Ok. Another question. This one is a direct port from storygamesville, of which I am an unapologetic fan of.
One of the key features of a PbtA game is the dice resolution model of:
A) success, partial success, failure or
B) success, success with complication, complication (which may or may not mean failure, depending on the fiction and specific game design.)
This question is specifically about the middle option as it might relate to OSR/NSR games; partial success (PS) or success with complications (SC). When I first came across this mechanic it was a revelatory experience. I was all, āholy shit! This is brilliant!ā
Now, I totally see yāalls take on success and failure. But, what role, if any, does PS or SC have, or could have in an OSR/NSR game? Why would or wouldnāt it work?
A few OSR games do this: Vagabonds of Dyfed, World of Dungeons, Obscure Adventures, and the more recent Realms of Peril.
I actually do this with binary resolution systems, but based on GM Fiat: basically, how successful were the players in setting up the roll? Did they account for every eventuality, but the risk was still there? If so, Iāll push for a partial success/failure.
Yeahā¦ GM Fiat is a no go for me. In my experience (Iām 50, so not a little) GM fiat tends to be a popularity contest and, given that Iām autistic, I never win popularity contests. Sure, say what you will about good vs bad GMing, it still becomes a thing. Personally, I need mechanical support to deal with this issue. This is also true, moreso true, with social interactions. In game, Iām not limited with social skills, I can roleplay with the best of āem, so this isnāt so much an issue for me. But, Iāve seen others struggle and than be āpunishedā for their challenges. I donāt like seeing that, a lot!
Everything is GM fiat. Deciding how many monsters, what kills them, what is around the next cornerā¦ Itās all fiat. The key is finding the level youāre comfortable with! Which youāre trying to do, obviously.
I ran PbtA games for years (even made a semi successful one) and PbtA leans into fiat more than most, the very nature of mixed success requires deciding what to give, and what to take!
Everything is fiat, yes and no. Sure, the GM plays the role of the setting, as the players interact with it. And, hopefully, the GM responds according to how the players interact with the setting. This is fine.
Where Iām at is give the player the power to ensure that they arenāt ignored or overlooked because of the popularity contest intrinsic to all RPGs. Sure, you can start creating rule after rule that āguaranteesā this or that, at which point this or that gets lost. So, creating mechanics for the sake of mechanics isnāt the solution. But, tweaks here and there can be. At least, hopefully.
Iām not one who GMs with the notion that GMs should have absolute authority. This another thing that I hope to bring into my design. I think PS and SC is one step in that direction. And, I recognize that this can go overboard really quick.
Perhaps this should be another thread, but what do you think about the GM not rolling dice, as is a PbtA standard?
This model is popular in NSR games that donāt provide any method of numerically adjusting difficulty. Hereās an article that explains why Into the Odd is designed without numerical adjustments to Save difficulty: BASTIONLAND: Difficulty in Bastionland
I would have to disagree with you that there is a āpopularity contest inherent to all RPGs.ā Iāve never had an issue with GM favoritism in any game Iāve played. As for āthe players roll all the diceāā¦ itās fine? I think there are some O/NSR games that do that. Personally I donāt see the appeal.
P.S. It might be good if, instead of making a bunch of different threads, you made one big thread introducing yourself and saying āhereās who I am, hereās my background in RPGs, can you teach me about the OSR and NSR?ā And then you can ask all your questions in that thread.
Thatās an interesting chart. I appreciate you bringing it to my attention. Iāll think about it, for sure.
Re: Popularity contests in RPGs,
I understand that they may not be your experience, but it is something is very real in mine and those āweirdosā who donāt fit in, for whatever reason. Iāve struggled with this my whole life and RPGs are no exception. In fact, in RPGs itās more obvious, to me and those of my cohort(?).
Where this has not been an issue, at least, lesser of an issue, has been in those games that have unintentionally addressed it. Those games can also be a bit rules intensive for me, if you will.
Finally,
Iām autistic and this, for me, comes with certain limitations that would seriously challenge my if I had to ask all of my questions in one thread.
Iām sorry if this is an inconvenience for you, and, if this is standard and expected practice, I will happily bow out of this forum. I do not wish to impose my hang ups on yāall.
