[Opinion] I Don't Like Fortune-In-The-Middle

[Sword of Spirit]

I see where you're coming from. I like to make a bit of a distinction between magical and non-magical healing, so I'd probably not enforce any penalties for magical healing.

I assume that if they are losing hit points and all they have to do is take a breather, then they probably will.

Since I don't really like having to house rule unless I have to, it takes a bit more work in interpretation. I'd probably just end up saying that the non-magical healing will last and they won't take any actual penalty, although in role-playing terms the characters would be in increasing discomfort until they treated their wounds.

Hmmm...on second thought, applying the old "DM's Friend" of a +2/-2 modifier could simulate that in some aspects. Not so much in combat, but if the non-magically healed character is doing something really strenuous, or that requires a lot of concentrate, I'd consider giving them a -2 penalty for the pain and discomfort until they treat their wounds and bandage up. That technically isn't adding or changing any rules, because it's a modifier the DM has express authority and encouragement to use by RAW.

 

[pemerton]

Often, in D&D, you'll describe your actions like this:
A: I attack! *roll dice* I hit! *roll dice* I do X damage!

Fortune-In-The-Middle (as far as I can decipher) means you instead describe your actions like this:
B: *roll dice* I attacked, hit, and did X damage.

Your B looks to me like "fortune at the beginning". What do you think it is in the middle of?

Haven't hit points always been this way?

Yes. You can't narrate until after the dice are rolled and the mechanical consequence determined. (As per your decapition example upthread.)

What 4E did was make FitM as an encounter. In the past, each action was a set piece so reverse engineering was not needed. 4E intertwined every action so retcon is often needed..

Agreed - 4e extends FitM out of the round and accross multiple rounds (at least in some cases eg its dying rules). You don't have to retcon, though, provided you take care with your narration. 4e has nothing useful to say about this in its rulebooks, but the original HeroWars rulebook does (like 4e, HeroWars/Quest resolution means you can't always get definitive narration until the encounter is resolved).

Personally I love FitM for combat but I hate it for noncombat. This is because Combat has a definite end coded in it.

<snip>

Noncombat often don't have coded ends or mechanics that determine the combats length.

In my view, one of the biggest weaknesses in 4e's presentation of skill challenges is that it didn't explain how to handle this, even though - in the example of play in the Rules Compendium - it shows the GM using the very techniques that are needed.

The most important technique is liberal metagaming by the GM - introdcing new complications or consequences into the fiction which don't result from what the PCs have just done (or failed to do), but that either keep the scene alive, or close it off, as required.

A simple example: in a negotiation challenge, if the players get a big Diplomacy success, but it's only half way through the challenge, the NPC says "Your words ring true. Unfortunately, I swore an oath to my late uncle never to get involved. So, alas, I cannot help you." Now the rest of the challenge is working around the NPC's oath.

Or, if the PCs fail a Diplomacy check, thus ending the challenge, but within the fiction it seems like there is more that they could say, the NPC says "I'm sorry, but no matter how persuasive your pleas I cannot budge. Now you must leave." The PCs then have the option to escalate beyond negotiation to force (a combat encounter) or to leave and try to find out why the NPC cannot budge (a new non-combat challenge).

And I'll close with another example of FitM, or something very close to it, from traditional D&D. Consider a reaction roll of an innkeep when the PCs enter the inn.

On one approach, the GM already has worked out a personal history of the innkeeper, including that he hates mages, because 10 years ago the wizard's college forcibly conscripted the innkeeper's youngest son when he began to exhibit signs of "the gift". The PCs' party incudes an obvious wizard (robes, staff) and so the GM applies a penalty to the recation roll. No fortune in the midle here.

But here's another way the same scene could go. The PCs walk into the inn. The GM has no notes on the inn or its keeper, and so rolls an unmodified reaction roll. The dice come up low - the innkeeer is unfriendly, even hostile! Why?, wonders the GM. And then invents a backstory to explain the innkeepers unfriendly reaction: ever since the wizard's college forcibly conscripted the innkeeper's youngest son - when he began to exhibit signs of "the gift" - the innkeeper has hated wizards and those who associate with them.

GMs have been running encounters in this second sort of way from the beginning of RPGing, I think - using the action resolution mechanics to set parameters for the fiction, and then filling in gaps in the fiction to build up the story within those parameters. That's what FitM is for.

