Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7408663" data-attributes="member: 42582">The design of resolution systems is pretty important, yes.At the moment my primary game is Cortex+ Heroic. Cortex+ Heroic is a dice pool resolution system: each character (protagonist, antagonist, any personified traps or machines, etc) has a range of ratings across various traits, and draws on those to construct a pool. The acting character rolls the pool and (in accordance with the detailed rules for the process) creates both a total, and chooses one die to be the effect (rated by die size, not pips showing). The reacting character does the same - and if there is no character opposing the action, then the Doom Pool is rolled. There are a range of options for pool modifications both before and after the dice are rolled: players spend "plot points", the GM spends dice from the Doom Pool. There is a systematic bias in favour of the players, because (simplifying a little bit) they can spend a point to achieve a manipulation involving a die of any size; whereas the GM has to spend a die from the Doom Pool of equal or greater size than the desired manipulation; and the way the system works means that the players earn about four plot points for every d12 that appears in the Doom Pool, while a 1:1 ratio gives the GM only d6s in the Doom Pool.There are no tight guidelines on encounter building, but the systematic bias in favour of the players gives them a definite advantage. And the size of the Doom Pool is transparent at the table, and can be (and in my experience often is) an object of player strategy.Burning Wheel uses "objective" difficulties (called obstacles) - there are general guidelines (eg routine is Ob 2; extremely difficult is Ob 4) and also difficulties for various skills (eg using Astrology to prepare a horoscope is Ob 2, and using it to interpret omens is Ob 5; Scavenging a modest bag of coins is Ob 3; etc). The GM guidelines emphasis that determinig obstacles is an important element in establishing setting.Resolution is rolling a pool of D6 - 4+ is a success, and overall success requires as many successful dice as the obstacle. Players have a variety of options for manipulating their dice pools, but some actions can't be succeeded at. Players have an incentive to declare a certain number of such actions, because advancement of an ability depends upon using that ability in a range of checks of varying difficulties, including some impossible ones. So one aspect of "skilled play" in BW is putting your PC into impossible circumstances, to earn the checks needed to advance. Because BW has very strong "fail forward" resolution, with the GM having a strong set of player signals to draw on (Beliefs, Instincts, Relationships, Affiliations, Reputations, Character Traits) a player who puts his/her PC into circumstances where success is impossible is nevertheless feeding into the resulting fiction. It's grittier, more intimate, more demanding on both players and GM, than Cortex+ Heroic or 4e.4e uses "subjective" DCs - in combat statblocks they're a function of NPC/creature level; and for skill checks they're based on a DC-by-level table. Provided the maths of PC build doesn't break down, these create the "space" for the players to make their own luck, especially using various abilities that allow buffs or retries. (In my main 4e game, at 30th level, the only real breakdown in the maths is the Sage of Ages PC, who has epic destiny features that break the maths for knowledge checks.)The fourth system that I have an active campaign in is Classic Traveller. It uses objective DCs, and in basic ethos is quite similar to Burning Wheel. However, it doesn't give players a reason to embrace some impossible circumstances; and it doesn't give players options to manipulate their check dice. This means that <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?605171-Classic-Traveller-a-dice-driven-game" target="_blank">it is a very dice driven game</a>.Of these systems, Traveller's resolution system imposes the biggest burden on player agency, shifting it to the dice instead. In all these systems, its important that players have a clear sense of how hard stuff will be: in 4e and Cortex+ this arises from a general familiarity with the play of the system and the best use of PC-side resources; in BW and Traveller, this is more about a robust sense of the fiction and a high degree of imagination in how to bring detailed PC skill lists to bear on it.EDIT:Uses of the Doom Pool to manipulate GM-side dice pools is part of the back-and-forth between players and GM. It occupies the same functional space, in this system, as does a GM in D&D deciding whether or not a NPC or creature uses some limited use ability to buff itself or counter a PC's action.Use of the Doom Pool to affect the flow of an Action Scene, by interrputing the action order or introducing new elements, is part of managing and introducing complications. It has no analogue I can think of in classic D&D; in 4e, it is analogous to introducing new enemies into a combat encounter part way through, with the effect of stepping up the difficulty and hence the XP the PCs will accrue for the encounter.Use of the Doom Pool to end a scene is interesting. Given that the players get to narrate consequences in response (which you have quoted from the rulebook) it doesn't completely run roughshod over their agency in respect of the shared fiction. But it is certainly something my players want to avoid, and they actively take steps to try and ensure the Doom Pool doesn't build up to include 2d12 (eg making choices about dice pools to minimise the chances of rolling 1s).But not that surprising!Classic D&D dungeon crawling will only work in a system that's designed for it (eg it needs rules for mapping, for wandering monsters, for searching, etc). You can't do that sort of play using Cortex+ Heroic, and frankly even classic systems like RQ and RM aren't very good at it because they don't have the right sort of rules for combat and saving throws.</blockquote>

Verification