Opportunity pool

[dukereg]

I was thinking of an action mechanic where you have a pool of dice of the same type (lets say d6) called your opportunity pool.

A character has a list of stunts/abilities/cliches/aspects/etc that are rated in terms of range:
e.g. a character called Alf might have
"gunslinger" with range 4-6,
"rally driver" with range 6-6 and "
danger sense" with range 1-2.

Say Alf is walking down an ally in a bad neighbourhood. An unnoticed stalker is about to shoot him dead.

Player rolls his opportunity pool and gets say [1],[4],[6],[3]. This means that Alf has the opportunity to sense the danger ([1] is in the range 1-2), fire his gun ([4] is in range 4-6), and fire his gun again ([6] is in range 4-6 and 6-6, but he can't apply his rally driving skills while walking), with 3 giving him nothing.
Alf's player describes how Alf gets a feeling of being watched, and turns in time to see the gunman taking aim. Without hesitation, Alf draws his pistol and fires two rounds into his assailant's torso.

How would you decide how many dice to roll in the Opportunity pool?

Would this be adaptable to a non-action mechanic? I personally think it would be best to have a separate simple resolution mechanic for particular tasks the player wants the character to initiate, and keep this one for action sequences.

Should abilities be arranged into categories for certain types of action so that there are less to check every time the player rolls and it is more realistic, or should all abilities be tested, for open-endedness and to allow novel solutions to problems?

[Jeremy Keller]

This would be a cool thing to do with cards. Then each opportunity could be each own card and you wouldn't have to keep referencing a table to see what you can do.

If your opportunity pool is a limited resource, let the player decide how many dice she rolls. The more you dice you roll for the current action, the more opportunities you will have. But the trade off is you'll be more vulnerable in the next action.

[dukereg]

Whisper:
Do you mean for example that I could write the name of each ability on index cards and then use these as a deck to draw from?

I was actually hoping to introduce choices... for example using Alf from my original post:
Alf is driving along and suddenly a car full of gangsters with tommy guns pulls out beside him and are about to start shooting in his direction.
He rolls only one useful result which is [6]. He has a choice whether to use rally driving to take a sharp turn into an alley to try to lose them, or gunslinging to shoot one of the tires and avoid the gangsters that way.

[Upstart]

I honestly prefer a system where my PC can do his tricks anywhere, anytime. What is the payoff in limiting so savagely and often illogically the PC's options?

[Spikey]

The payoff is that the dice determine the direction of the story. What's the payoff from limiting the character to hitting only when the player rolls high enough?

[Upstart]

The payoff is that the dice determine the direction of the story. What's the payoff from limiting the character to hitting only when the player rolls high enough?

That dice determine where the story goes. And this does NOT result in situations like "why doesn't she just shoot the motherfucker?!"

[Jeremy Keller]

Whisper:
Do you mean for example that I could write the name of each ability on index cards and then use these as a deck to draw from?

I was actually hoping to introduce choices... for example using Alf from my original post:
Alf is driving along and suddenly a car full of gangsters with tommy guns pulls out beside him and are about to start shooting in his direction.
He rolls only one useful result which is [6]. He has a choice whether to use rally driving to take a sharp turn into an alley to try to lose them, or gunslinging to shoot one of the tires and avoid the gangsters that way.

I was thinking that you would draw several cards from the deck (the same number of cards as the dice you would roll). Then you could chose from among the cards in your hand as to what action you actually take.

But perhaps that doesn't interface well with how you've set up your trait ratings/ranges.

[Spikey]

"why doesn't she just shoot the motherfucker?!"I assume rolling outside the 'gunslinger' (or whatever) range can be interpreted as, 'She shoots and misses,' rather than, 'She chooses not to shoot.'

I also assume you allow the same latitude in more traditional games: 'Let's see, I rolled a seven, my THAC0 is 12 and his AC is 3. Apparently, my fighter just decided not to take a swing this round.' :D

[Upstart]

I assume rolling outside the 'gunslinger' (or whatever) range can be interpreted as, 'She shoots and misses,' rather than, 'She chooses not to shoot.'