 

[Libramarian]

It seems to me that the difference between FitM of traditional hit and damage and the FitM of knocking oozes prone is that in the former you're just "filling in" an abstraction with more detailed fiction, while in the latter you're (at least it feels like) retconning detailed fiction with different detailed fiction.

So I don't have some sort of philosophical objection to FitM I wouldn't say. I don't mind abstract mechanics. I don't like retconning the fiction. That's when FitM feels obnoxious.

 

[Mark CMG]

So I don't have some sort of philosophical objection to FitM I wouldn't say. I don't mind abstract mechanics. I don't like retconning the fiction. That's when FitM feels obnoxious.

You could just describe each as a very short waking-dream sequence. Everyone loves a good dream sequence.

 

[Ratskinner]

On one approach, the GM already has worked out a personal history of the innkeeper, including that he hates mages, because 10 years ago the wizard's college forcibly conscripted the innkeeper's youngest son when he began to exhibit signs of "the gift". The PCs' party incudes an obvious wizard (robes, staff) and so the GM applies a penalty to the recation roll. No fortune in the midle here.

But here's another way the same scene could go. The PCs walk into the inn. The GM has no notes on the inn or its keeper, and so rolls an unmodified reaction roll. The dice come up low - the innkeeer is unfriendly, even hostile! Why?, wonders the GM. And then invents a backstory to explain the innkeepers unfriendly reaction: ever since the wizard's college forcibly conscripted the innkeeper's youngest son - when he began to exhibit signs of "the gift" - the innkeeper has hated wizards and those who associate with them.

GMs have been running encounters in this second sort of way from the beginning of RPGing, I think - using the action resolution mechanics to set parameters for the fiction, and then filling in gaps in the fiction to build up the story within those parameters. That's what FitM is for.

I have often mused about an rpg where the dice don't determine success or failure, but instead determine "how well did that work for you?"

 

[Balesir]

1: I Am Not A Quantum Mathematician
[sblock]
I, like most folks in the West, think of time as a linear series of events that cause and precipitate each other. Because of X, Y happens. Because I put my hand on that burner, I got burned. If I did not do that, I would not have the burn.

When I sit down to play a bit of heroic fantasy, I still think of time as linear, and I want to play the game that way, as a series of causes and effects. Because my character swung a sword at that goblin, that goblin might get hit by my character's sword. If my character did not do that, the goblin wouldn't have that risk.

FitM makes me do that backwards, and I hate it. FitM tells me the goblin got hit for X damage, and leaves it up to me to figure out how or why. FitM tells me I have this burn on my hand, but doesn't tell me how it got there. It says "The ooze is prone!" without telling me how or why my "Leg Sweep" ability did that to it. DMs can always justify it, but it always feels like a hollow justification. During the combat, the goblin is both alive and dead and only when we open the box and see the result do we know what happened to it.
[/sblock]

2: I Am Not Credulous
[sblock]
Anyone who has DM'd can tell you one simple truth: No plan ever stands up to player interference. You will always throw away things you've worked hard to prepare. You WILL be made to go off-script, and when you do, you BETTER have some ability to roll with that stuff.

This means that the game is always at least a little bit improvisational. Even the most prepared DM probably does his NPC dialogue off-the-cuff. No one knows how the dice are going to roll. "Guaranteed success" in D&D usually isn't, because the d20 can always come up a 1.

FitM obliterates this assertion. You can't successfully apply the rules of improv to FitM.

The rules of improv are all about establishing a spontaneous believable imaginary world together. As such, they do things like advise you to "Go Line For Line," which means to listen to what the other person is saying, then give a response. This is the core behavior of improv: you listen, then respond. Your response has many more guidelines (like Say Yes, Say Yes And, Don't Ask Questions, Be Specific, etc.) that improve the believability of the imaginary world and help your allies to reinforce it by acting as if it is real.

That's verisimilitude for you.

You can't do that well in FitM, because each "line" isn't established. Instead, FitM tells you how you end the scene, and that it doesn't matter how you get there, as long as you get to that end. You don't gradually establish your imaginary world, you dictate the result and then blatantly manipulate the artificial context to make it conform to your result.

This shatters my verisimilitude. Brutally.

