Universal Resolution Systems

[James Maliszewski]

Sept 18, 2008 18:15:53 GMT -6 jrients said:

In other words, I kinda feel like D&D has always had a universal resolution mechanic. It's called the Saving Throw.

Nicely said.

[irdaranger]

I'm just gonna stop by to throw in my two cents against universal mechanics. I wrote on my blog a while ago about The stupidity of Universal Mechanics, so mostly I'll just crib myself.

The problem with the universal mechanic is that it places a serious limitation on the types of sub-games a given rpg can incorporate within the larger story of playing a fantasy hero in a fantasy world. D&D could never have incorporated rules for small team combat, wrestling, mass combat, naval warfare, dominion management, multiverse wanderings, and spellcasting if it had insisted on a universal mechanic for all of these activities. And if it tried then all of them would feel too similar to really spark the interest of the PCs.

If D&D 4E shows us anything, it's that when you try really hard to make universal mechanics work, many things get lost while what remains ends a bland melange of actions that all feel exactly the same.

As a thought experiment in my blog I proposed a "Chess variant" where each time someone moves a piece on the chess board a Street Fighter II match is used to resolve which piece takes control of the space. This really isn't that different from D&D, where there's different rules for hex-crawl and dungeon combat. So does anyone think my Chess variant would be improved if there was a "universal mechanic" to resolve both chess moves and Street Fighter II matches? Of course not - it would destroy the feel of the game. Same with D&D.

I would also note that if you find yourself (as a DM) resorting to "Oh, just roll a stat check" or "Hmm, I guess Save vs. Death" too often you have created a de facto Universal Mechanic. Cut it out, get out of your comfort zone and start imagining what's really going on in your game world and how the players can resolve it.

[dwayanu]

How is playing a video sub-game more universal than the existing rule that the moving piece always takes control of the space in which it lands? Oh, because it's also used to to play the video game by itself? Which is analogous to what??

It looks half baked to me.

[Finarvyn]

I don't see why a universal mechanic has to be limiting at all. While I disliked the d20 system, it was because of the skill/feat complexity a lot more than the continual use of a universal d20 die roll. I enjoy C&C even though the SIEGE Engine is pretty universal in scope.

Seems to me that any setting can be modeled with either of the two options listed above and could run just fine. I've used the basic OD&D rules for fantasy, space, modern, post-holocaust, and probably others I've forgotten. I never felt like those campaigns were lacking or artificially limiting.

Maybe I'm not understanding your main point....

[waysoftheearth]

Like it or not, there is a universal resolution system across all RPGs; The referee decides, and that's it -- resolved. However, this conversation is really about how the referee decides.

I don't mind "the safety net of a universal resolution system." as Calithena most excellently described it in the original post. I like it not least of all because, as Calithena also stated: "the benefits [of not using a universal resolution system] require a good DM".

Exactly what makes a "good", "average" or "bad" DM is an entirely different (but very worthy) conversation, but clearly not everyone is a "good" DM. I would hazard that, statistically speaking, only a minority of all DM's are at the "good" end of the normal distribution. The remainder must therefore be considered "average" or "poor", and would thus probably struggle to reap the whole benefits of attempting to run a game without some kind of universal resolution system.

If there is anything at all in that argument, then a universal resolution system is actually enabling for the rest of us DMs, rather than limiting. Enabling more people to enjoy the game is a good thing in my opinion.

I believe that Jrients got it right with the comment to the effect that the players should prefer to find a solution without rolling. Hence, die rolls should only be made when there is risk involved. For risk to be meaningful there must be consequences of failure. In the absence of consequence, a player can just keep rolling again and again until the right numbers came up, and hence no rolls are required in the first place.


I very often find myself falling back to a couple of well worn ways of resolving things. Most of the time I use 2d6, and require a result of at least 8. If it's easier than that, then success is automatic. You could say this is my universal system.

But even with this established tool, I still decide when a roll is allowed. Sometimes, when a player is tempted to chance his luck on a roll, I find myself hinting at the consequences of failure. Reasonably often this results in the player backing down and looking for another way.

