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

[LostSoul]

That is not FitM.

Fortune in the Beginning: Roll. Explain Roll with Roleplay.

Fortuning At the End: Describe the cause. Roll all dice. Describe the result.

Fortune in the Middle: Describe cause. Roll. Describe part of the effect. Roll secondary rolls. Describe ultimate result.

Yeah.

edit: I think I was getting Fortune confused with IIEE. I'm not sure the rest of this makes much sense.

I think D&D combat has always been FitM: Describe action ("I attack!"). Roll "to-hit". If successful, determine effectiveness of hit by rolling damage. Describe ultimate effect. This is why you can't say "I stab him in the eye!" before you roll for damage; you have to see how much damage you've done - a Fortune mechanic in the middle of resolution, after you've described your initial action - to determine the effect.

(You can say "I try to stab him in the eye!" but the combat system isn't resolving that action - it's resolving how many HP the target loses. Only once you know the HP loss can you describe the action. There's no difference between "I try to stab him in the eye!" and "I attack!" until the target loses HP; even at that point there may not be much difference.

This is why you need to have a "martial manoeuvres" system, like 3E & 4E have. In both cases you're not resolving an actual action but the effects the rules impose; that's why you can use "Trip" on an ooze (as far as I can tell, in both systems).)

A lot of spells work that way too, e.g. Fireball. It has both a Saving Throw and a Save. Interestingly, a lot of spells don't work that way, e.g. Charm Person.

This is interesting to me right now because I just playtested a version of Fortune at the End in combat in my 4e Hack: You describe your full action for the round; apply modifiers; roll to determine success of your previously-declared action. Damage is not based on Fortune: it is a set value based on the deadliness of your declared action - a dagger can sometimes deal more damage than a two-handed sword.

I ended up there because I wanted a difference between "I try to stab him in the eye!" and "I attack!".

 

[Minigiant]

[MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION].

Well if you use my definitions... D&D was always a FatBeginning or FinMiddle But those were as individual actions.

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..

Now if you define Fortune at the End as "Do all Roleplay then do all Rolling" then you have more of a magnitude system when the roleplaying player chooses whether they pass or fail and how much then the roll determines the magnitude of a following result.

Thia would be a system like saying "I stab him in the eye" and the target is stabbed in the eye regardless of what the roll is. The roll instead determine another action you cannot roleplay such as weapon breaking or stamina usage or granting disadvantage.

I played a Free form RPG like that once. You could miss, graze, wound, or kill anyone during RP. Your roll determined how much of your resources were spent doing so. So you could say "I chop the dragon's head clean off." but you'll have a really hard roll. No matter what you DO chop the dragon's head off, but fail the roll and the headless body might fall and crush you.

 

[Mercutio01]

Well if you use my definitions... D&D was always a FatBeginning or FinMiddle But those were as individual actions.

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.

I had a post earlier that said essentially this, but accidentally closed the window and didn't feel like rewriting it. I think this is right on the money. And I think it actually does a lot to explain some of my dislike of how 4E plays. FitM in one individual action is something that I both understand and actually like. FitM extended over an encounter means either the fiction is postponed until it is finally resolved (and that feels sort of board-gamey to me) or is retconned (which I don't really like to do if I can avoid it).

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Excellent thoughts.

That's not exactly my understanding of fortune in the middle. I'd interpret one example of FitM to be more like this:

1. Determine likelihood of action occurring.
2. Roll to determine provisional result.
3. Dramatize action, providing potential statistical alterations of provisional result, to create the final result.

Example:
Player: "I swing my sword at the ogre."
*Rolls poorly*
GM: "The ogre leans back, increasing the distance between him and your sword, it doesn't appear that you'll make contact."
Player: "I leap forward, throwing myself off balance as I attempt to carve into him with my sword."
*GM adds statistical bonus to previous provisional result*
GM: "Your gambit pays off, as your sword carves a shallow wound across the ogre's chest before you crash into the ground at his feet."

And there are a variety of other ways I'm sure it could be manifested.

However, I really like the distinction you bring out. While I love FitM as I explained it above, I dislike 4Es version of whatever it is we're talking about here. This discussion truly encapsulates the issue a lot more directly and clearly than most other posts have regarding why some of us don't enjoy 4Es techniques in that area.

A looser interpretation of FitM would apply to most versions of D&D that I've played. It's usual in my experience to give a broad description of what we're attempting to do, ie, "I attack," or "I stab at his face," followed by a die roll, and then a dramatization by the DM connecting the result of the die roll to the initial descriptions. "You hit" or "Your spear misses his face, but scrapes across his shoulder for X damage." On the other hand, I'd probably refer to that as a fortune at the end scenario, since the narration of action resolution no longer has any game effect after the dice are rolled.