You see, I'm not inclined to believe that a world of elves and dragons is real. I'm not equipped to take your word for that. I need it reinforced, in mechanics, in consequences, in cause-and-effect results, in being able to interact with the thing. FitM dismisses my interaction by dictating the result. Sure, I may be able to affect the result in some way blatantly, but I can't let my actions lead where they will, I can't accept input and build on invention, I can't let myself be surprised by what happens. I know the outcome. I just need to explain it somehow. If I can't take this in a new direction with my actions, I feel like my actions are meaningless. The constant refrain of "It's all just in your head!" is too strong.
[/sblock]

3: I Appreciate the Unknown
[sblock]
In the moment, in a game that moves cause-to-effect, you create a future-focused psychology. You anticipate. You imagine. You dread. You wonder what the consequences of your actions could be, you know the only limits are the DM's imagination, and you are frequently surprised by the effect. You don't know what might spiral out of your individual choice.

When using FitM, you know what the consequences of your actions are...you know this before you even know what your actions are. Your only option for exploring the unknown is in exploring whatever you did to cause those results. Ultimately, it is the same result, so this exploration seems like an exercise in pointless naval-gazing: it doesn't AFFECT anything.

This disempowers my action. It means that whatever I did to trigger the die roll isn't nearly as important as the EFFECT of the die roll. I feel like a slave to the dice rather than in control of my own character. I can only cause things that will have the dictated effect.
[/sblock]

After you pointed me to this thread I thought about a long and detailed counter, but actually I figure the best answer I can give is the game I was playing this last weekend: Fiasco.

It has the most understandable cause and effect and the most intense unpredictability of pretty much any game I have tried. It's also one of the closest to pure improv. And yet it uses just the sort of "know the resolution before the "how" of that resolution is determined" that you are objecting to.

It's also, quite by the bye, a total blast to play!

(This weekend was my first time - but it won't be the last!)

I have often mused about an rpg where the dice don't determine success or failure, but instead determine "how well did that work for you?"

And, funnily enough, Fiasco is definitely a game you should try, as it does almost exactly this (except that it's the dice other players choose to give you, not the roll on a specific die, that decide how things work out for you...)

 

[I'm A Banana]

Fiasco....And yet it uses just the sort of "know the resolution before the "how" of that resolution is determined" that you are objecting to.

There's a few considerations that make it more palatable in Fiasco.

1. It's designed for one-shot play, not extended campaigns. Thus, the fallout from a particular decision point is limited to that night, while the fallout from some decision point in an ongoing D&D campaign might have ramifications weeks or months later.
2. Fiasco's genre is cinematic narrative, in which there are only two outcomes, and each one is ultimate (ie: the story is over after the resolution is reached): the protagonist succeeds or the protagonist fails (hence the two colors of dice), in that night's show. In D&D, with nested narratives and rotating characters and permadeath and changing dynamics over time, the nature of the outcome for your character must be more often positive than not (or else you die forever).
3. While you know the end of the scene when the color of the die is revealed, you can reveal that die at any point in the scene, linking it to the actual events that occur at the table. Thus, the reveal often functions as a cue to "wrap it up," with a possibility to wrap it up one way or another depending on how the scene played before that point. Thus, the effect does not seem as disconnected from the cause. If someone shows a black die, there's a reason they do that, based on the way the scene is playing out.
4. Since Fiasco has a hard end point, you're constantly working toward that, from the start (again, very cinematic-narrative!). It's linear. You know Point A or Point B. D&D is more...fractal...than that, at least in the way I play it. You only know Point A, and there's a lot of different directions you can go, building off each turn you take.
5. Failure is part of the fun in Fiasco, so getting black dice aren't something to be avoided. Rather, the motive is to pursue one extreme.

Fiasco is an awesome game, but it is under very different considerations in how it is played than D&D is. I wouldn't want to play an extended D&D campaign where I was so powerless to affect my own destiny as a player, or looking forward to when the dragon TPK'd us all. The genre and goals of the games are quite distinct.

 

[Dr Simon]

Where I find this concept more compelling is in skill use, particularly social skills. I think the assumed way to resolve an interaction is to have the player say something in character ("...And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks/That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day." ) The you roll a d20 to see how you did ('1'), maybe the DM will give you a +2 for 'good RP,' if what you said was awesome ('3'). It's extremely jarring to do some inspired RP and fail miserably, or say something flippant and succeed spectacularly. It's not much better to just go with the RP, since that removes the /character/ from the equation entirely. Simply moving the die roll to the fore give the player a clue how to RP the interaction.

