Friday Chat: What Mechanics Do You Steal From A Game To Use In Another?

[CleverNickName]

I like to use Savage Worlds' exploding dice for critical hit damage in 5E. It makes small-dice weapons (like daggers) a lot more interesting.

 

[Laurefindel]

And I was just replaying X-Com 2: War of the Chosen. And part of the strategic gameplay is seeing what Advent and the Chosen are planning and getting a choice to push back on one of their plans. So I'm thinking of introducing some kind of system like that into this campaign.

So many good things in this game. The whole thing could be ported as a roleplaying game with (relatively) little effort.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

And I was just replaying X-Com 2: War of the Chosen. And part of the strategic gameplay is seeing what Advent and the Chosen are planning and getting a choice to push back on one of their plans. So I'm thinking of introducing some kind of system like that into this campaign.

Blades in the Dark does things like this.

You set up a Clock with 4, 6, or 8 segments.
Then each time the players do a thing to set-back the enemy's overall plans, add a tick to the clock.

• If the enemy completes their plans before the clock is full, the plans go off as intended by enemy.
• If the clock fills first, then when ( and maybe "if" ) the enemy plans go off, they are at a detriment or on the backfoot or missing valuable assets - making it easier for players to take them on in a direct/grand confrontation.

Can be added into any game system
Can be applied to any scale of challenge
Can even be opposed by enemy with their own Clock if you want to show the pressure and race between sides) (in which case you would advance the enemy clock each time players fail, faff about, etc)

 

[Umbran]

This just gets the job done so well every time!
We find that they pretty much always results it what other systems take more steps and more points pools and such to accomplish. In the end, this does what most any plot wants = keeps the current events going, and adds some extra hooks for more plots. The GM gets to decide what and which.

It looks nice, but for me has one weakness - it looks like it reduces to a single roll.

Like, we'll spend an hour with everyone rolling dice all over the place for a combat, but a social encounter gets one roll? For players who want to slide quickly through social interactions, to get to, say, more tactical combat in their sessions, that makes sense.

But for players who want to have more depth and thought in their social encounters, that's weak. For these latter players, multiple rolls, with multiple dynamic facets to consider, and opportunities to think about the social/rhetorical tactics and approaches they can use, and at least a framework, rather than just an arbitrary GM's "I like/hate that argument" to play with are a benefit.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

It looks nice, but for me has one weakness - it looks like it reduces to a single roll.

Like, we'll spend an hour with everyone rolling dice all over the place for a combat, but a social encounter gets one roll? For players who want to slide quickly through social interactions, to get to, say, more tactical combat in their sessions, that makes sense.

But for players who want to have more depth and thought in their social encounters, that's weak. For these latter players, multiple rolls, with multiple dynamic facets to consider, and opportunities to think about the social/rhetorical tactics and approaches they can use, and at least a framework, rather than just an arbitrary GM's "I like/hate that argument" to play with are a benefit.

We thought this same thing too!

But here is why we went with this rule and it was better = It results in the same.

• Roll 5 times, and eventually they do it
• roll 6 times, and they did it but you had to offer concessions, or do favors etc.
• Roll 7 times, and it fails and they are not going to do it.

So what really happens is that social drama for the most part is fairly broad and the task is more vague than 'you are bleeding' from a sword cut. So without adding lots of rules that dont port to much of any system = the one i posted above ports to all systems and has the same results as all the ones that use many rules and points.

Now, to make it tactical, you simply let the players make "set up rolls". So if you need it to feel like the players can have multiple moves, attacks, angles, positions, and the enemy can have multiple issues to overcome or defenses = do that first! Roll to overcome allies, roll to establish talking points, roll to learn of the NPC motivations.

Dont make social 'attacks' , dont make social like combat. Make it like social! The salesman does a LOT of rapport and questions before every trying to "close the deal". So roleplay first, talk first, learn first, then make my roll above to see how it all turned out (with bonuses or minuses to the roll as appropriate)

 

[Umbran]

We thought this same thing too!