I also assume you allow the same latitude in more traditional games: 'Let's see, I rolled a seven, my THAC0 is 12 and his AC is 3. Apparently, my fighter just decided not to take a swing this round.' :D

I see your point. Still, it's important for me as a player that my PC can do anything that suits the game genre, at least in a game where my only chance to affect the plot is via my PC's actions.

[Vaecrius]

That dice determine where the story goes. And this does NOT result in situations like "why doesn't she just shoot the motherfucker?!""She takes out a couple, but they just keep coming. She weaves through the interstate but damn, their driver's good. And another car full of them starts moving in to intercept. More cover fire; she can't get a good shot at anyone swerving down the road like this. Maybe if she could just...

"Moments later, both pursuers' vehicles lie in a mangled smoking heap on the bridge behind her. And above, too - her own car is now slowly sinking into the muddy banks of the river. Oh well, it wasn't really hers anyway."

Give the players enough leeway to weave the results into their story and things shouldn't be too contrived.

And I think you should be able to check all abilities. The character sheet could just separate them into three sections depending on where the range is centered so you can quickly pick which ones apply.

Would this be adaptable to a non-action mechanic? I personally think it would be best to have a separate simple resolution mechanic for particular tasks the player wants the character to initiate, and keep this one for action sequences.I don't see why you can't use this for everything. Social resolutions could have stuff like "logical argument", "antagonizing people", "veiled threats", "manipulate relationships", etc. and the players could form the acting character's winning negotiation tactic according to what the roll gives them.

[Spikey]

Still, it's important for me as a player that my PC can do anything that suits the game genre, at least in a game where my only chance to affect the plot is via my PC's actions.But character failure (e.g. rolling a miss in combat) is just as much an obstacle to this as character inaction (e.g rolling a 'hesitate' on a fear roll or a morale roll or whatever). The idea that player engagement means character intentions are sacrosanct but character achievements are up for grabs produces some game-design blind spots, IME.

[Upstart]

But character failure (e.g. rolling a miss in combat) is just as much an obstacle to this as character inaction (e.g rolling a 'hesitate' on a fear roll or a morale roll or whatever). The idea that player engagement means character intentions are sacrosanct but character achievements are up for grabs produces some game-design blind spots, IME.

But in this case, if I understood correctly, there are double limits. You can't choose whether you win or lose and there's additional limits in choosing how do you do it.

It's important whether you win or lose. But how do you do it? That's just color. Color can vary infinitely and you can let the players decide much of it, to engage them more. Just retain the veto power if you think they can get too wild. Using a randomizer here just creates wacky situations and clumsy rules IMO.

[Vaecrius]

But in this case, if I understood correctly, there are double limits. You can't choose whether you win or lose and there's additional limits in choosing how do you do it. Somehow I read this system as a way of choosing which actions succeed: if you get results for driving and sorcery, and only driving applies in the situation, then your driving skill lets you win. It's only if no skill applies at all that you just declare whatever you want with a failed result.

Also, I'm assuming that if two skills have the same range the player has a choice...

[Upstart]

Somehow I read this system as a way of choosing which actions succeed

If that's the case I consider it only as a superfluous rules layer.

[Vaecrius]

If that's the case I consider it only as a superfluous rules layer.
Would you find this better then:

First, choose a skill that is relevant to the situation and find its range.

Roll the dice.

If any of the dice comes up within your skill's range, you succeed in your task and win that conflict.

If not, you fail the task. Depending on the situation you lose that conflict or you try again with a different skill.

[Tarafore]

Would you find this better then:

First, choose a skill that is relevant to the situation and find its range.

Roll the dice.

If any of the dice comes up within your skill's range, you succeed in your task and win that conflict.

If not, you fail the task. Depending on the situation you lose that conflict or you try again with a different skill.

Isn't that the same thing as the first mechanic?
(Well, unless you're re-rolling the die).

You know, I kind of like the mechanic. I doubt I'd use it for a long-term game, or as my default, but I really like the narrative possibilities this throws out.

It sounds like it would be fun to play and have to come up with ways to succeed on the fly that match your results.

[Vaecrius]

It is the same mechanic, just "unpacked" so that you're testing skills one at a time like in a more "traditional" skill check format. (That, and there's a bigger chance of losing since the GM or whoever makes the decision might deem that you've lost the conflict if you lose the first attempted method.)