[coffee]

Sept 3, 2009 5:12:46 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

I believe that Jrients got it right with the comment to the effect that the players should prefer to find a solution without rolling. Hence, die rolls should only be made when there is risk involved. For risk to be meaningful there must be consequences of failure. In the absence of consequence, a player can just keep rolling again and again until the right numbers came up, and hence no rolls are required in the first place.

I have to agree with this in particular, and your entire post in general.

I've been looking at Savage Worlds lately, and they have what I would call a universal mechanic: Each ability score and skill is rated as a die type; roll and get 4 or higher.

The utility of this seems, to me (and I admit I haven't played it yet) to be that you don't have to dwell on the mechanics. You can get on with the game. In that sense, it is enabling as opposed to limiting. It's one less thing to worry about ("now, which system do I use for grappling again?...") You just have to roll when there is risk involved (as stated above) and not just for the sake of rolling dice.

I might not be making sense yet this morning, but that's how I feel about it right now.

[irdaranger]

Hmmm. Maybe I need to elaborate a bit.

First Principle: the mechanics are modelling something.

To-hit, AC, HP, etc. etc. all translate into something in the campaign world that models combat. The concepts are vague enough that it's sort of up to the DM to determine what a particular HP (such as, the first one you lose vs. the last one you lose) means in a given context. And that's OK, to an extent, as long as the players and the DM have a more-or-less shared understanding of what's going on.

But you wouldn't use To-Hit and AC to model a Chariot Chase Scene would you? Maybe you could, but I bet you could find better chase rules out there. I hear Spycraft had excellent ones, but I've never seen them. Similarly, To-Hit and AC would be less-than-optimal rules for managing a Baronial Demesnes or building a Tower of Magic, or Picking Locks or Pockets. How would you risk losing HP every time you picked a pocket?

And what about a coin toss? How would you model that? Presumably you could just flip a coin, but let's put that aside for a second. You could just roll any dice right? And evens-odds will give you heads or tails, right? But what if the PC was so dexterous that he can actually "cheat" at flipping coins? Maybe then flipping a coin in real life would actually be a bad model for flipping a coin in the game, because the player (presumably) doesn't have a 19 Dex. In that case maybe rolling % is better, because the PC (but not the player) actually has a 57% chance of coming up heads.

But just rolling a percentile isn't always the best either, because it's so binary. "Win or Lose", there's no ablative "Win, at a Price" mechanism like losing Hit Points is, or finding the item you want to buy but at a 100% premium over market. Plus, there's the question of modifiers - which are theoretically unlimited, so how is a player supposed to know where to start?

And then there's the question of "Zoom level." Everyone likes to say that D&D combat is abstract, but that's a relative term with room to either side - it's not the most abstract or the least I've seen. Every game (and gamer) seems to have their own preference for how much nitty-gritty they want to get into (whether or combat, or cloak & dagger, or encumbrance), and the nittier and grittier the rule the less suited it is for doing anything else. A rule system that tracked every riposte and en guard would suck as a Detective mechanic for finding information in back alleys.

But the most important aspect of any rule mechanic is "intuitively easy to understand." Does the mechanic make sense to the player? Can they understand how it "translates" into the game world? Does it inform them of what their PC is doing, and is capable of? These are all important considerations.


So that's a bit of ramble, but that's why I don't like Universal Mechanics. There's just too much going on in a game world, some of which you care about and some not, and the things you care about all different from each other, to fit it all under one dice mechanic.

[waysoftheearth]

In my view "Game Mechanics" is a broader subject than "Resolution Systems".

A discussion of Game Mechanics would include character-statistics, character generation, a system of character advancement, a magic system, monster-statistics, a combat system, an encumbrance system, and so on. Some of those game mechanics elements would involve resolution systems, others would not.

Hit points and armour classes, for example, are character statistics. They might be used by some resolution systems (such as combat resolution systems), but they are not in themselves what I think of as "resolution systems".


