of the effects, and the dice roll determines the progress of the fight.

That is, I do a flying kick and wallop the bad guy in the kisser, and the dice roll tells me if that feller is gonna get back up and keep fighting.

If that's the case, that's monster cool.

Yep, Matt has it right. At least, that's the way I read the rules.

Ah, I don't like that. It's the player saying what happens and the dice saying what the players wants to have happen.

ie:
Player: I spin kick the goon and knock him into the hi-voltage control box.

Player's implicit question: does he crash into the electrical controls and flail around like a fish on a hot sidewalk as 120,000 volts surge through his body?

Dice (rolls, result is bad): No.

Just seems off.

Yeah, me too. Building the results explicitly into the description seems susceptible to derailing if the dice don't come through.

Best,

Blake

Player's implicit question: does he crash into the electrical controls and flail around like a fish on a hot sidewalk as 120,000 volts surge through his body?

Dice (rolls, result is bad): No.

Here's how it goes for mooks.

Player: I spin kick the goon and knock him into the hi-voltage control box. He flails around like a fish on a hot sidewalk as 120,000 volts surge through his body (+3 dice).

Dice (rolls, result reduces threat rating, but not to zero)

GM: The two goons near the vending machine freak out when they see their buddy fry and cut loose with their mini-uzis, screaming "This is for Johnny!"

The exact number of mooks in a scene isn't ever specified, so as long as their threat rating is above zero, there are always more to smash. The player can narrate the entire action and its consequences, and nothing is ever "taken back". The player doesn't have to ask the GM for permission in his narration, ever. The implicit question Jared mentions can be sidestepped by simply narrating the outcome the way you want. It's the GM's job to deal with the outcome of the dice and narrate how the fight continues (if it does).

In Wushu, the players decide what is a reasonable or acceptable action. The GM gets no veto power and can't say, "That doesn't happen." Whatever you narrate happens. The dice roll result acts as a gauge for who's winning the conflict from moment to moment.

Like I said before, a player could narrate cutting off the Big Bad's head during the first round of combat. But, the dice are unlikely to come up with a total victory, so the Big Bad is not defeated. He's headless, and blood is shooting everywhere, but he's still in the fight! The player's narration has just shifted the "realism" factor into the realm of Evil Dead. If players don't want this, they can adjust their narration.

Edit: Yeah, what Matt said.

I like to think of the Wushu system like a videogame. When you're on the "mook stage", mooks keep coming until the level is over. You can kill as many as you want, any way you want, but they'll just keep coming until you make it to the exit (i.e. reduce the mook threat level in Wushu to zero).

On the "boss" level, there's a big red bar at the top of the screen. You bring down the pain on the Big Bad, and the red bar gets smaller. Sure, on-screen you're launching rockets into the guy's face and setting him on fire and breaking his limbs, but as long as the red bar is there, the fight goes on. Of course, he's a threat to you, too. From moment to moment, you're hurting him or he's hurting you, or both. But you never have to "take back" your rocket attacks or bone-crunching moves. They happen as soon as you hit X-X-Y-B.

Of course, Wushu games don't have to be as over-the-top as a videogame, but it's up to the players to determine how tame or crazy the action is, by managing their narration.

What about when you're fighting a Boss (to use the video game term) or battling another player, in absence of mooks?

Edit: Never mind, Feng posted the answer and I didn't see it

Feng wrote:
The exact number of mooks in a scene isn't ever specified, so as long as their threat rating is above zero, there are always more to smash.

I dunno. Doesn't work well for me when y'all can cut off the boss's head and then get to fight his headless body. Depends on the setting, but it looks like breaking genre/verisimilitude to me. Sure, the group members can restrain themselves with their narration, but you could say something like, "I spin kick him far out into the abyss." Then it starts looking ridiculous to have him come flitting back.

I like the hell out of a lot of Wushu, but I'm not sold on the outcome mechanics. Mooks are one thing, named characters seem broken.

Best,

Blake

Broken? I disagree. If you don't want something "unbelievable" to happen, don't narrate it. Seems pretty simple to me. The GM has this power of narration rights in lots of games. Wushu just gives the same rights (and responsibilities) to all the players as a group.

In Wushu, if you narrate that you kick the Big Bad off the cliff into the bottomless pit, you're telling the GM "Go ahead... I want something really crazy to happen here." I'm not sure what you mean when you say "group members can restrain themselves." It's not about restraint. It's about choosing a genre, setting, and "reality dial" and then cooperating as a group to play to those conventions. Yes, you could narrate anything at all (I fly to the sun!) but why would you want to? When someone GMs a standard RPG, she could suddenly say, "A mountain falls out of the clear blue sky and crushes everyone into paste." There are no rules in traditional games to keep such a thing from happening, but it never does. Why? Social contract. Group cooperation and enjoyment. The same elements are present in Wushu... they're just not on one side of the table, so to speak.

Hello.

Point taken. It's like every roll is an MoV out of The Pool.

Best,

Blake

Hello.

Point taken. It's like every roll is an MoV out of The Pool.

Best,

Blake

Ah! Yes, that's it, Blake. Well said. The Pool puts the die roll somewhere in the middle, and Wushu puts it firmly last. "Fortune at the end" I suppose.

Right. Pool die rolls determine success or failure, but Wushu rolls assume success and then measure the ultimate impact of that success on the outcome.

Best,

Blake

OK, but here's my problem.... Aside from losing Chi, how does one fail in Wushu? I mean, some of my best RP as either player or GM emerges from riffing off failure. My players in The Pool have loved the MoD rule, for example. Is outright failure purely voluntary?

Best,

Blake

That's the impression I get. I don't see that there's any problem with that - it seems to emulate the genre quite elegantly.

Perhaps there could be a separation between named conflict and mook conflict - named conflict uses FitM, and thus allows for failure, while mook conflict uses FitE, which gets you that side-scrolling popcorn nijas feeling.

That said, I think it's perfectly alright that failure is wholly optional.

Edit: typo

The players can narrate stuff after the die roll, as well. There's no rule that forbids it, anyway. If a player gets thrashed by the die rolls, but no thrashing was narrated before, I'd narrate some additional action to create a visual for how the PC gets banged up.

Fair enough. Thanks!

Best,

Blake

The thought occurred to me that someone kicking the boss' head off in one hit but the dice not letting that end it is just asking for a "Now, face my TRUE FORM!" moment, like that in Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, or like when the killer gets back up and attacks after being hit by a car. There's also the chance of more mooks coming in and attacking as a response to their boss being killed--the incoming mooks take on the remaining Threat level of the dead boss.

Thanks for the videogame analogy. I was lurking in this thread and it wasn't making much sense, up until that point.

Wushu really sounds neat, and fairly simple - I like the 'more is more' aspect to it. =) Great concept!

Just posted about our experiment with Wushu last night, over on Actual Play. I talked some about how the descriptive style worked out in actual play.