Just to pick up on this example very specifically; this falls down, of course, if you have a character without a great deal of social skill running a character who is a great speaker. If there are mechanical rules for social skills, such a situation ought to be allowed, unless you insist that only martial arts experts play monks, etc.

So, assuming that the player is not going to be able to recite Henry V it can be, depending on the player, a bit mean to expect them to do so. "You've just rolled a 20 on Diplomacy, go on, give it your best shot." "Er... I, like, really, really think you should stop attacking us..."

To go back to your counter-example, of a player giving good RP, getting a bonus and still getting a lousy roll, to me that represents misjudging your audience. "Holds their manhoods cheap, what's he talking about?" "Dunno. Who's this St. Crispin?" "Didn't understand a word of that." etc.

Or, the DM is under no obligation to rely on a roll every time. If he judges that the RP is good, no roll needed. NPCs in my game will often have "hot buttons", where they have a particular like or dislike. Touch upon them and no amount of mechanics is going to save you.

 

[jbear]

I'm sorry, man, but I completely did not understand that!

I can only respond, in response to "think of time as a linear series of events that cause and precipitate each other" that, of course:

Wibbly Wobbly Timey Wimey...Stuff - YouTube

I'll admit I don't quite understand either. But I'd quite like to.

If the question is simply what my opinion is about tripping oozes, then my reply would be that I think it's silly. I would often apply DM fiat when running 4e when powers that didn't fit simply didn't work. I didn't do it often, but my players always accepted it when I did. They didn't really care about the rules. They left them in my hands and got on with playing the game. I made sure that I applied them in a fair and consistent way and to be honest they very very very rarely ever got in the way of our gaming, which is why I love 4e so much.

But I'm not sure if that answers the question accurately or not.

So here is what I do when I play:

For example I decide I'm going to attempt to sneak down a corridor with my character. I roll the dice and depending on the result will describe how well I did at managing that. If I roll a 1 I might say I stood in a metal bucket accidently and clanked my way down the corridor.

Or if I'm about to attack then I'll stop, roll the dice. If I hit I'll roll damage, and depending on the results I'll interpret how things went based on the rolls, how close they came to hitting and how much damage they dealt. If I miss badly I might invent something happening which got in the way of my intended action.

I do the same as a DM. I decide an intended action and then describe how it turns out once I have seen the result of the dice.

If someone is giving a speech I might ask them to roll diplomacy and depending on the roll interpret the way that the speech was actually delivered despite the speech delivered inside the characters head (this is how I deal with PCs with 8 charisma giving rousing speeches).

There are situations that don't seem to make sense like a fighter pushing back a giant, but in that situation I'd roll, if it misses I might describe crashing into its immovable leg with shield and sword, but if it hit I might describe shoving my blade beneath its toenail which causes it to take a step back with a yelp of pain.

Also with interrupt powers I might change the initial description of the action to include how I imagine how the interaction of events plays out.

I also allow my players a "Do Something Cool Encounter Card". They describe their intended "Cool Action, which alters one of their existing powers in a cool way which interacts with the situation or terrain present in the encounter. If I agree that it is indeed cool, then they roll the dice and depending on the result I describe how it plays out. Even when it fails something cool (even if minor) always happens.

So, which one am I doing?

That's the part I don't get. It seems like I am doing Fiction in the Middle.

 

[Balesir]

Fiasco is an awesome game, but it is under very different considerations in how it is played than D&D is. I wouldn't want to play an extended D&D campaign where I was so powerless to affect my own destiny as a player, or looking forward to when the dragon TPK'd us all. The genre and goals of the games are quite distinct.

All true, Fiasco is definitely its own game, with its own goals and tropes, and I'm not suggesting that those goals and tropes should be imported to D&D.

The core I am getting at, though, is that the unpredictability, the improv nature and the clarity of cause and effect coexist quite happily in the game with the "fate/fortune in the middle" resolution, and that coexistence is not linked to the tropes or the goals of the game.

The only real link you alluded to was the "one decision affecting things for weeks or months to come". I really don't get this, since it's understood both in Fiasco and in our D&D games that the same outcome does not necessarily mean the same cause-effect relation every time. This is true in the real world; why should it not be true in a fantasy world, too?