I agree that Game Mechanics model something. But, in my view, a resolution system is nothing more than a means of determining an outcome by chance. A resolution system is a useful tool when the referee can't decide, or else when there are complicating or competing factors contributing to the outcome.

If you are willing to accept that, then the question is not whether a universal resolution system models everything adequately. Rather, the question is whether a universal resolution system can be used by all game mechanics models which require resolution, and if so, whether it could do so satisfactorily.


As a thought experiment let us assume this very trivial resolution system:

Antagonist and protagonist each roll 1d6 and add a modifier. For instant results, whoever has the higher result "wins". For gradual results, the winner gains the difference in advantage.

Now let us see whether this simple resolution system could save a hard pressed referee in each of Irdaranger's problem scenarios...



The Chariot Chase Scene: Pingo Took the inexperienced Halfing rolls 1d6 and gets a 3. The referee decides he can add +1 because he is so small and light, so Pingo's result is a 4. In hot pursuit, the referee rolls 1d6 for The Evil Lord Zugmee and gets a 5. The referee decides Zugmee's great skill in charioteering and the fearsome zeal of his black steeds will add +4. However, the bulk of his nightmare full plate armour slows him by -1, so overall he adds +3. Zugmee's result is 8. Clearly Zugmee has won the round. The referee decides that, because the difference in the results is 4, Zugmee has gained 40 feet this round. Now he is only 80 feet behind!


Managing a Baronial Demesnes: Our poor referee is suddenly required to figure out how much income bold young Baron Von Drasnikk the Obliquely Proportioned has derived from his holdings last month.

To secure his income, the Baron rolls 1d6, scoring a 4. The referee decides that the Baron might have been penalised due to his complete lack of accounting, logistics or management skills, but as The Baron was absent on adventures for most of the month, and his appointed steward was efficient (rather than well loved), the result stands.

Now the referee rolls collectively for all The Peoples' tax dodging and sob stories, deciding to add +1 because of the Baron's continuing absence month by month (and his inability to pay for "tax enforcers"). The People roll a 2, giving them a total result of 3.

The Baron (through his steward) has won by 1 pip on the dice, so 1 additional silver piece of revenue was earned for each inhabitant of his holdings. If the Baron had lost he would have earn no income at all (the cost of tax collecting being equal to the sums secured). If an equal result was scored, the Baron would have earned just 1 silver coin per resident.


Picking Pockets Eloisia d'Freigh, of Noble birth, is short of funds and not beyond snatching a fat merchant's coin purse in a busy marketplace...

Eloisia rolls 1d6 + and adds +1 for her cunning dexterity. Unbeknown to the fat merchant, the referee rolls 1d6 and adds +2 for the vigilance of his hired security (which Eloisia is blissfully unaware of). If Eloisia rolls up, she will succeed. If the results are equal, it will indicate a failed attempt, but at least Eloisia will not hav been noticed. If the merchant rolls up, then he, or one of his guards, will have caught Eloisia in the act. Of course Eloisia does not (directly) risk loosing "hit points" in this scenario. She risks something which is perhaps even more valuable -- opportunity.


Picking Locks Tennenbourne the Dwarven sapper rolls 1d6 adding his intelligence modifier if he is equipped with lock picks, or subtracting -4 if he is not. The referee rolls d6 + dungeon level for the lock. If Tennenbourne rolls up, the lock will be cracked successfully. In the case of equal results, no progress will be made. If the referee rolls rolls up, then Tennenbourne is perplexed, and will not be able to successfully crack this lock today. In this case the PC risks loosing time, as each attempt takes a full turn. The referee secretly ticks off another turn to remind himself how much longer is it until the next random encounter check...


Tossing a Coin This is an obvious opportunity for even a novice referee to "go out on a limb" and substitute a "custom resolution system" by actually tossing a coin. However, sticking to our little thought experiment... Able Smung the compulsive gambler, rolls 1d6 and scores a 6! It is a fair game, so the referee applies no modifier. The Casino of Fate only employs undead dealers (they are less likely to cheat) so our Zombified dealer rolls 1d6 and scores a 3. Smung has won the coin toss, which enables him to progress to the next table where he can toss the coin personally -- and apply his crafty little cheat!

