Mini-games within an existing system: Is it doable?

[Kanosint]

Greetings, kind comrades

Today I would wish to consider a rare mechanic. Certainly, I never saw it before. Still, I think it could be interesting.
As you might have guessed from the title, I'm talking mini-games within a larger system.

What do I consider a mini-game? First, it should use the existing system in a different way. Your stats and abilities help in the mini-game, but not necessarily in their usual manner.
The resolution mechanic is different: you do not simply roll a skill to resolve these.

Also, random chance is often less important than tactics and skill.

The mini-game is often relevant to the setting and perhaps closest to how most mainstream RPGs treat combat: an exception or addition to the norm.

An example might be in order.
Let's say gaming night presents you with a spy game this week. As you encounter a code-locked door, you try to crack it. Most systems handle this with a skill check. But consider that code-cracking might be a common element that usually happens once or twice per session. It might thus be prudent to consider having a mini-game for this situation, for example, playing a round of Mastermind. It suits the situation, the hacker feels good (it's better than simply rolling once and describing the result) and different factors can change the rules. Say our hacker is skilled: he'd already have one or two pegs in the right position when he starts! But the lock is difficult, requiring six pegs rather than 4.
This is but an example, of course (and not even that great an example), but I hope my intentions are now clear.

I'm wondering if any games out there use 'mini-games' like this. I know Spycraft most certainly qualifies, but other than that I have no clue.

And how would you handle 'mini-games'? For example, operating  the machinery in the digital game 'The Oil Blue'?

Kind Regards,

Kano.

[Matthew V]

Let's say gaming night presents you with a spy game this week. As you encounter a code-locked door, you try to crack it. Most systems handle this with a skill check. But consider that code-cracking might be a common element that usually happens once or twice per session. It might thus be prudent to consider having a mini-game for this situation, for example, playing a round of Mastermind. It suits the situation, the hacker feels good (it's better than simply rolling once and describing the result) and different factors can change the rules. Say our hacker is skilled: he'd already have one or two pegs in the right position when he starts! But the lock is difficult, requiring six pegs rather than 4.
This is but an example, of course (and not even that great an example), but I hope my intentions are now clear.

I'm wondering if any games out there use 'mini-games' like this. I know Spycraft most certainly qualifies, but other than that I have no clue.

And how would you handle 'mini-games'? For example, operating  the machinery in the digital game 'The Oil Blue'?

I can only say that in my experience, the majority of "traditional" RPGs (D&D, GURPS, Vampire, Shadowrun, Traveler, etc) aren't built to withstand this kind of thing. If you want to forge ahead, here are the issues I've had introducing mini-games into existing systems:

1. If there are more than two players (e.g. a GM and some other platyer), while one player is doing the mini-game, what does everyone else do?

2. How, exactly, do the character's skills assist in the mini-game?

3. How long do you want each mini-game to take? 30 seconds? 10 minutes? This will help answer 1, I suspect.

4. What about players who just want to "roll and go on?" Is there an alternate method for them, or do they just have to live with it?

5. What if the players simply can't 'win' the mini-game? Are their character's stuck or do they get a skill roll?

6. Finally, how do you deal with partial successes? That is, if the player doesn't fail the mini-game outright, but doesn't win either, what happens in the "main game?" If you have multiple mini-games in one RPG, will you have multiple methods of measuring partial success?

[Catelf]

Interesting idea, but if it isn't handled well, it will easily get cumbersome.
As for the "Mastermind Codebreaker" it does not have partial successes, so neither have the mini-game.
It is rather a question if the character/player solves it fast or not, and perhaps within a timelimit or not.

As for the questions Matthew V posted, here are my attempts at answering, at least within the Mastermind definition:
1: I imagine the standard routine: "What are you doing?" "Guarding".
"And You?" "Listening" (Die roll) "There are some noices in the distance"
"And you're at the code, i assume ... I see you've already put out the row for the turn, good ... (Compares, and places pins.)
"And you?" "...I prepare a protective spell for mr Codebreaker .. "
The codebreaker might miss turns while trying to think, it gives no direct gamebonus, though.
2: That obviously depends on the rpg-rules. If using WoD, the skill max is often 5, and the attribute max also 5, with a max total of 10. Halve that, and you get 5 pegs correct to begin with. The common value would be 6, though, resulting in 3 pegs correct instead.
If the Rpg have "roll equal or below your skill on D20" instead, then Divide the proper skill by 4, round down, and get that many pegs correct to begin with.
3: Already answered.
4: That's up to the GM, i guess.
5: If they fail, they fail. They might get a "Luck" roll ....
6: I answered this first, i noticed.

However, any "minigame" added  most get thought through, and not be too complicated ruleswise, or it will bog down the regular game(of course).

[Warrior Monk]

I agree with Catelf: time limit is essential here. It would be good to add a different sort of excitement to a traditional RPG. All games that challenge you to think fast and perhaps react as fast as well might work here. I'd say a spy or police movie setting would be perfect for this mechanics.

However I'd prefer to include all players in each minigame, either as a team or as opponents; story advancement shouldn't depend on winning each game but could change for better or worse depending on the result of the minigame. And minigames should be somehow thematically related to the setting of the game.

[Kanosint]

Pretty much what Catelf said. He answered all the points precisely the way I imagined how it'd work.

As for setting, anything 'gadgety' would work well. Hell, I can even imagine Fantasy settings with a more Rogue-y or Magic-y feel to it. Pick a lock, Cast a spell... That sorta stuff works well.

For me personally, I'm using 'mini-games' in a Steampunk Submarine setting. Direct combat is rare, and too deadly for a majority of the characters, so I decided the non-combatants needed some 'complex' task as well. Managing resources, maintaining the engine, aiming the torpedoes et cetera.

However, I never really saw any system other than Spycraft (somewhat) using mini-games, so I came here wondering whether this exists somewhere else.

[JSDiamond]

It's doable. A mini-game (IMO) should be short and fun and it doesn't need to use the system core. I put a mini-game into one of my sci-fi games; it was a "war" game about a bunch of backstabbing colonists farming space-turnips.   

[Anders Gabrielsson]

This was (kind of) my approach to making skill challenges in 4E interesting. I did still use skill checks, but the meaning of success and failure would be different than just counting them up.

The drawback was that it got to be too much work, so my current project is to make a general framework for game-mechanically interesting skill challenges instead.

Anyway, my main issue with using minigames that move outside the normal game mechanics is that they can a) break immersion, b) make character design choices irrelevant by relying more in player skill than character ability and c) leave the other players feeling left out if they can't contribute meaningfully. All of these can be prevented by careful design and managing of expectations, but that requires going way beyond the "oh, this is a neat idea!" level which is where, speaking from my own experience, one often ends up.

Taking the Mastermind example from above, it might or might not break immersion depending on the players. It still leaves character ability as a meaningful component, but player skill becomes much more important - if you want to play a good lockbreaker you'd better be good at Mastermind in addition to buying up the relevant skill. If it's used in situations where there is nothing else important to do - nothing to guard against etc - the other players will be left out.

I'd like to draw a parallell to rolling for social skills vs. acting out the scene, where the latter in this context can be viewed as somewhat similar to an improv theatre mini-game. Usually it doesn't break immersion (indeed, the argument for it is usually that it strengthens it), but it can leave players who are less talkative feeling left out and depending on how it's handled can definitely replace character ability with player skill.

(By the way, when I talk about players feeling left out I don't mean that they shouldn't take responsibility for their own experiences and whatnot, only that this may require the GM to focus more on other players which can create tension.)