Okay, this is something that I'm working on. Not complete at all, there are still some "issues". You can probably spot some of the influences, but hey, hopefully it melds them into an interesting new whole.

http://www.realms.org.uk/adversity/

Basically, feedback wanted 'cos it's still very much at the ideas stage.

Matt

Influences. I'd call it Over the 7th Pool. :wink:

Kinda neat so far. Some problems (would I be me if I didn't point them out?):

When do flaws come into play? GM decides? No mention in rules. This is the standard flaw mechanic, which means that players will tend to avoid situations in which their character's flaws come into play. No fun. Make the player invoke them and give some other reward for doing so. Perhaps you can take back an adversity die from the GM or something.

More dice in pool means more potential adversity. This is counterintuitive, though not necessarily a bad thing. Hmmm...

You say that the GM can force an Adversity on a player which may cause a Failure. How do we know if it does? Is this automatic? Or did you mean to imply that ones and sixes cancel on normal rolls? There are problems with both of these options. If Adversity, when first rolled, does not make you fail (which you seem to imply) then I'd always describe it, so as not to allow the GM to have them to cause failures later. If they cancel sixes, essentially, then the players chance of failure due to adversity increases at the same rate as their chances to succeed increase.

What you need is for the adversities to be less likely with more dice, and for them to cancel. That would be a really good mechanic. How about the number of adversities rolled equals the lowest number rolled minus one. So if I roll a 1,2,3,4,5,6 on six dice I would have no adversity (1-1) and a success due to the six. Base dice for this system should be two so that a single six does not mean 5 adversities (two sixes on base dice would though).

If you like this I'll work up the odds for you.

Mike

Cool concept. I definitely like any system that includes the idea of the plot twist/adversity/sudden comeback that really defines the "tables turning" excitement you get from movies.
Also, as above, I'm not sure how additional adversities would stop a success or how much you want very skilled people encountering a lot of adversity. Also be aware that someone who has two really strong descriptions(I'm a swordsman who has a talent for specializing in shortswords) is still only rolling two dice and their odds of a single success wouldn't be that good.
Still, I'm looking forward to seeing where you're going to take this.

Bankuei

When do flaws come into play? GM decides? No mention in rules. This is the standard flaw mechanic, which means that players will tend to avoid situations in which their character's flaws come into play. No fun. Make the player invoke them and give some other reward for doing so. Perhaps you can take back an adversity die from the GM or something.

More dice in pool means more potential adversity. This is counterintuitive, though not necessarily a bad thing. Hmmm...

Post here when you've updated it. I'd like to see where you go with it.

Mike

Have updated adversity somewhat. Mainly making things clearer, changing the default result in a conflict to success and altering what the GM can do with adversity.

http://www.realms.org.uk/adversity

Matt

It still has some of the same problems. I still don't see players giving away their adversity. If they keep it, they just have to narrate a little more which is fun, anyhow. Why give up the oportunity to narrate something to the GM who can really screw you with it later? Essentially Adversity is not a bad thing if you keep it, but becomes a bad thing if you give it away. So I don't see players doing that. The only reason that I can think of to give it away is if you had a real urge to describe a particular action as being performed perfectly. Personally, I don't think I ever have that urge. Even when I have narrative power and am *not* required to throw something like adversity in, I do anyhow. Adversity increases a charcter's protagonism. Heck, I'd be praying for ones.

How about this? If a player rolls a one, the GM gets to describe an Adversity that the character went through. That way, the player would be uncertain as to the nature of the adversity, and might want to delay it.

Still, though, I think you'd need more. How about the adversities translate into some sort of a disadvantage dice. Say you roll two ones on a particular roll. You describe one adversity as being forced back in combat and slipping, which causes you a slight sprain. The second you narrate as a slight cut above the eyebrow. Anyhow, these are both recorded as (1)Sprain, and (1)Cut on Brow. Then the GM can use these later as Penalties. Penalties can be applied to any roll that seems appropriate by the GM. For each penalty applied, negate one six rolled. Penalties can be larger. In the example above I could take a (2)Sprain instead of the two ones. This just puts all your eggs in one basket. Penalties last until the character does something to rid himself of them. In the above example healing would do the trick.

For a non-combat example, try a diplomacy roll. This is easy. Penalties accumulated from adversity could be things like "Out of Favor". So, sure you talked that Duke into signing the treaty. But the adversity is that you rolled means that you had to talk his ear off to get it signed. So you list your two adversity as (2)Out of Favor with Duke. Fun, fun.