This time the referee allows Smung to add a +1 modifier on his roll because of all that diligent practice tossing a coin. Oh, the hours and hours of practice, and it all comes down to a +1 modifier. But he is gambling for his soul...


Does all this work? You can decide that for yourself. For what it's worth (probably zero) I think it does. Is it the most satisfactory result? I can't tell you that either, but I think it is pretty close. And I didn't need to spent hours poring over the "perfect" resolution systems for chariot racing, managing baronial demesnes, picking pockets or picking locks, nor did I need to refer to any rules or tables.

It all took me about as long as it took you to read it. And so my game goes on...

[coffee]

Yeah, waysoftheearth, that's what I wanted to say but couldn't come up with as good an explanation as you. Have an exalt!

[irdaranger]

Sept 4, 2009 5:06:03 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

If you are willing to accept that, then the question is not whether a universal resolution system models everything adequately. Rather, the question is whether a universal resolution system can be used by all game mechanics models which require resolution, and if so, whether it could do so satisfactorily.

That's actually a very good distinction to make, and something I hadn't thought of with precision. Exalt to you.

One nuance though is that if one did have a Resolution System such as the one described, you'd have to make sure your Game Mechanics were properly scaled to work with its chosen dice. Consider a combat where we use your opposed d6 to determine who loses HP, and how many. In that case you'd want to make sure that high level characters have fewer HP than they do now, otherwise combat could take a really long time. Can you imagine how long it would take to whittle down a 75 HP Fighting Man?

Anyway, just a thought. And thanks for the contribution. I may actually use it!

[waysoftheearth]

Shall we extend the experiment to a combat example?


One on One Combat Arrgo Urskenhyde, a 6th level fighting-man, faces a fearsome Wyvern.

Arrgo is wearing full plate armour and carries an enchanted +1 shield. He has the use of a Reptilian Bane Axe. His AC is 1, and has 30 hit points.

The Wyvern is an AC 3 monster with 7 HD, but because the referee favours tough monsters, it has a full 42 hit points.

The referee rules that neither party is surprised as they menacingly approach one another. Arrgo rolls 1d6 for initiative, scoring a 5. The referee rolls 1d6 for the Wyvern, adding +2 for its great reach. But the die shows a 1 for a total initiative of 3. Arrgo will attack first.

Arrgo makes his attack roll against the Wyvern's defence roll. Arrgo throws 1d6 and again scores a 5. He adds his fighter level (+6), so his total is 11. The referee throws 1d6 for the Wyvern's defence and scores a 3. He adds 9(unarmoured AC) less 3(the Wyvern's AC), which is 6, for a overall result of 9.

Arrgo's attack roll was 11, which was more than the Wyvern's defence roll of 9, so Arrgo has hit the beast. The Axe of Reptilian Bane causes 2 dice of damage against any reptile, so 2d6 hit points are dealt by the blow. Arrgo rolls an 8, leaving the monster with 34 of its original 42 hit points.

But now the terrible creature strikes back. It has two attacks, a powerful claw, and a deadly poisoned sting. The referee rolls 1d6 for the Wyvern's claw attack, and another for its sting attack. The claw attack is a 6, and the sting attack is a 3. To each, the referee adds the monster's HD (+7) for results of 13 and 10.

Arrgo rolls 1d6 to defend himself and scores a 4. He adds his AC factor of 9(unarmoured AC) less 1(his actual AC) = 8. Therefore his defence total is 12.

The Wyvern has landed a hit with its claw attack, but missed with its sting attack. The referee rolls two dice of damage due to the creature's great size and strength, dealing 6 hit points of damage to Arrgo. He has 24 hit points left.

What will happen in the next round?


It's worth noting that I don't actually use this system -- I just made it up it to illustrate a point for this discussion. The point, I think, is that a universal resolution system can be a very handy tool.