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

[billd91]

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 can't say I'm too keen on the idea of picking the entirety of your action after seeing your level of success. That sounds a bit too subject to consequence-avoiding abuse to be a very interesting game to me.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

It's a different relationship to the mechanics, though. I generally prefer the relationship to be mechanics as tools to help me tell the story I tell via declaring my actions, rather than mechanics as defining what the results are regardless of what actions I choose to narrate.

Which is to say, I'd prefer to make the choice to do a thing and then have the mechanics describe its effects (like, "I shoot at the stormtrooper! what happens?" *roll*), rather than having the mechanics tell me what happened in the round and leave me to fluff as necessary (*roll* "the stormtrooper took 3 hits, what hapepened there?" "I shot it!").

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

Ultimately, the level to which it occurred in other versions was irrelevant or ignorable in function, even if not in intent. I never had to worry about it. Elements of 4e (such as the way some statuses or class features just Always Work) make it something I can't as easily play without thinking about.

Which might be relevant for musings on EotE, too. As a core component, it's problematic for some people, but there's probably places you could get away with it without causing too much disruption for them. The benefits of nonbinary design.

 

[Umbran]

It's a different relationship to the mechanics, though. I generally prefer the relationship to be mechanics as tools to help me tell the story I tell via declaring my actions, rather than mechanics as defining what the results are regardless of what actions I choose to narrate.

But, the mechanics aren't telling you *what* the results are, in a narrative sense. They're telling you *how good* the results are, giving only very vague, high-level qualities. Exactly what they are then depends on what actions you choose. Two players, with the same character and same die rolls can have events come out completely differently - one character decides to use the "super stupendous success" to run a sword through the villain's heart, and another uses it to make the villain slip on a banana. In one case the villain's quite dead, in the other he's quite embarrassed - the results are therefore not really determined by the mechanics without regard to your narration, are they?

It occurs to me that you could, as a player, in your head choose what your action will be, roll the dice, announce what you had in your head and then abide by that decision, just as you would in the traditional form. How is it, then, that the mechanics are doing any more of the determining than usual, when it can be played as usual?

Several folks have suggested that there's a flaw here, in that the system is vulnerable to being "gamed", by sticking all the failures into inconsequential things, and all the successes into major things that are good for the character. I'm not sure if that's a bug, or a feature - it may be exactly the dynamic the designers are aiming for.

And that's fine. So long as the bad guys have a similar ability to shift results, the whole thing comes out in the wash.

 

[I'm A Banana]

But, the mechanics aren't telling you *what* the results are, in a narrative sense. They're telling you *how good* the results are, giving only very vague, high-level qualities.

The results are that stormtrooper took three hits. That happens narratively. The ongoing story now involves that stormtrooper having taken those hits. The game leaves it up to you to determine how those hits happened, but in no case can you describe a situation where those hits didn't happen -- you are obligated to tell a story that conforms with how the mechanics have already determined the event played out.

That can be a fun game, but it's not typically the kind of game I'm looking for from my RPGs, because I don't like how that disconnects my choices as a player from my character's choices. Part of the fun I get of RPGs is that they scratch my acting itch, that it's fun to inhabit these roles, and this kind of mechanic weakens that fun.

Exactly what they are then depends on what actions you choose. Two players, with the same character and same die rolls can have events come out completely differently - one character decides to use the "super stupendous success" to run a sword through the villain's heart, and another uses it to make the villain slip on a banana. In one case the villain's quite dead, in the other he's quite embarrassed - the results are therefore not really determined by the mechanics without regard to your narration, are they?

Ah, but what happens doesn't depend on the actions you choose. It depends on the result the rules determined. That's part of what I mean about agency, about the "driver" of the narrative: I prefer my in-character player choices to determine what the mechanics need to resolve, rather than having to have them fit the mechanical result determined independent of my in-character player choices.

It occurs to me that you could, as a player, in your head choose what your action will be, roll the dice, announce what you had in your head and then abide by that decision, just as you would in the traditional form. How is it, then, that the mechanics are doing any more of the determining than usual, when it can be played as usual?

Well, RW's description and the OP centered on the "reversing" of that order, so mostly I was discussing the thread topic and the way the game is apparently designed to be played, rather than thinking about all the infinite possible things one might hypothetically do with these apparent design intents (such as ignore them). If the presumption of the game is that one rolls and then narrates the outcome of those rolls, that's the mechanics driving the action, regardless of the fact that one could hypothetically not do that maybe.

Several folks have suggested that there's a flaw here, in that the system is vulnerable to being "gamed", by sticking all the failures into inconsequential things, and all the successes into major things that are good for the character. I'm not sure if that's a bug, or a feature - it may be exactly the dynamic the designers are aiming for.

