Reversing the order of narrative and dice (and musings on Star Wars: Edge of the Empire)

RangerWickett · May 15, 2014

Normally you go, "I attack the orc," *roll*, "I hit and deal 8 damage, slicing my sword across the dirt-caked chest of the savage."

What if we just swapped that. Instead of declaring your action then seeing how well you do, you roll first, then decide your action.

So you'd go *roll*, hmm, I got a mediocre roll, so I won't bother attacking. Instead I'll spend the round withdrawing to a better position.

I haven't played Star Wars: Edge of the Empire, but I recall hearing that you have some funky dice that you roll on your turn during combat. You might get 'damage, damage, advantage, critical mishap,' and then you have to narrate what that means. Maybe you shoot two storm troopers and manage to impose a penalty on another trooper's counter-attack because he's intimidated, but then your weapon jams.

Anyone tried that game and care to share some stories? Or have any thoughts on reversing declaration-roll to roll-declaration?

I'm A Banana · May 15, 2014

I'm not generally a fan.

The main issue is one of agency, for me. As a player, I want my choices to count more than the die rolls. As a DM, I want my players to be making active choices and their characters to be DOING things, not engaging the world primarily through die rolling.

This reverses that calculation. Now, I have to make my actions fit the predetermined script, and I can't make active choices about what my character does in the moment. I've gotta wait for the game to give me permission.

It's a valid way of doing things, and not everyone has those issues with it, but for me, an RPG is a game of imagination, aided by dice, not a game of dice given form by imagination. The former opens the world of possibilities to "whatever you can imagine, do it, and the dice will say what happens." The latter says, "The dice describe what you did. Now tell a story about that."

It's actually at the core of some of my complaints about 4e, that the order goes backwards, that the mechanics dictate the story that can be told, which must remain within their bounds.

It's also something that plenty of indie games tend to be enamored of, much to my mild displeasure.

GMMichael · May 16, 2014

RangerWickett said:
What if we just swapped that. Instead of declaring your action then seeing how well you do, you roll first, then decide your action.

Good question. This sequence gives players a demigod-like power over proximate outcomes.

A player bent on winning will choose less significant actions for his poor rolls, and more useful ones for his high rolls.

A player looking to roleplay will make choices more interesting to the storyline, but probably won't go ignoring the basic will to survive.

I suspect you'd get a more Hollywood-like appearance to the events in the game (spectacular successes leading to outcomes favoring the heroes), but it would be mixed with a fair dose of strange, seemingly inconsequential behavior.

My RPG gives players the chance to always take a mediocre outcome and avoid dice-rolling, which means that when they have enough power, they can do things that are easy for them without rolling, but it's still a good idea to roll for things that might be relatively challenging.

While this doesn't let PCs assign good rolls (or poor rolls) where they'd like, it does give them the option of assigning a mid-range roll.

Jan van Leyden · May 16, 2014

RangerWickett said:
What if we just swapped that. Instead of declaring your action then seeing how well you do, you roll first, then decide your action.

So you'd go *roll*, hmm, I got a mediocre roll, so I won't bother attacking. Instead I'll spend the round withdrawing to a better position.

As long as one works with linear dice, wouldn't such a system just lead to good rolls being declared as attacks and bad rolls as removing oneself from enemies' attacks? You might have an area of uncertainty in the middle ("is 13 enough to hit?") where a player might try to hit, but once he knows that 13 isn't enough, he won't delcre a 12 orr 11 in the following rounds as attacks.

The SW:EotE system uses more than one dimension in resolution. While one set of symbols (success-fail) decides whether you character's action is successsful, you have other dimensions (complication-boon; sorry terms unclear in memory) as well, which allow for narrative freedom. You might not hit with your shot (not enough successes), but gain a boon, forcing the target to dive for cover and not being able to attack himself. Or you might hit but experience a complication, like hitting the enemy and your blaster's battery running low.

SW:EotE essentially splity the declaration part: declare action - *roll* - interpret other factors according to roll and situation.

Jhaelen · May 16, 2014

Sounds terrible. It's basically turning a popular way of cheating into the default. I sincerely doubt it would improve the 'storytelling' aspect of the game, either.

Neonchameleon · May 16, 2014

I know where you're going here and it's design space people are looking into a lot. Fortune in the Middle mechanics - declare what you are doing, take the action, then work out the outcome. Two obvious games that do interesting things with this design approach are Fate Core (where you can manipulate dice rolls after making them by spending Fate Points) and Apocalypse World (and co.) where you declare what you are doing, you roll, and then you have some control over the outcome.

LostSoul · May 16, 2014

That's not fortune in the middle. There's nothing to decide after the roll has been made. Sure, there are descriptions to figure out, but if those descriptions have no standing in the game then there's nothing that comes after the fortune. It's conch-passing. (If the description of the effect can modify future rolls then I think you're okay.)

What's more, if the descriptions have no in-game effect, then you will get people declaring actions without considering the in-game situation.

What I think you want to do is come up with a success table that determines what you can say, and a modifier table that determines how much of a bonus you get from certain situations. Obviously the two are meant to line up with each other. You could get detailed: "-4 to lock attacks; if locked, the target has a -8 to resist disarms" or you could rely on the DM.

Neonchameleon · May 16, 2014

LostSoul said:
That's not fortune in the middle. There's nothing to decide after the roll has been made.

Roll then declare isn't Fortune in the Middle - but it's normally where it's leading. Giving you an in rules chance to change what you declare after you roll.

Umbran · May 16, 2014

Kamikaze Midget said:
It's actually at the core of some of my complaints about 4e, that the order goes backwards, that the mechanics dictate the story that can be told, which must remain within their bounds.

But that's true of pretty much all games. The mechanics in general define what is possible in the game and game world for PCs. That goes far in dictating what story can be told.

Neonchameleon · May 16, 2014

Kamikaze Midget said:
It's actually at the core of some of my complaints about 4e, that the order goes backwards, that the mechanics dictate the story that can be told, which must remain within their bounds.

It's also something that plenty of indie games tend to be enamored of, much to my mild displeasure.

Out of curiosity, why do you find this a worse problem in 4e than in other vesions of D&D?