4E seems like more of a dual-channel action resolution. You have a mechanical resolution and then a dramatic description that can be entirely unrelated to the mechanical resolution. An example would be for those who prefer to have hit points be totally disconnected to whether or not attacks cause injury (a hit can cause no injury, and a miss can cause injury).

One interpretation would be to call 4E a fortune at the beginning model, since you get the best results if you just roll to see what the mechanical effects are, and then do *all* your description afterwards--even deciding whether or not your hit is a hit.

As referring to this topic, 4E appears to try to wed a strong gamist approach with a strong narrativist approach, with very minimal simulationism. I don't care for that uneasy alliance myself, but a lot of people like it, and that's good for them.

 

[chaochou]

Some links:

What is Fortune in the Middle

Fortune in the Middle

And a link to iiee, which can become confused and conflated with FitM / FatE:

anyway: A quick IIEE primer, by request

 

[LostSoul]

I think I was confusing Fortune mechanics with IIEE in the above post. Maybe the two have similarities? Anyway.

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..

Interesting point!

 

[GX.Sigma]

Haven't hit points always been this way?

 

[Mercutio01]

Haven't hit points always been this way?

They have definitely not "always been this way." They were this way in 1E (apparently, although in the few times I played 1E it wasn't played that way) and 4E. They aren't really defined at all in OD&D or BD&D, and in 2E they're defined specifically as "meat." 3E is muddy and occupies a weird middle space, leaning towards meat more than itM.

So, not always, and not consistently, but it was that way in two editions, although only one of them treated non-magical healing in a way such that itM hit points became the only viable method.

 

[GX.Sigma]

They have definitely not "always been this way." They were this way in 1E (apparently, although in the few times I played 1E it wasn't played that way) and 4E. They aren't really defined at all in OD&D or BD&D, and in 2E they're defined specifically as "meat." 3E is muddy and occupies a weird middle space, leaning towards meat more than itM.

So, not always, and not consistently, but it was that way in two editions, although only one of them treated non-magical healing in a way such that itM hit points became the only viable method.

Even if hit points are meat, you still roll to see the damage and then decide what happens. If it was enough to kill him, you say it cuts off the head. If it wasn't enough to kill him, it's a scratch or light wound.

 

[Minigiant]

I had a post earlier that said essentially this, but accidentally closed the window and didn't feel like rewriting it. I think this is right on the money. And I think it actually does a lot to explain some of my dislike of how 4E plays. FitM in one individual action is something that I both understand and actually like. FitM extended over an encounter means either the fiction is postponed until it is finally resolved (and that feels sort of board-gamey to me) or is retconned (which I don't really like to do if I can avoid it).

Exactly.

Personally I love FitM for combat but I hate it for noncombat. This is because Combat has a definite end coded in it. Combat ends when all of the other opposing sides die, are incapacitated, free, or surrender. This is determined by a loss of HP or failure of a save or skill check. This are in agreed upon segments.

Noncombat often don't have coded ends or mechanics that determine the combats length. So FitM staggers Roleplay in irrational segments. This is seen in 4E's skill chanllenges. 4 success before 3 failures might seperate a conversation into 4-7 segments. It might wok for a lever puzzle but what about the conversation with the local lord? Not every conversation is in 4-7 parts. Combat uses attacks. Social uses sentences, phases, and paragraphs. Is the talk mandated to be 4 sentences?

---

When it comes to Fortune. There are 4 aspects.

The Fortune Mechanic (Dice Rolling)
The Mechanical Statement of Intent (The action by the rules)
The Roleplay Description of the Causal Intent (I attack)
The Roleplay Description of the Resulting Effect (... and stab the goblin's eye out)

Fortune at the beginning is:

Fortune
Action
RP Cause
RP Effect

This is like Fiasco. Black die is bad. You get black die. No matter what you do, bad stuff happens. Black die higher? Uh oh.

Fortune at the End is:

Action
RP Cause
Fortune
RP Effect

This is normal D&D skill rolls. You state your intent and roleplay the beginning. You rolls and the DM roleplays the end.

Fortune in the middle is:

Primary Action
X number of Action, RP Cause, Fortune, and RP Effect chains
RP Final Effect

This is Skill Challenges. You don't don't roleplay the end result until a miniature game is finished. Certain action might be retconned or left incomplete to in order to have the roleplay make sense.