Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Halzebier, November 29, 2005, 04:35:36 PM
QuoteIn light of our discussion about climb checks, I'd like to introduce you to an alternative approach, which I know from other RPGs.Our current approach is generally dubbed "Task Resolution" and it's alternative is "Conflict Resolution". These look as follows:1. TRGM: "Make a climb check at –4 to cross the ledge."2. CRGM: "Make a climb check at –4 to cross the ledge without taking 3d6 damage."What's the difference?1. With CR, the stakes are agreed upon before the roll.Even though a bottomless ravine suggests otherwise: The survival of the character is only seemingly at stake, as we have a gentlemen's agreement that our characters won't die. As the characters also (a) have as many tries as they want and (b) must be allowed to cross the ledge for the adventure to continue as planned, the question is not WHETHER but HOW they cross the ledge. This "HOW" is what is really at stake and can take different forms:- without taking 3d6 damage- without being forced into a melee by our pursuers- without assistance or retries (i.e. elegantly)etc.Because we don't determine what is seemingly at stake ("Will someone fall to his death?", "Will we eventually be able to cross the ledge?"), but what is really at stake, the agreed-upon procedure completely resolves the situation. Additional rolls are automatically unnecessary.TRWith TR, the stakes can only be guessed at. The players – and often the GM, too! – don't know the consequences of a failed check. These are only improvised (or at least announced) afterwards, usually to allow the characters to survive after all or to guide the module (e.g by asking for stealth checks again and again until the characters trigger the alarm as planned).*-*-*CR's three most important advantages are as follows:1. It's tense ("Do I risk this much damage?") rather than uncertain ("How much damage will the GM decide upon?").2. It's fair ("3d6? Okay, I'm game.") rather than prone to misunderstandings and fights ("If I had known that beforehand, I'd ...").3. It speeds up the game, because additional rolls are unnecessary.CR has other advantages (and TR has some of its own), but this email is long enough already.*-*-*In my opinion, a shift to CR would make our game more tense (but not more dangerous to the characters), less frustrating, more atmospheric and, above all, much faster.But: A shift is easier said than done.DSA is (contrary to The Pool) suitable for both TR and CR, so that it's easy to fall back into old habits. Also, you have to learn to say No to certain suggestions ("If that definitely comes about if I fail, I won't risk it." and "No, Gary, I won't allow a check even at –30. It's just out of the question.")For these reasons I think that a shift only has a chance if we're all behind this – to which end I'm happy to discuss this further with you! – and if we go for it full bore.Alternatively, we can try out CR during an intermezzo with DSA or other rules. I'd be very happy – regardless of this whole TR/CR business – if I could run more indie games between modules or GM rotations (in our accustomed setting, too).
Quote from: SeanWhat are you going to experience after making this shift, playing DSA? If you're going this way you all need to be clear on what limits (a) the system and (b) your group's preferences put on the kinds of conflicts you can resolve. Can you get into a conflict to rule the empire from any position? If the GM can just say no to this, does the GM vet all conflicts?
Quote from: CallanI think one problem you might come into is sticking with old habits and finding it fun at first. [...] Perhaps organise in advance some sort of explicit sign that can be used during play to 'think big', so players scale up their ideas and are thus likely to find something exciting to happen next (they may indeed scale back town to task after that, but you can use that explicit sign again too).