RPGnet <http://www.rpg.net> 	
<http://www.rpg.net/slib/ads/forward-ad.php?nextURL=http://www.starchamber.net&imageURL=http://www.rpg.net/images/ads/sc-728x90-b.jpg>


	Reviews <http://www.rpg.net/reviews/> 	Forums <http://forum.rpg.net>
News & Press <http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/press.phtml> 	Columns &
Info <http://www.rpg.net/columns/index.phtml> 	RPG Wiki
<http://wiki.rpg.net> 	RPG Shop <http://shop.rpg.net> 	
<http://www.rpg.net/members/>


      The Impossible Dream


    #5: Resolution Mechanics II

*by Hunter Logan*
Apr 14,2003

	
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.
          o Device (Chance): The GM rolls a d6 for the prisoner.
          o 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.
          o Device (Intent): The player declares the character's action.
          o 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.
          o Device (Chance and Ability): The player rolls Character
            Skill + Die Roll vs. Target Number.
          o 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.
          o 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/
<http://www.mimgames.com/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.


      What do you think? <http://trio.rpg.net/pf/list.php?f=110>

Go to forum! <http://www.rpg.net/pf/list.php?f=110>
 Go to Top <http://www.rpg.net/pf/list.php?f=110>  |  New Topic
<http://www.rpg.net/pf/post.php?f=110>  |  View Threads
<http://www.rpg.net/pf/list.php?f=110&collapse=0>  |  Search
<http://www.rpg.net/pf/search.php?f=110> 

 Topics 	Author  	Date 	Latest Reply
 cooldog cotangent
<http://www.rpg.net/pf/read.php?f=110&i=98&t=98> (1) new
cranial_index  	01-31-2006 20:46  	01-31-2006 20:46 new
  CORONA <http://www.rpg.net/pf/read.php?f=110&i=97&t=97> (1) new
corn_chamomile  	01-31-2006 20:25  	01-31-2006 20:25 new
 Fendi Spy Bags WHOLESALE@WizardReplica.com
<http://www.rpg.net/pf/read.php?f=110&i=95&t=95> (1) new 	514 
12-02-2005 10:55  	12-02-2005 10:55 new
 Designer Handbags Wholesale@WWW.WIZARDREPLICA.COM
<http://www.rpg.net/pf/read.php?f=110&i=94&t=94> (1) new 	868 
11-14-2005 19:41  	11-14-2005 19:41 new
 REPLICA HANDBAGS LOUIS VUITTON REPLICA WHOLESALE@
<http://www.rpg.net/pf/read.php?f=110&i=93&t=93> (1) new 	794 
10-20-2005 21:37  	10-20-2005 21:37 new
 Death/playing style
<http://www.rpg.net/pf/read.php?f=110&i=92&t=92> (1) new 	Searcher 
09-22-2003 11:35  	09-22-2003 11:35 new
 Death and actual immortality
<http://www.rpg.net/pf/read.php?f=110&i=89&t=89> (3) new 	Cpl Ferro 
07-19-2003 08:53  	01-13-2006 15:22 new
 Non-death death
<http://www.rpg.net/pf/read.php?f=110&i=85&t=85> (5) new 	Sérgio
Mascarenhas  	07-18-2003 03:07  	07-23-2003 02:38 new
 Thanks, Hunter
<http://www.rpg.net/pf/read.php?f=110&i=80&t=80> (4) new 	Allan
Sugarbaker  	07-16-2003 00:18  	07-17-2003 19:34 new
 Realism <http://www.rpg.net/pf/read.php?f=110&i=74&t=74> (3) new
Robin  	06-20-2003 01:23  	06-25-2003 02:34 new
 Something you might have mentioned.
<http://www.rpg.net/pf/read.php?f=110&i=65&t=65> (3) new 	Yamo 
06-19-2003 16:13  	06-19-2003 18:11 new
 BTW, excellent column, Hunter!
<http://www.rpg.net/pf/read.php?f=110&i=63&t=63> (2) new 	flyingmice 
06-19-2003 13:11  	06-19-2003 18:13 new
 Armor and Damage Thereto
<http://www.rpg.net/pf/read.php?f=110&i=56&t=56> (2) new 	The Student 
06-19-2003 08:45  	06-19-2003 11:44 new
 Armor <http://www.rpg.net/pf/read.php?f=110&i=54&t=54> (9) new
flyingmice  	06-19-2003 08:29  	06-20-2003 06:12 new
 Death spiral and unconsciousness
<http://www.rpg.net/pf/read.php?f=110&i=53&t=53> (7) new 	Torben
Mogensen  	06-19-2003 07:31  	06-20-2003 06:52 new
 lucky or skilled
<http://www.rpg.net/pf/read.php?f=110&i=51&t=51> (2) new 	rhyme 
05-12-2003 18:49  	05-13-2003 09:25 new
 Absolute, unopposed and opposed
<http://www.rpg.net/pf/read.php?f=110&i=48&t=48> (2) new 	Torben
Mogensen  	04-16-2003 02:19  	04-16-2003 09:26 new
 0-9 open ended = brilliant!
<http://www.rpg.net/pf/read.php?f=110&i=31&t=31> (8) new 	Vibropod 
03-12-2003 10:41  	07-18-2003 01:28 new
 Smooth rerolls
<http://www.rpg.net/pf/read.php?f=110&i=27&t=27> (10) new 	Torben
Mogensen  	03-12-2003 00:47  	03-16-2003 23:57 new
 Resolution Mechanics
<http://www.rpg.net/pf/read.php?f=110&i=25&t=25> (8) new 	Kyle
Schuant  	03-11-2003 22:14  	03-29-2003 21:28 new

 Go to Top <http://www.rpg.net/pf/list.php?f=110>  |  New Topic
<http://www.rpg.net/pf/post.php?f=110>  |  View Threads
<http://www.rpg.net/pf/list.php?f=110&collapse=0>  |  Search
<http://www.rpg.net/pf/search.php?f=110> 
	
 Newer Messages
<http://www.rpg.net/pf/list.php?f=110&t=98&a=1&>  |  Older Messages
<http://www.rpg.net/pf/list.php?f=110&t=25&a=2&> 

------------------------------------------------------------------------


      Previous columns

    * #8: True Death </news+reviews/columns/dream17jul03.html> by Hunter
      Logan, 17jul03
    * #7: Assessing Damage </news+reviews/columns/dream19jun03.html> by
      Hunter Logan, 19jun03
    * #6: Putting Theory to the Test
      </news+reviews/columns/dream12may03.html> by Hunter Logan, 12may03
    * #5: Resolution Mechanics II
      </news+reviews/columns/dream14apr03.html> by Hunter Logan, 14apr03
    * Resolution Mechanics I </news+reviews/columns/dream11mar03.html>
      by Hunter Logan, 11mar03
    * Player Goals </news+reviews/columns/dream10feb03.html> by Hunter
      Logan, 10feb03
    * Balance of Power </news+reviews/columns/dream20jan03.html> by
      Hunter Logan, 20jan03
    * Play Flow First </news+reviews/columns/dream01jan03.html> by
      Hunter Logan, 01jan03


      Other columns </news+reviews/columns.html> at RPGnet

[ Read FAQ <http://forum.rpg.net/faq.php> | Subscribe to RSS
<http://www.rpg.net/rss.phtml> | Contact Us <mailto:www@rpg.net> |
Advertise with Us <http://www.rpg.net/ads/info.phtml> ]

Copyright © 1996-2006 RPGnet & individual authors, All Rights Reserved
RPGnet® is a registered trademark of Skotos Tech Inc., all rights reserved.