Anyhow, this then also acts as your default combat system. Adversities cause wounds, etc. Wheras on failures the GM can assign any penalty to you, including death if it is appropriate. BTW, partial successes shopuld get you an extra die onthe next roll.

This is fairly lethal as described, players will always be accumulating penalties. To tone this down make the first Adversity rolled automatically just something that is described as before, or possibly only adversities not countered with successes (which might be then lost? hmmm)

Anyhow, such nasty penalties are something that the player may want to delay, and this would give them a reason to give them to the GM. The GM would then use them at the two to one rate to asign any adversity (and attendant penalty) that he likes on a future roll. The ratio would also be an incentive to give them to the GM. If I roll six ones I can give them to the GM and have only three penalties assigned later instead of six of my devising now.

Anyway, this is just one idea; there are probably a jillion other ways to handle these things.


A statistical problem is that failure is not very likely. Take one die. Only a one in six to fail. One in six to succeed, and two thirds chance to get a partial success. And then the curve is odd, going up before coming down. Here are the odds below.

Dice-Success-Partial-Fail
1----16.67%--66.67%--16.67%
2----30.56%--44.44%--25.00%
3----42.13%--29.63%--28.24%
4----51.77%--19.75%--28.47%
5----59.81%--13.17%--27.02%
6----66.51%--8.78%---24.71%
7----72.09%--5.85%---22.06%
8----76.74%--3.90%---19.35%
9----80.62%--2.60%---16.78%
10---83.85%--1.73%---14.42%

Success - rolled at least one 6.
Partial - rolled no sixes or ones.
Fail - rolled no sixes and at least one 1.

I'd suggest making Partials failures.

This is a bit off still. The max dice rolled would be ten. This means that all of your identifiers are active for a particular task, and the GM gave you three dice for eloquence. Even on such a rare occasion, you only have an 84% chance of success. A more average roll of 5 dice only gets you a 60% chance. More dice, I think, more dice.

You could either come up with more kinds of descriptors, or, maybe better, have the player privilege certain ones at the beginning. So maybe the player can assign 3 dice to one of his descriptors, or something. Perhaps focus is important enough that it is always worth two.

Here's another idea for more dice. Change the Flaw rule. Flaws count as permenant penalties institutable at any time the GM sees fit, or at any time the player wishes to describe how his flaw gets in the way. Anyhow, when including a flaw, the player gets one or two hero dice that can be added to any other roll.

The problem with the flaw rule as it is is that two thirds of the time the flaw will have no effect one way or the other. And a positive effect is counterintuitive. Any failure or adversity that is involved in a roll with a flaw should probably be affected at least a bit by that flaw. Just for flavor.

Any of that make sense?

Mike

On 2001-11-05 10:54, Mike Holmes wrote quite a lot:
It still has some of the same problems. I still don't see players giving away their adversity. If they keep it, they just have to narrate a little more which is fun, anyhow. Why give up the oportunity to narrate something to the GM who can really screw you with it later? Essentially Adversity is not a bad thing if you keep it, but becomes a bad thing if you give it away. So I don't see players doing that.

The second you narrate as a slight cut above the eyebrow. Anyhow, these are both recorded as (1)Sprain, and (1)Cut on Brow. Then the GM can use these later as Penalties. Penalties can be applied to any roll that seems appropriate by the GM. For each penalty applied, negate one six rolled. Penalties can be larger. In the example above I could take a (2)Sprain instead of the two ones. This just puts all your eggs in one basket. Penalties last until the character does something to rid himself of them. In the above example healing would do the trick.

I'd suggest making Partials failures.

Here's another idea for more dice. Change the Flaw rule. Flaws count as permenant penalties institutable at any time the GM sees fit, or at any time the player wishes to describe how his flaw gets in the way. Anyhow, when including a flaw, the player gets one or two hero dice that can be added to any other roll.

Okay, had a bit of a think and decided I really liked the idea of those sprains and things carrying over. A suitable name is required, hmm, scars maybe, or maybe flaws and making the existing flaws like that?

My current thinking is along the lines of: You note down type of situation it affects(social, physical, emotional), descriptor (cut/out of favour/etc) and value. These count as automatic adversity in future rolls of that type, until sorted by story events. You get one point of them if you roll more adversity than successes. So you have a reason to give away adversity down to equal to successes, or face a long running bout of adversity.

This gives players motivations for things "I must get rid of that out of favour", which is cool and can drive the story forward.

After looking at probabilities, you're right, no results should be failure, since you only need 1 success to succeed.


Matt