And that's fine. So long as the bad guys have a similar ability to shift results, the whole thing comes out in the wash.

Well, it's cinematic, for sure. It makes the player think about directing the scene from a voyeur standpoint rather than simply controlling their character. Which, you know, not necessarily out of character for a game based on a film. It's just not going to scratch the itch of anyone hoping for a more intimate mindset, though. Less a game of playing a role and more a game of telling a story. Which is a different kind of fun.

 

[Bishop_]

For a example of this on d20-tree game, take a look in the flexible attacks from 13th Age. They are what you are speaking, built in the d20-chassis. I had a grudge against them on a first moment ("Hey, how this is saying what I have to do?!?!"), but a few experiences later, I understood the logic behind them. And, man, this in a fighter is beatiful. A true weapon master.

From the 13A SRD (which I can't link because the forum's restrictions about number of posts, but you easily find it in the Pelgrane Press website)

Flexible Attacks
Flexible attacks allow you choose your target first, make your attack roll, and then use the
natural unmodified die result to determine which of your eligible flexible attacks to use. You
still use the modified roll to determine whether or not you hit, but your flexible attacks
trigger off the natural result on the die sitting in front of you.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The results are that stormtrooper took three hits. That happens narratively. The ongoing story now involves that stormtrooper having taken those hits. The game leaves it up to you to determine how those hits happened, but in no case can you describe a situation where those hits didn't happen -- you are obligated to tell a story that conforms with how the mechanics have already determined the event played out.

Here I go for split resolution.

"Sticking my head above the parapet I aim down my blaster at the oncoming stormtroopers, waiting until I can see the blacks of their helmets before firing at the nearest one on semi-auto and" ... *rolls* ... "Nail him with all three blaster bolts." You make the decision before you roll then finish after.

That can be a fun game, but it's not typically the kind of game I'm looking for from my RPGs, because I don't like how that disconnects my choices as a player from my character's choices. Part of the fun I get of RPGs is that they scratch my acting itch, that it's fun to inhabit these roles, and this kind of mechanic weakens that fun.

Here I'm going to make a strong recommendation that if you haven't already done so you check out Apocalypse World. Vincent Baker has a tendency to not stop within the bounds of good taste, but it's far the most immersive RPG I'm aware of - at least in part because the rhythm is based on freeform RP and the resolution includes half pulling out of disasters.

 

[Umbran]

The results are that stormtrooper took three hits.

Well, no. From the OP, we have the results, "damage, damage, advantage, critical mishap". We don't know who or what took damage, do we? The target wasn't chosen before the die roll, was it? If it was, well, then, I don't see how this is different from traditional mechanics.

I would almost say that what's actually happening is that the dice are really giving you resources, and you can doll them out in the ways you want. Some of them, maybe you don't want at all, but you have them anyway.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Well, no. From the OP, we have the results, "damage, damage, advantage, critical mishap". We don't know who or what took damage, do we?

Okay then. Doesn't really change the fundamental situation, though. It's still "dice tell you what the effects are, then you figured out what caused those effects."

I would almost say that what's actually happening is that the dice are really giving you resources, and you can doll them out in the ways you want. Some of them, maybe you don't want at all, but you have them anyway.

Sure, but that's not what is happening as far as my character is concerned. Which is kind of a big part of the problem.

Here I'm going to make a strong recommendation that if you haven't already done so you check out Apocalypse World. Vincent Baker has a tendency to not stop within the bounds of good taste, but it's far the most immersive RPG I'm aware of - at least in part because the rhythm is based on freeform RP and the resolution includes half pulling out of disasters.

Sounds pretty distinct from Dungeon World...

 

[Cor Azer]

Have you checked out John Wick's Houses of the Blooded? The general idea there is that you're not rolling to see if you succeed, but rather you're rolling to see who gets to decide if you succeed, and each involved player can add wagers to the risks to add to how it plays out (so even if you 'win' the dice roll, you may decide that your action failed, but use your wagers to make it happen in a very Batman Gamblesque fashion)

 

[Neonchameleon]

Sounds pretty distinct from Dungeon World...

I've frequently described Dungeon World as Cargo Cult Design, an assessment I stand by. It manages through a series of very minor changes to take most of the in play elegance out of Apocalypse World and fit a powerful and very smooth engine into a framework it was never meant for. It works for a lot of people because the basic D&D engine has been rebuilt but is a 40 year old design, but you can feel the gears grind everywhere when you play DW.

I could go in detail through why - but it's literally dozens of subtleties, all of which add up to something that really gets in the way because where the DW designers either didn't understand a lot of the design of AW or if they did they chose to go with the way D&D did it, putting in all the clunk in that engine as a feature.