I think he did in the beginning of his posts? I donāt mind this, liking both story-games and OSR/NSR type play. I think this question/discussion is fascinating and would, even if in a main post, deserve a spinoff in its own thread. Also, I like seeing activity on this forum
now @Alejandro, about the moves. Itās something I like a lot that has come out of the PbtA style games. I use it in games I run with a simple unwritten rule. If plainly failing would be boring, offer the option of succeeding at a cost. Or, donāt even make it an option, turn a failure into a success at a cost.
It seems, from the above posts, that you do not GM at the moment. Have you ever tried it? I think, because GMās use a lot of tricks, that it often seems to players that GMās have it all figured out and that everything is prepared in advance, but as @yochaigal said, very often, itās just GM fiat, especially in PbtA type games, which require you to interpret possible moves to take, what it would look like, etc.
I am currently not a playing in any game, but I do GM and I am comfortable with my style. I actively make sure that I donāt single anyone out. However, these days and over the past few years, Iāve really only played storygames. I enjoy them and donāt regret that choice. However, they tend to be very focused and I would like an open ended experience that allows for exploration and world development.
What Iād like to see if OSR/NSR games could do is create an element of player empowerment that allows players to drive play to what theyāre interested in, without compromising the spirit of OSR/NSR design. Why? I donāt know. Iām currently enamored by the OSR/NSR form factor and want to see how far it can be pushed before it breaks, or, most likely, becomes something else.
Iām asking about this here, because I have been impressed by yāallās designs, thus, I am in pursuit of yāallās input. Iām not asking in the discord because discord breaks my brain. Itās an autism thing.
Iām autistic and this, for me, comes with certain limitations that would seriously challenge my if I had to ask all of my questions in one thread.
Oh, then making separate threads is fine! I just thought a single thread might be more convenient for you, but if itās not then forget what I said. Iām on the autism spectrum myself, for what itās worth, so I get it.
I would like an open ended experience that allows for exploration and world development.
What Iād like to see if OSR/NSR games could do is create an element of player empowerment that allows players to drive play to what theyāre interested in
Exploration is a huge part of the OSR/NSR-style, but it is a very prep-focused style (unlike storygames). Typically the GM prepares an adventure location, whether thatās a single dungeon or a huge world map or something in-between, and players sign up for the game based on whether theyāre interested in exploring that location.
Players are definitely the drivers of play but they can only drive play toward what the GM has prepared. So, if you want players ensure players can drive play toward something theyāre interested in, I would consider using elements of collaborative worldbuilding or simply asking your players what kind of locations theyād be interested in exploring before you prepare them.
Hereās a post on how Yochai does collaborative worldbuilding: Build Your World
I generally like Chris McDowallās advice on this sort of thing. The most recent (that I know of) iteration from Mythic Bastionland puts it like this:
TAKING ACTION
When the players take action the Referee works down this list.
1: INTENT - What are you trying to do?
2: LEVERAGE - What makes it possible?
3: COST - Would it use a resource, grant a Burden, or have a negative side-effect?
4: STAKES - Whatās at risk? No risk, no roll.
5: ROLL - Make a Save or a Luck Roll.
6: IMPACT - Show the consequences, honour the Stakes, and move forward.
SUCCESS
When the players succeed at a significant action the Referee does one of the following:
ADVANCE - Move in a good direction.
DISRUPT - Lessen a threat.
RESOLVE - Put a problem to rest.
FAILURE
When the players fail at a risky action they might still complete the action, but always suffer negative consequences:
THREATEN - Create a new problem.
ESCALATE - Make a situation worse.
EXECUTE - Deliver on a threat.
IMPACT
Whether a success or failure, ensure that the playersā actions have an observable impact on the world. The best types of impact have both immediate and lasting consequences, always moving things forward.
The failure section is probably most applicable here.
Keeping things moving forward is the biggest part of these ideas that vibes with me. Just saying āyou failedā is boring and brings everything to a halt, in my experience.
This is such an easy ruling. I use this all the time in situations where I cant easily decide on position and effect and want to instead improvise a PbtA style move.
