Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kenada" data-source="post: 9194935" data-attributes="member: 70468">The process still works more or less as described in <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/the-skill-system-is-one-dimensional.699295/post-9098674" target="_blank">this post</a>. When a player indicates they want something, the referee enumerates possible consequences. If you can’t do that, there’s nothing at stake, and the PC gets what they want. If you can, then the procedure continues. There may be some back and forth as the player decides on the approach and method, and the referee notes changes in consequences as appropriate. That’s okay. This process isn’t supposed to be adversarial. No one result should be unexpected.I used to use “partial success”, but I settled on “mixed success”. I want to emphasize that there is still “success” even if there might be a rider along with it, so I don’t know that I’d want to call it something implying failure foremost. I know some players don’t like any idea of failure being mixed with success, but going completely binary is not really an option. Degrees are important for consequences and clocks. Margins are also used but so far only for defining degrees and as damage in combat (which was adjusted with the dice change, but that’s another topic).I’ve attempted to put some structure around consequences, but it’s pretty rough still. The following is (more or less) what I have in my notes right now. I’ve experimented with some other ideas as well such as having a consequence that modifies the danger modifier used for event checks (e.g., make a lot of noise → +danger → more likely for trouble to show up).<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Baseline (analogous to a “soft move” in PbtA games):<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Complications: add new requirements, create or tick a clock as foregrounded (1 tick), foreshadow worse complications or have foreshadowed ones happen;</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Deal 1d6 damage; or</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Impose a transient condition (to the next roll): to their person, to their gear, to a clock (ticks at +1 tick).</li> </ul></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Aggregate (analogous to a “hard move”):<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Two baseline consequences (effectively one baseline per degree of failure);</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Worse complications: change the situation (buff monsters, new threat, lost opportunity, etc); change relationships (new enemies, lost friends, etc); create a clock or tick a clock as foregrounded (2 ticks).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Deal max harm [since I’m changing the system only to use d6s, I’m thinking of making this 1d6 per degree of failure];</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Impose a condition (for at least the remainder of the 10-minute turn if not longer): to their person, to their gear (e.g., breaking or losing it), to a clock (ticks at +2 ticks).</li> </ul></li> </ul>Everything’s still pretty rough though. Once I’m finally happy-ish with the core dice mechanics, I need to start organizing things and making them easy to find. Right now they’re just a bunch of documents and outlines in Scrivener. <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="😅" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f605.png" title="Grinning face with sweat    :sweat_smile:" data-shortname=":sweat_smile:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" />Hopefully the above helps clarify. Until the dice are rolled, the action isn’t committed, so the method and approach can be adjusted, or the attempt can be aborted. It’s worth noting that the method is somewhat prescribed by the system. Skills are definitionally about certain things, and if you what you want implies a certain skill, there’s normally no way around that. If what you’re doing involves climbing a tree, there aren’t many ways you’re doing that without using Athleticism.For example, Dingo has a ring of plant control. It has a rank (+1), so he can use the ring as the method instead of his Athleticism skill. Perhaps he might try to have the tree help him up instead of trying to climb it (so ring + Willpower instead of Athleticism + Dexterity or Strength). He still needs to roll because checks are about outcomes not tasks (and because magical methods aren’t privileged over non-magical ones). Did Dingo get what he wanted? Were there any consequences? The referee’s not allowed to decide that.There’s an inherit conflict of interest between being an adjudicator and being a player (of monsters, NPCs, the world, etc). Various games address that in different ways. Some are okay. Some I don’t like. My goal here is to explore having a small framework that systematizes when you are adjudicating and when you are playing. It’s mostly worked, though I had a situation a few sessions ago during which I realized I had a gap.In that session, Dingo went to talk to Natalia, an ally of the party who is also a vampire. The party has mixed feelings about that. She’s been a good ally, but Deirdre kinds of hates her (but she’s not strong enough yet to do anything about it). However, they did kill one of her minions, and Natalia is suspicious. That part is put to mechanics (a clock, currently). While Dingo was talking to her, I realized I wanted to have Natalia push him, but I hadn’t actually considered how to operationalize that.Those who play other games may say, “the GM can just make a ruling.” Sometimes when I realize I have a gap, I try to figure out something on the spot and document it for examination later. This is a WIP, so sometimes you have to make up something to keep the session moving even if the goal is to have a robust engine, but I just didn’t have a good idea at the time (since NPCs don’t usually make checks).For the session after that, I tried changing the system to run everything as PvP. The idea was any particularly character played by the referee could be delegated to another player, and it should run the same way regardless. It sounded really neat in theory and played like crap at the table. It made some checks feel weird due to the way they interacted with opposition, and it made an attempt to escape from ettins feel really bad due to dice luck.So the plan is to find another way to fill that gap. Maybe NPCs can impose consequences or have some way to go on the “attack”. They do have a rank, so I could add that to a roll. Maybe I need to extend the idea of conflict beyond combat (while maybe not quite going so regimented). I suppose it depends on whether there are larger stakes when that happens. I’ve still got a few weeks to figure that out before our next session. <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="😄" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f604.png" title="Grinning face with smiling eyes    :smile:" data-shortname=":smile:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" /></blockquote>

Verification