What it should do is remove the "layer" in dukereg's OP system where you check the die results against all the skills on your sheet and then decide which of the applicable ones you use.

[dukereg]

You know, I kind of like the mechanic. I doubt I'd use it for a long-term game, or as my default, but I really like the narrative possibilities this throws out.

Out of curiosity, are the reasons you wouldn't use it for a long term game the same reasons that Upstart lists?

[Broin]

This sort of reminds me of Trollbabe, which I inadvertently copied in a game of my own called Slip. Make failing on a dice roll really commonplace. Then allow rerolls for upping the stakes, taking a hit, dragging in a relationship, or needing extra narration.

Joe.

[Upstart]

Would you find this better then:

First, choose a skill that is relevant to the situation and find its range.

Roll the dice.

If any of the dice comes up within your skill's range, you succeed in your task and win that conflict.

If not, you fail the task. Depending on the situation you lose that conflict or you try again with a different skill.

There's the whole "choose a skill that is..." part, which just takes a lot of my precious time. Why can't I just say what my PC does?

The system produces long conflicts where the characters try all of their tricks, even the wackiest ones (unless they are ruled out by some elaborate procedure, probably relying heavily on GM fiat). I'm content with characters just shooting all the time if that's the most sensible thing to do. If you want diversity in action, you should mechanically encourage it, not force it. That is, if you want me to enjoy.

[Tarafore]

Out of curiosity, are the reasons you wouldn't use it for a long term game the same reasons that Upstart lists?

Sort of. First off, I think it would be almost impossible for immersive/Deep-IC players to enjoy this kind of mechanic. When you're playing a character intuitively, rather than deliberately, having that character's intentions be untouchable is pretty much necessary.

And a lot of the people I game with, myself included, are at least partially immersive

The proposed mechanic could also lead to what Upstart said about every PC trying every trick s/he has, from gunfighting to cooking, to try to get a success. It will either lead to a lot of wacky results (a la Risus) or a lot of the GM saying "no, you can't do that here," which can also be frustrating in a long term game.

Frankly, it just wouldn't be to my gaming group's taste, at least not long-term. I think it could be a blast for a one-off, especially if the rest of the system is kept very simple.

BTW, how do you handle different levels of difficulties on tasks? What about gear? Would it just be "You have a car, so you can use Driving," or would a sportscar give an advantage that a compact wouldn't?

And how would you create a character in this game?

[dukereg]

BTW, how do you handle different levels of difficulties on tasks? What about gear? Would it just be "You have a car, so you can use Driving," or would a sportscar give an advantage that a compact wouldn't?

And how would you create a character in this game?

I haven't really thought about how the rest of the system would be.

It is just a mechanic I was considering using for action resolution in the place of a more traditional "say what you want to do and see if you fail" mechanic. It is more of a "see what options can succeed and choose one" idea. Let's face it, there are hundreds of games that already do a good job of the conventional approach.

It needs more thought and mechanics before it will function as a playable game.

[Tarafore]

I haven't really thought about how the rest of the system would be.

It is just a mechanic I was considering using for action resolution in the place of a more traditional "say what you want to do and see if you fail" mechanic. It is more of a "see what options can succeed and choose one" idea. Let's face it, there are hundreds of games that already do a good job of the conventional approach.

It needs more thought and mechanics before it will function as a playable game.

In that case, may I throw out a couple of ideas?

Gear can serve to give rerolls, as in Trollbabe, or could give a bonus to the Trait number, expanding the range of successful action. Difficulty could either add penalty dice (ie, roll twice, and take the worse of the two rolls) or could reduce the Trait number for a specific situation.

Bonus or Penalty, wise: If your Stunt Driver Trait is 4-6, and you're in a car with awesome handling, you might be able to succeed with "Stunt Driver" on a 3-6. But if the task were harder (say, the car you were in had bad handling, or the roads were slick), you might only be able to use "Stunt Driver" on a 5-6.

This could also work for situations in which one Trait is harder to use than another. For example, when driving and shooting, Gunslinger might be penalized, but Stunt Driver woudn't.

Just a few thoughts