I think that the best option for this is creating rules additions that guide play. Moldvay B/X is astounding in this regard with how it lays out the procedural elements of D&D. It creates strong gameplay enhanced by clear and concise rules. Now, the rules for dungeon exploration are not appropriate for every aspect of D&D play--if the players are entering a tavern, it would not be appropriate to test for wandering monsters or make reaction rolls (unless it's a rather unusual tavern)--but the framework provides sufficient structure for the "meat" of the game.
I'm assaying a mod for 5e - inspired by B/X and WWN - that offers four levels of resolution.
Combat (about a minute),
scenes (about ten minutes),
marches (about eight hours), and
workweeks (about five days).
- Combat is for the most granular action.
- Scenes are for skill use - such as, a party of four want to clamber around a pit - that can be resolved without much granular die rolling. Even one and done, at times.
- Marches are for rests, watches, marches (of course!) and random encounters - things that are checked or arc over a day or night.
- Workweeks are for downtime activities - building strongholds, training, making potions, that sort of thing (we're using XGE).
This structure is looking promising so far. If there were a combat while clambering around a pit, then we can revert to granular checks and the tempot, space and action rules for combat. If not, then we can just clamber around the pit: that might be one roll, or none, depending (is it sheer, have the party any relevant gear, and so on). Connecting rests with random encounters works neatly (I use longer duration rests, explained in another thread). Workweeks I have yet to playtest in earnest - we've only had one case where it was relevant.
I think creating a handful of subsystems that utilize different styles of rolls is the best option in this regard. Apocalypse World and its derivates all utilize 2d6 + stat and a ternary resolution system, but the exact implementation of those rolls varies based on circumstance. A player who attacks another character (typically described as Seize By Force) has very different effects and outcomes of the roll compared to a player who is surveying a tense scene (typically described as Reading a Sitch).
Exactly. I enjoy more when the mechanic for hitting things feels different from the mechanic for chatting to them, and where there is a little more room for the
character to be more or less capable (so that they can be differently capable). I'm not dissing other approaches - the AW structure is wonderfully economic - but here I am designing to my own taste. That said, I feel I have gained a lot from better appreciating those other systems; what they are doing, and how they guide as to use.
For the simplest distillation of those mechanic, view the basics of Burning Wheel: the GM tells the players exactly what happens on a failed dice roll, and then the players roll the dice. A failure changes based on circumstance. In the scope of D&D, a failed check to pick a lock could have any of the following happen:
- You can't pick this lock. Sorry, you'll have to find another way through.
- You pick the lock, but you trigger a trap on it.
- You pick the lock, but the bandits on the other side of the door are ready and waiting for you.
- You pick the lock, but the sorcerer moves one step closer to completing his evil ritual.
Some might find a lack of defined mechanics frustrating, but in a story-first game, the freedom for GMs to improvise and modify consequences based on circumstance is invaluable.
Again, on point. I felt a strong need to expand the expressive range of the d20. In combat we have 1 auto-fails, 20 auto-hits and crits. I've expanded that 1 botches an ability check if it would fail, but that is not much more expressive. I am trying to think of ways to improve on it. The AW 2d6 neatly offers full success, success with drawback, fail and drawback, and in some cases super-success. The downside of the 2d6 is that it is sensitive to modifiers so you can only really work with +/- 5 or less. Helpfully, the first +/-1 matters more than the fifth, although the fifth could yield degenerate cases. Gain in expressive range of outcomes has come at a small cost in expressive range of inputs. I'm not fond of the count successes approach used by some other systems, because it is not at all intuitive to understand the true odds (I mean, BW goes ahead and puts in a reference table just to try and ameliorate that!) On the other hand, I kind of like L5R...
Anyway, unmodified, the AW 2d6 is offering ~16% of full success, ~42% success with drawback, and ~42% fail and drawback. Better than a coin flip of some sort of success. 5% at either end on d20 is a
long way from that! I feel this little piece of engineering, if finessed, could be very helpful. It could have important consequences for the way the system can be played. Any thoughts?
