Last time, I wrote about the use of Chance, Ability, and Intent in
constructing resolution mechanics. I brought the article to a rather abrupt
close. I feel bad to have done that, but it works out better because I want
to peer more deeply into the resolution play flow. I think a resolution
mechanic is more than just a resolution mechanic. It's really a mechanical
process that includes at least one mechanical device and one evaluation.
That mechanical process is presented as a resolution play flow. The
undefined item here is the
evaluation, so that's a good place to
begin.
The Five Means of Evaluation A mechanic really
isn't a mechanic without a means of evaluating what happened. It occurs to
me that any mechanic has five means of evaluation. This is how I
conceptualize the way that players evaluate what happens after a mechanical
device is used. The terms are
Absolute,
Unopposed,
Opposed,
Played, and
Qualified. Here are the
explanations.
Absolute evaluation is usually based on Die Result vs. Fixed
Scale. The player generates a Die Result using a method such as Skill +
Attribute + Die Roll. The GM may apply a modifier for difficulty or
situation. For an easy job or situation where a character has the upper
hand, the GM might apply a large positive modifier. For a really tough job
or situations where the character is at a disadvantage, the GM might apply a
large negative modifier. The GM (or player) compares the die result to the
fixed scale and determines the outcome. This is a personal preference, but I
think modifiers are a bad idea for this sort of mechanic. The purpose of an
absolute evaluation is mostly to gauge the quality of character effort. The
evaluation may also provide an outcome; but as a GM, when I asked for this
sort of roll, I usually just wanted the player to impress me with a great
die result. Either way, a low result here means the character was inept and
failed, while a high result indicates heroic performance and great success.
Here is an example
- Device (Chance and Ability): Player rolls Skill + Attribute
+ Die Roll vs. Fixed Scale.
- Evaluation (Unopposed): In this
example, the GM assessed the Difficulty as a modifier. The GM compares the
modified Die Result to the Fixed Scale. If the Die Result is 3 or greater,
the character achieves some degree of success. Otherwise, the character
fails. More important, the character's effort is clumsy or lackluster unless
the player rolls 5 or better.
Modifiers
| Challenge | Modifier |
| Easy | +1 or more |
| Average | 0 |
| Difficult | -1 or more |
Results
| Die Result | Effort | Outcome |
| 0-2 | Poor | Fail |
| 3-4 | Fair | Progress |
| 5-7 | Good | Success |
| 8+ | Heroic | Bonus |
Unopposed evaluation is usually based on a variable scale
with a device such as Die Result vs. Target Number where the die result is
Skill + Die Roll or something similar. The GM adjusts the Target Number (TN)
based on difficulty or challenge. An easy task often has a low TN. A
difficult task has a high TN. Here is a common example:
- Device (Chance and Ability): Player rolls Skill + Die Roll
vs. TN.
- Evaluation (Unopposed): In this example, the GM assessed
the Difficulty as a modifier The GM compares the Die Result to the Target
Number. If the Die Result is equal to or greater than the TN, the character
succeeds. Otherwise, the character fails.
Target Number
| Die
Roll | Result |
| 2 | Easy |
| 4 | Average |
| 6 | Difficult |
| 9 | Impossible |
Results
| Die Roll | Result |
| < target | Fail |
| = or >
target | Success |
Opposed evaluation is mostly based on a comparison of effort
such as PC's die result vs. opponent's die result. Here is an example:
- Device (Chance and Ability): Player rolls Skill +
Modifiers + Die Roll vs. Opponent's die result.
- Evaluation
(Opposed): The GM compares the player's die result to the opponent's die
result. Here is a set of possible outcomes:
Results
| PC Die
Result | Result |
| <
Opponent | PC Loses |
| = Opponent | Draw |
| > Opponent | PC Wins |
Played evaluation is mostly based on player intent. In
this situation, one player (usually the GM) gets to say what happens to
another player's declaration. This is often tied into ideas of diceless
play. Here is an example:
- Device (Intent): The player
declares that his character is using the radio to call for artillery
support.
- Evaluation (Played): The GM considers that the request is
logical. The character has a radio, expert military training, and artillery
support. He decides to play along and replies that the character has
successfully called for support.
Qualified
evaluation is mostly a check to determine whether or not a
character is qualified to do a thing. Here is an example:
- Device (Intent): The player declares that his character will attempt to
scale a sheer cliff face.