But here is why we went with this rule and it was better = It results in the same.

That's not a good reason. I say that's a crummy reason - it puts the focus of play only on the end state, and not on the process of play. The point is not to eliminate as much of the process as possible - the point is to make the process interesting, engaging, and fun.

It isn't like combat is any different, really. When you get down to it, for combat: if you succeed, all the enemy are dead (or otherwise defeated and out of the picture). If you don't fully succeed, you may get what you wanted out of the fight, with a varying levels of costs to the party. If you don't wanna pay the price you retreat before paying it.

But, we don't do that, not because the results are substantially different, but because going through the details can be fun and engaging.

... the one i posted above ports to all systems and has the same results as all the ones that use many rules and points.

That it ports to many system is nice for this thread, but it isn't actually a reason to use it in any particular game.

Dont make social 'attacks' , dont make social like combat. Make it like social! The salesman does a LOT of rapport and questions before every trying to "close the deal". So roleplay first, talk first, learn first, then make my roll above to see how it all turned out (with bonuses or minuses to the roll as appropriate)

This seems a strawman, to me, as I didn't suggest making social like combat. The Draw Steel system I mentioned upthread isn't like Draw Steel combat. It is different than combat, but still has tactics involved based on the situation and people engaged. Like, you know, any game subsystem really ought to.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Combat can be reduced to a single roll if you want it to be. Burning Wheel (or Empires, I don't remember which) has the "Quick And Dirty" option for combat, which does just that, even having options for characters ending up wounded despite succeeding at the roll.

 

[Heilemann]

Let me see if I can articulate it. Leaving out the specifics of Draw Steel's dice mechanics, since I'd be porting it to some other system anyway...

For any negotiation, an NPC has two stats, Interest and Patience, rated 0 to 5, representing how much they want to help, and and how much they want to keep negotiating, respectively. The players can present an argument, and roll - on a good result, Interest and/or Patience may increase. On a failed roll, one, the other, or both may go down. If either drops to zero, the negotiation ends, and the PCs don't get what they want.

The PCs can stop negotiating at any time - they get the result based off the NPCs interest at the point they stop. If they drive the Interest up to 5 and stop there, they get the best possible deal. If they stop when Interest is only 1, they get what they want, but in limited form, with great limitations or costs.

There's a list of possible Motivations for the NPC (the playtest came with 12: Benevolence, Discovery, Freedom, Greed, higher Authority, Justice, Legacy, Peace, Power, Protection, Revelry, and Vengeance. One can imagine others.) An NPC has at least two Motivations - if you make an argument that touches on that motivation, you get an improved outcome for that roll. The NPC also has at least one Pitfall - if you make an argument that is based on a Pitfall, you automatically fail that roll, and Interest and Patience automatically drop one each.

So, if you are negotiating with a Hag, they may have Motivations of Greed, Power, and Freedom. They may have Pitfalls of Benevolence and Higher Authority. Knowing about the NPC (either by doing legwork and asking around, or observing them in person), you may learn the Motivations or Pitfalls.

Edit to add: This is actually very similar to the Social Conflict rules of Savage Worlds Adventurer's Edition. In SWADE, you get three rounds of arguments, rather than "until you run out of Patience", and you gather "tokens" for successes rather than measure the target's Interest, but the similarities are there.

Echoes of Burning Wheel social mechanics in there.

 

[Umbran]

Echoes of Burning Wheel social mechanics in there.

It seems a pretty sensible general form, such that I don't doubt that it has been passed around a bit, or been developed independently a couple/few times.

 

[Tonguez]

In 5e:
Ideals/Bonds/Flaws in the form of Fate Character Aspects compelled for Inspiration
Fate Scene/Campaign Aspects compelled for Advantage
Dungeon World Fronts
Give Scenes and Plots Fate Stress Boxes (which is the same thing as a clock)

Aspects are also a great tool for Social Encounters - the gameplay becomes discovering and invoking Ideals and Bonds to create an advantage that allows a shift in the Social stress box