Binary Success vs Multiple Levels of Success

[Micah Sweet]

I'm a big fan of the dice pool mechanic in The One Ring.

For the uninitiated:

• You roll a d12, which is numbered 1-10 plus "Gandalf" and "Sauron" runes
• You also roll as many d6s (0-6) as your skill level.
• You total the dice to compare to the target number, although a Gandalf is auto-success
• Each 6 rolled on the d6's counts as an extra success, which means different things depending on the context (extra damage in combat, allows a companion to succeed on a group roll, etc.)

I like that system too, but I can see it having the same "writer's room" problem as FFG Star Wars. You really have to be in the right head space for it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The game I'm working on to someday run for my son, has GM opposed rolls that generates [yes, and/yes/yes, but/no, but/no/no, and] results.

Solodark's Oracle system is like that. 1 = critical failure, 2-9 fail, 11-19 success, 12 critical success, 10 is "twist", where something unusual happens.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not quite. Genesys uses six different dice types, three "good" and three "bad". The good dice have various combinations of successes and advantages (with one of them having a Triumph, which is basically a supersuccess), and the bad dice have various combinations of failures and threats (with one having a Despair, which is a superfailure). Successes and failures cancel each other out, and if you have one or more leftover successes you have succeeded at the actual task. Advantages and threats also cancel each other out, with leftover advantages creating good side effects and leftover threats bad.

Triumphs and Despairs are both successes/failures in their own right, but also create particularly strong good/bad side effects. The success/failure bit can be cancelled by other symbols, but not the side effect (so if you roll Triumph, Success, 3 Failures, and a Threat, you will fail because the successes were cancelled by failures, you'll have a small bad side effect from the uncancelled Threat, but a major good side effect from the Triumph even if it was cancelled).

Yup. I've listened to tons of advice on how this system works, but coming up with something that fits the roll every time can still get tiresome.

 

[Laurefindel]

I like that system too, but I can see it having the same "writer's room" problem as FFG Star Wars. You really have to be in the right head space for it.

Having run both systems, I can say that they don’t quite occupy the same writer’s room space, and players can often “purchase” benefits from a predetermined list when achieving additional levels of success (in the second edition especially), removing some of that burden from the GM. Sometimes it’s just “doing it with style” or in a memorable way.

At any case compared to FFG, it’s writer’s room lite.

 

[zakael19]

I like that system too, but I can see it having the same "writer's room" problem as FFG Star Wars. You really have to be in the right head space for it.

What about outcomes like this makes things a "writers room problem" from your perspective?

 

[Reynard]

What about outcomes like this makes things a "writers room problem" from your perspective?

Not @Micah Sweet but since I brought up "writers room":

In my experience, games that not only invite players to come up with interesting results, but also ask the whole group to contribute can end up feeling like a "writer's room." When everyone at the table is discussing what the coolest or most fun or most narratively satisfying outcome is, you have left RPG behind for explicit "collaborative storytelling." And that's fine if that's what everyone is interested in, but I'm not. I want emergent storytelling, and that is a somewhat different thing.

 

[zakael19]

Not @Micah Sweet but since I brought up "writers room":

In my experience, games that not only invite players to come up with interesting results, but also ask the whole group to contribute can end up feeling like a "writer's room." When everyone at the table is discussing what the coolest or most fun or most narratively satisfying outcome is, you have left RPG behind for explicit "collaborative storytelling." And that's fine if that's what everyone is interested in, but I'm not. I want emergent storytelling, and that is a somewhat different thing.

Right, ok. I'm not seeing how that shows up in TOR2e's dice though. It's entirely an outcome of the amount of success (or failure with a Sauron if I remember correctly); and it's on the GM to narrate out what it means in that context.

Can you give some examples of games that aren't explicitly narrative token games (eg: Belonging outside Belonging etc) that facilitate this "writers room" experience via their rules?

 

[Reynard]

Right, ok. I'm not seeing how that shows up in TOR2e's dice though. It's entirely an outcome of the amount of success (or failure with a Sauron if I remember correctly); and it's on the GM to narrate out what it means in that context.

Can you give some examples of games that aren't explicitly narrative token games (eg: Belonging outside Belonging etc) that facilitate this "writers room" experience via their rules?

I experienced it with Scum and Villainy quite distinctly.

 

[Micah Sweet]

What about outcomes like this makes things a "writers room problem" from your perspective?

Because you constantly have to come up with specific explanations for every die result, and making them different and interesting all the time is hard. It's not like checks are rare.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Right, ok. I'm not seeing how that shows up in TOR2e's dice though. It's entirely an outcome of the amount of success (or failure with a Sauron if I remember correctly); and it's on the GM to narrate out what it means in that context.

Can you give some examples of games that aren't explicitly narrative token games (eg: Belonging outside Belonging etc) that facilitate this "writers room" experience via their rules?

That narration, for every roll either makes, is exhausting for whoever does it.