- Evaluation (Qualified): The GM asks the
player about the character's equipment and skills. The character has some
climbing skill, but no equipment. The GM determines that the character can
attempt the climb, but it will be both difficult and dangerous.
The Four Mechanical Structures To discuss
mechanical structures more accurately, I have identified four mechanical
structures that you can employ to build a set of resolution mechanics. Each
is a process represented as a resolution play flow. You may declare others
as you need, but I'm starting with these four. They are
Single,
Series,
Nested, and
Countdown mechanics.
Single mechanics include one device and one evaluation. Here
is an example of a single mechanic:
- Device (Chance
and Ability): The player rolls Character Skill + Die Roll vs. Target Number.
- Evaluation (unopposed): If character's effort (Character Skill +
Die Roll) is equal to or greater than the challenge (Target Number), the
character is successful. If the character's effort is less than the target
number, the character fails.
Series mechanics
consist of two or more single structures chained together to produce a set
of mechanics. This is a more complex play flow, but the series mechanic is
the most common structure for event resolution for a single character. Here
is an example of a series mechanic:
- Device (Intent): The
player declares the character's action.
- Evaluation (Qualified): The
GM determines the required skill. If the character lacks the skill, the
character fails. If the character has the skill, the GM sets the target
number and the player rolls the dice.
- Device (Chance and Ability):
The player rolls Character Skill + Die Roll vs. Target Number.
- Evaluation (unopposed): If the character's effort (Character Attribute +
Die Roll) is equal to or greater than the challenge (Target Number), the
character is successful. If the character's effort is less than the target
number, the character fails.
Nested mechanics
usually consist of a single or series structure nested inside another
mechanical device or evaluation. Here is an example.
- Device (Intent): The player declares the character's action. In this
case, the character threatens a prisoner with a wicked-looking knife in
hopes that the prisoner will talk.
- Evaluation (Qualified): The GM
considers that the character can easily make good on the threat. Anyone with
common sense would start talking, but the GM isn't sure this prisoner
qualifies. Also, the GM doesn't really want to play his own willpower
against that of the player. The GM decides to roll dice for the result.
- Device (Chance): The GM rolls a d6 for the prisoner.
- Evaluation (Unopposed): The GM decides that a result of 6 makes the
prisoner resist. The die result was 2. The prisoner failed, meaning he will
sing like a canary for the PC in hopes of avoiding the pointy end of the
knife. The GM declares this.
Countdown
mechanics include a device, an evaluation, and a countdown. The
structure is basically a loop that serves as a shell for nested mechanics.
It's extremely helpful when resolving actions for several characters. Its
primary purpose is to aid in running combat. Here is an example of a
countdown:
- Device (Chance and Ability): The GM asks the players to roll
initiative. The GM rolls initiative for NPCs or monsters.
- Evaluation (Qualified): The GM determines which participant has the
highest die roll. That participant is at the beginning of the countdown and
goes first. In the event of a tie, the GM may use another method to break
the tie.
- Device (Intent): The player declares the
character's action.
- Evaluation (Qualified): The GM determines the
required skill.
- If the character lacks the skill, the
character fails.
- If the character has the skill, the GM sets the
target number and the player rolls the dice.
- Device (Chance
and Ability): The player rolls Character Skill + Die Roll vs. Target
Number.
- Evaluation (unopposed): The GM determines the outcome.
- If the character's effort (Character Skill + Die Roll) is equal
to or greater than the challenge (Target Number), the character is
successful.
- If the character's effort is less than the target
number, the character fails.
- Continue Countdown. When the
current character's action is resolved, the GM continues the countdown.
- If the countdown has not reached 0 and the participants still
have actions to resolve, the GM determines who goes next and returns to step
A.
- If the countdown reaches 0 or all actions are resolved, the
countdown ends. Continue to step 4.
- Continue Play. The
countdown is complete.
An Approach to Chance and Ability
Here is an example showing a common resolution flow that uses Chance,
Ability and Intent (but mostly features Chance and Ability):
- Device (Intent). The player declares what he wants the character
to do.
- Evaluation (qualified). The character may be able to do it.
The player must roll dice.
- Device (Ability and Chance). The player
rolls Skill + Die Roll for his character.
- Evaluation (unopposed):
If the die result is good enough, the character will succeed.
In the example, Intent helps the GM define the skill required for the die
roll and set the target number. I think Intent is most often used in
combination with qualified evaluation. At least, that's the sense I get from
many games. In this example, the actual resolution mechanism is a second
device, Skill + Die Roll. It's a combination of Chance and Ability.
