RPGnet Columns
09-06-2003, 11:42 PM
Post originally by Jay Loucks at 2003-09-06 22:42:40
Converted from Phorums BB System
The question is: “Is it possible to reduce the role of chance in games, while maintaining a degree of plausibility in terms of Success and Fate.”
The answer, of course, is yes.
The rule sets that I recall offhand specifically state that no rolls are required for everyday actions. However, I beleive there are valid reasons to want a randomized result for some actions:
1) Degree of success: whether to determine the quality of the result, the speed of finishing, or difficulty of others to counter a character’s action.
2) Adverse conditions: something is making the action more difficult, such as time pressure, combat, weather conditions, or someone opposing the action.
Sandy also said:
“I feel that RPGs rely too much on chance, on Random methods. I think most RPGs go too 'atomic' in tasks…”
The atomic issue is a good point. Many game systems require multiple rolls to achieve standard results under normal conditions. This may include a climbing test every round (when proper equipment is used and there is no opposition), or a balance test every round to cross an icy surface. It makes sense in these situations (where there is little dramatic potential) to roll once to resolve the challenge, or not at all if proper precautions are made.
However, if there is dramatic potential in the action, it makes sense to ask for a randomized result for each point of difficulty, modified by the Player’s descriptions. It’s a lot less difficult to safely cross the ice if you slide on your belly (firing your pistols as you go if required) than to run over it.
Finally, Sandy raised a point about scenario/encounter design:
“I feel that RPGs rely too much on chance, on Random methods. I think most RPGs go too 'atomic' in tasks, i.e.
You _must_ pick the lock for this chest to get inside. Failure=never opens.
A more organic solution is:
There is a locked chest. It has good stuff inside.”
This may be more of an issue for published modules and individual GM style rather than general RPG design. I have purchased modules with similar descriptions of a situation. The author appears to expect the PCs to do exactly what he has written.
In other materials, there is a random element in the encounter, such as “There is a 30% chance that a Police car is at the speed trap when the PCs pass it,” or “there is a 50% chance that the leader will have 2-8 minions with her.”
The first is a problem with player free will. If the material requires the PCs to do something in a particular way, most of the time Players will go in a different direction. A more flexible approach would state the presence of the chest, and any relevant game stats (difficulty to pick the lock, difficulty to break open, time required to break, etc.). Then allow the GM to rule based on the Players actions. With NPCs, this requires more background information, defining the characters plans, goals and resources, rather than a step-by-step list of specific actions. I direct your attention to Heather Grove’s articles on Free Will in Roleplaying for Game Masters at http://www.burningvoid.com/users/heather/roleplaying/resources.html#gm.
As for rolls required in the game materials, GM’s need to be aware that this reflects the writers estimate of how likely or often these events should occur, plan accordingly, and then use them as dramatically appropriate, or when it will enhance the fun for the group, rather than be constrained by random rolls.
Regards,
Jay Loucks
Converted from Phorums BB System
The question is: “Is it possible to reduce the role of chance in games, while maintaining a degree of plausibility in terms of Success and Fate.”
The answer, of course, is yes.
The rule sets that I recall offhand specifically state that no rolls are required for everyday actions. However, I beleive there are valid reasons to want a randomized result for some actions:
1) Degree of success: whether to determine the quality of the result, the speed of finishing, or difficulty of others to counter a character’s action.
2) Adverse conditions: something is making the action more difficult, such as time pressure, combat, weather conditions, or someone opposing the action.
Sandy also said:
“I feel that RPGs rely too much on chance, on Random methods. I think most RPGs go too 'atomic' in tasks…”
The atomic issue is a good point. Many game systems require multiple rolls to achieve standard results under normal conditions. This may include a climbing test every round (when proper equipment is used and there is no opposition), or a balance test every round to cross an icy surface. It makes sense in these situations (where there is little dramatic potential) to roll once to resolve the challenge, or not at all if proper precautions are made.
However, if there is dramatic potential in the action, it makes sense to ask for a randomized result for each point of difficulty, modified by the Player’s descriptions. It’s a lot less difficult to safely cross the ice if you slide on your belly (firing your pistols as you go if required) than to run over it.
Finally, Sandy raised a point about scenario/encounter design:
“I feel that RPGs rely too much on chance, on Random methods. I think most RPGs go too 'atomic' in tasks, i.e.
You _must_ pick the lock for this chest to get inside. Failure=never opens.
A more organic solution is:
There is a locked chest. It has good stuff inside.”
This may be more of an issue for published modules and individual GM style rather than general RPG design. I have purchased modules with similar descriptions of a situation. The author appears to expect the PCs to do exactly what he has written.
In other materials, there is a random element in the encounter, such as “There is a 30% chance that a Police car is at the speed trap when the PCs pass it,” or “there is a 50% chance that the leader will have 2-8 minions with her.”
The first is a problem with player free will. If the material requires the PCs to do something in a particular way, most of the time Players will go in a different direction. A more flexible approach would state the presence of the chest, and any relevant game stats (difficulty to pick the lock, difficulty to break open, time required to break, etc.). Then allow the GM to rule based on the Players actions. With NPCs, this requires more background information, defining the characters plans, goals and resources, rather than a step-by-step list of specific actions. I direct your attention to Heather Grove’s articles on Free Will in Roleplaying for Game Masters at http://www.burningvoid.com/users/heather/roleplaying/resources.html#gm.
As for rolls required in the game materials, GM’s need to be aware that this reflects the writers estimate of how likely or often these events should occur, plan accordingly, and then use them as dramatically appropriate, or when it will enhance the fun for the group, rather than be constrained by random rolls.
Regards,
Jay Loucks