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

[howandwhy99]

Technically I think you're still using the old method. Dice symbols do not need to mean any specific number or a number at all.
So,
1. Roll a die
--the side facing upwards is irrelevant--
2. Declare what the die roll means.

I understand this is the hot newness, but I don't foresee Vegas picking it up any time soon.

 

[Umbran]

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."

Tell you what the effects are, only in the broadest of senses. But yes. Again, I'll note that you *can* choose your action, roll the dice, and resolve as normal anyway, if that's what you like. The system allows for another path, but your standard can still be used.

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.

I can see the point. Thing is, I can also see the point that, as far as my character is concerned, actions are not resolved by the rolling of giant cosmic dice, either. Until Dream Park becomes a reality, there'll always be some disjoin between mechanics and character action. It is only a question of where that disjoin becomes problematic for a particular person.

 

[Agamon]

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?

In EotE, you don't declare after rolling. You declare the action before rolling, modifiers add different dice to the roll, and after you roll the consequences of the action are resolved. It really isn't fundamentally different from what is normally done, it's just that the dice do more than tell you success or failure and inspire more narrative in the game.

 

[GSHamster]

You could reword it:

"Make an attack. If you miss, you may take one action which does not require an attack roll."

Or divide actions into:

Attack Action
Normal Action
Move Action

You get 1 Move Action and 1 Attack Action per turn. Normal Actions may be used instead of Attack Actions, but if you make an Attack Action and miss, you can take a Normal Action.

That would have much the same effect, except it doesn't directly change the cause and effect of the die roll.

I think it might make battles more mobile and tactical, since you'll often burn the Normal action to put yourself in a better defensive position. It also means that successful attacks will leave you (comparatively) open to the enemy's retaliation.

That might have an interesting effect on the flow of combat. It might encourage more low-percentage special attacks or tactics, since the downside of failing is mitigated.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Thing is, I can also see the point that, as far as my character is concerned, actions are not resolved by the rolling of giant cosmic dice, either.

Set the snark aside for a sec, and I think this might become clearer.

From the perspective of my character, I don't decide if I'm going to try and shoot a guy after I decide if the the guy takes damage. I decide that I'm going to try and shoot a guy, and then see if that guy takes damage. As a player, I get to decide that my character makes that action, and the rules adjudicate the outcome. This is a different relationship than as a player, determining the outcome, and then fiittng my character's actions into that outcome.

 

[Umbran]

Set the snark aside for a sec, and I think this might become clearer.

There was no snark ever intended. I was trying for a touch of comedy, but had no snide intent.

From the perspective of my character, I don't decide if I'm going to try and shoot a guy after I decide if the the guy takes damage.

Quite true. All I'm saying is that there's lots of stuff that isn't done from the perspective of the character, even in the traditional model. There's a whole spectrum of disjoin in games, and what the OP is talking about is just a step further out than usual. Which is not to say that you have to like it, but it isn't fundamentally different in that sense.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Quite true. All I'm saying is that there's lots of stuff that isn't done from the perspective of the character, even in the traditional model. There's a whole spectrum of disjoin in games, and what the OP is talking about is just a step further out than usual. Which is not to say that you have to like it, but it isn't fundamentally different in that sense.

There are places where that disjoint occurs, but I'd hesitate to call it a "spectrum." There are times in which you are acting in-character as a player, and times in which you are acting as a player only, but there's not really a whole lot of shade in between. In that respect, the two mechanisms are pretty fundamentally different: you're never doing a little bit of both at the same time, your either doing one or the other (even if you do them right after each other). They are mutually exclusive.

Which is why this is kind of a thing even worth musing about. It's not a few more steps down on some slippery slope, it's a different approach to the game, a different mindset requested of the player. One that maybe they're cool with, but also one that maybe they aren't going to want to do because it's a different sort of game like that, one that maybe doesn't meet the goals that this player might have when they sit down to play an RPG. So something to be aware of when one is about to play EotE like this: some players might not get what they're looking for out of it.

 

[Toben the Many]

I've used the reversal of the dice and narration to great effect, speaking only personally.

Interestingly enough, it came about because the system we were using didn't support the kind of play that we wanted out of the game. So, the reversal of operations where it's dice and then narration worked for us very well. Now, I will say that it seemed to work best with very large, broad, or lengthy scenes. Basically, in place of what would be a 4e skill challenge. Here's how it worked for us.

1) The GM stages the scene. He/she basically describes what kind of scene it is. (Organizing troops; interrogating a prisoner; sneaking into a castle, etc.)

2) The players explain their goals, and then make a series of dice rolls. The GM has input. (Sure, you can use that skill. No, you can't use that skill. Okay, you guys can use those two skills in conjunction, etc.) The series of dice rolls is important here.

3) Based on the dice rolls, the players narrate what happens in the scene. The reason multiple dice rolls and skill checks are good for this is because it gives the player a framework for what happened. (You succeeded in this, but not in that. This was great, but then this tragedy happened.)

4) In the end, the GM looks at the players' narrative and generally decides the result of the scene. (Are the troops organized? Does the prisoner talk and how much do they say? Do they even survive the interrogation? Does the party sneak into the castle? Do they get stuck and cannot get out? Do they raise the alarm? Perhaps they raise suspicion but not alarm, etc.)

The reason this worked well for us is because this sort of roleplaying was one that celebrated failure. We were playing a game in which the PCs were military commanders of a huge body of soldiers. In a traditional RPG, PC usually end up succeeding in whatever they are trying to do. I say usually, because some RPGs assume the PCs will win more than 50 percent of the time. If PCs don't succeed, usually one of two things happens - the narrative stalls or the PCs simply die. Well, in a game where your choices affect thousands of people, that sort of dichotomy didn't work very well. Mainly because when you are working with that many people there is rarely complete success or complete failure.

The system we used above made failures really cool. Instead of the failures stalling the narrative, they functioned as continuations of the narrative. The game took new and unexpected twists all of the time.

 

[1of3]

There are places where that disjoint occurs, but I'd hesitate to call it a "spectrum." There are times in which you are acting in-character as a player, and times in which you are acting as a player only, but there's not really a whole lot of shade in between.

There are few more possiblities. Imagine your action as a player and what happens in the fiction.

A) You can act as a player and the same action happens in the fiction. Like you speak louder to have your character to speak louder.

B) You can act as a player, and something that is dependent on your action happens in the fiction. Like, whenever you mark a Barbarian Daily Rage on your character sheet, your Barbarian will get very very angry. And whenever you make an attack roll, your character attacks.

C) You can act as player and adjucate an effect in the fiction. This is pretty much what is proposed in the OP. You perform an action as player, then you interprete it.

D) You can also act as a player, with no effect on the fiction, even though the action is relevant to game.


A is certainly "in character". B less so. C and D are "out of character".

 

[Neonchameleon]

Set the snark aside for a sec, and I think this might become clearer.

From the perspective of my character, I don't decide if I'm going to try and shoot a guy after I decide if the the guy takes damage. I decide that I'm going to try and shoot a guy, and then see if that guy takes damage. As a player, I get to decide that my character makes that action, and the rules adjudicate the outcome. This is a different relationship than as a player, determining the outcome, and then fiittng my character's actions into that outcome.

And in Star Wars: Edge of Empire you do that. You decide you're going to shoot - aimed, full auto, whatever. You roll. And then you work out how many shots hit, whether you got a critical hit, and whatever, after you roll the dice.

If you haven't decided what you are rolling for you have nothing to roll. But in some systems you can decide whether to raise or fold after seeing the card you've elected to draw as long as it didn't send you bust.