This is the part I find interesting: Any combination of Chance and Ability
can be skewed toward one or the other.
- If Skill is small compared
to the range of the die roll, then Chance is dominant.
Example: Say the range for a skill is 0 to 8 where 0 is
untrained, 4 is fully trained, and 8 is the best on the planet. Now say the
die roll is 1d20. This gives an unmodified range of results from 0 to 28,
but a fully trained character only has skill 4. For a fully trained
character, the skill is really just a modifier. The situation is a little
better for characters with more skill, but an untrained character has
modifier 0. In that case, the result is pure Chance. I can slant this even
further by saying, "A rolled 1 is an automatic failure and a rolled 20 is an
automatic success." The only other variable is the target number. If the
target numbers are small (and they probably would be for really easy jobs),
then Ability may still have some meaning. Otherwise, Chance is still the
dominant factor.
- If Skill is large compared to the die roll, then Ability is
dominant.
Example: Say the range of attributes is 0 to 20 where 0 is
untrained, 8 is trained, and 20 is the best on the planet. This time the die
roll is 1d4. This gives a range of possible results from 1 to 24, but now
the die roll is just a modifier and the range for a trained character is
simply 9 to 12 without modifiers. For a trained character, Ability now
represents 67% of the total range. The result is slanted far more heavily
toward Ability. Without modifiers, the character can't complete any job with
a target of 13 or more; and the player may not need to roll for targets
ranging from 0 to 9.
Another Approach to
Chance and Ability
I want to look at one last way of balancing Chance and Ability. I didn't
think of it; Scott Lininger did. In his rpg,
The Window he employs a
single die, roll-under mechanic that accounts for increasing ability by
reducing the number of sides on the die. His method uses every type of die
from d4 to d30. I'm not usually a fan of using so many different dice, but
what Scott has done is noteworthy. Basically, he set the default target
number at 6. Depending on the situation, the GM can increase or decrease it.
When the player needs to roll dice, he rolls the die that corresponds to the
character's competence. If the character is really horrible at something,
the player rolls a d30. If the character is truly outstanding at something,
the player rolls a d4. In this way, the effect of Chance increases as
Ability decreases. I think it's incredibly elegant.
An Approach to Chance and Intent
Historically, Intent has been the junior partner in resolving events. Of
course, the player has always been empowered to declare what he wants his
character to do or to say what he wants to happen; but wanting a thing has
rarely been enough to make it so. More recently, game designers have
provided more means to let the players have what they want, even if that
means letting the players do some of the things traditionally left for the
GM. Since players are accustomed to rolling dice in order to get their way,
it seems perfectly logical to continue that trend. In the following example,
Ability is still a factor in the mechanic, but Chance is the deciding factor
because the player is never truly assured of victory.
- Device (Intent): The player wants some weakling bad guys to
show up so that his character can safely test out a shiny, new weapon.
- Evaluation (Qualified): The GM sets the target at 3 or better. The
player needs at least one success. The GM asks the player to roll the
dice.
- Device (Chance and Ability): The player is Counting Victories
based on his character's Director attribute. That is, in this game the
character has an attribute called Director that the player can use to
directly affect the game world. The player rolls a d6 for each point of
Director. For each result 3 or greater, the player gets a success.
- Evaluation (Unopposed): The player rolled 3 dice with results 2, 3 and
5. This nets two successes. The player gets what he wants. If the player had
failed, the GM may still have had some bad guys show up, but the GM might
make them much stronger and more dangerous than the player anticipated.
An Approach to Ability and Intent
The combination of Ability and Intent is really the foundation for diceless
roleplaying and usually the mechanism for giving players access to the
powers of the GM. In this case, it's very easy to completely remove Chance
from the equation.
- Device (Ability and Intent): The
player wants his character, a military officer, to call for fire support
against an enemy position.
- Evaluation (Qualified, Unopposed): The
GM determines that the character has everything needed to accomplish the
goal. Mechanically, there is nothing else to do, so the GM says, ãAfter
placing two spotting rounds, you have the range.
- Device (Ability and
Intent): The player says, "I call, 'Fire for effect!'"
- Evaluation
(Qualified, Unopposed): The GM says, "A few seconds later, the target area
erupts in a cloud of smoke and flame as 36 rounds of 120mm high explosive
detonate on impact.ä
That wraps up my discussion of
resolution mechanics. Next installment, I will attempt to show how
everything discussed thus far can help produce the core of a game. Thanks
for reading.
