PDA

View Full Version : What are resolution mechanics (rolls) for?



GGambrel
2019-09-29, 10:22 AM
Something I've been thinking about lately is the purpose of resolution mechanics. It seems to me that their purpose is to answer open questions players have about the characters' interactions with the world and each other without resorting to GM fiat or player consensus.

Following this line of reasoning, my question becomes, "What questions should a resolution mechanic be able to answer?" Some seem pretty obvious to me:


Did the character succeed?
How well did the character do?
How fast did the character do it?

Are there other questions that resolution mechanics do/should answer that don't fall into these categories? For instance, damage rolls in D&D might be described as "How fast did the character(s) defeat the enemy?"

If your view on resolution mechanics is different than what I've described above, I'd be interested in hearing it as well.

notXanathar
2019-09-29, 12:06 PM
At the heart of it, I feel that the point of resolution mechanics is a balance thing. While there other things, the origin at least is that it was to prevent players from saying: I have a magic power that let's me win at everything. The other thing would be to allow players to make plans. If they know how good they are at a thing, they are able to decide whether to use it as the solution to a problem, with what advantages and disadvantages it may bring.

Bjarkmundur
2019-09-29, 12:15 PM
Nope, they're about creating drama. (https://www.reddit.com/r/RPGdesign/comments/8xk56d/too_many_mechanics_resolution_mechanics/)

I try to think of it this way; you are not rolling for success. You are rolling to avert disaster. If there is no disaster, a resolution mechanic is not needed.

I like to use the locked door as an example. A locked door is not an obstacle. It only becomes an obstacle when the consequences of not opening the door affect the story or the characters. Notice how locked doors are used in TV and Movies (HODOOOOOR).

A locked door is, however, a good way to give the investment of a lock-opening ability some value. Often I simply ask "can you open locked doors?" if a character answers "I have the Knock spell" or "I have thieves' tools", and there is no disaster to avert, I simply state that having the required tools is enough to open the door. This is different than having no locked door at all, since it that case the player wouldn't have gotten the opportunity to feel good about his investment.

In some games having planned ahead is enough. If you planned for a locked door, that's crisis averted. If you didn't, now you are in trouble. No resolution mechanic needed; only the wits of the players.

GGambrel
2019-09-29, 07:13 PM
Nope, they're about creating drama. (https://www.reddit.com/r/RPGdesign/comments/8xk56d/too_many_mechanics_resolution_mechanics/)

I try to think of it this way; you are not rolling for success. You are rolling to avert disaster. If there is no disaster, a resolution mechanic is not needed.

Sure, consistently having players roll when there is nothing at stake isn't going to lead to a very engaging session, but if the questions being asked work toward answering the Dramatic Question (https://theangrygm.com/four-things-youve-never-heard-of-that-make-encounters-not-suck/), then I think we're mostly in agreement.

Maybe my question would have been better asked, "How can mechanics help describe if and how characters avert disaster?"

Composer99
2019-09-29, 08:37 PM
I'd be inclined to say that both "balancing mechanism" and "create drama"/build tension are part of such uncertainty mechanics.

Having evolved from a true wargame, Chainmail (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chainmail_(game)), the combat rules of D&D in particular tend to use uncertainty-resolution mechanics (die rolls) as a balancing mechanism, although to a less pronounced extent. In a true wargame, ideally, the intersection of player skill and chance events means that more skilled players are more likely to win, but are not guaranteed to. And of course when all players are of equal skill, chance may be the only tiebreaker. In most RPGs, there isn't a truly adversarial relationship between the PCs and DM/GM, so the balancing effect is instead pacing or dictating the use of the PC's character resources, however they may be constructed in any given game.

You can see how the "create drama" part is built in, though, because the very fact that the randomness of die rolls means outcomes are unpredictable builds dramatic tension. It's what makes it fun for me to play, say, Blood Bowl, even though I'm probably going to lose.

Out of combat, in D&D the balancing mechanism part is less important. In other games where more character resources are dedicated to out-of-combat mechanics, it's more important, because the uncertainty has the same effect on dictating or pacing PC's use of those resources. But the adding drama/tension is part of the mechanic in any case.

MGuy
2019-09-30, 01:46 AM
There are two things that rolling is for. To either A: adjudicate the chance of failure a player encounters or to B: introduce an element of chance to something.

So in action reason A comes about because a player wants to do something and the GM or just the rules you're using say there should be a chance of failure. Sometimes someone or something is directly opposing a character or sometimes there just is a chance for something to fail and we let the dice decide. Reason B is the reason we have more rolls or some kind of chance mechanic in whatever the primary focus of a ttrpg happens to be. We have rolls for doing research on certain adventures and mechanics not because they are necessary or opposed. by anything but 'just' to introduce that element of chance. It's the most frequently cited reason that there are people who still roll stats and hp. Introducing an element of chance enhances the play experience only because gambling mechanics appeal to our lizard brain.

As far as I'm concerned a person either calls for a roll for these two reasons. More and more I've come to question the value of how frequently rolls are made and what 'should' be rolled for.

Bjarkmundur
2019-09-30, 02:34 AM
How can mechanics help describe if and how characters avert disaster?

Ah, I see, that's where the bullet-points come in. This is something you really shouldn't worry about. A DM creates an event, the players are given tools, the rest is pretty much up to the players. There are a hundred ways of averting any given disaster. If you were to create a comprehensive list on all the checks a player can make it's going to take forever :/

In 5e I us a more encompassing definition, which you've probably heard:
Preceding any action, the player describes the desired outcome of his actions and his method to achieving the outcome.




Once described in full, the DM decides whether the action can be attempted, whether it succeeds automatically, or warrants a dice roll. If the action would fail automatically the DM is likely to give a warning before the action is attempted. If the action fails, the player suffers costs or risks associated with the roll. If the action is a success the player either accomplishes his desired outcome or makes progress towards it. Even then, the DM can apply consequences based on the player’s specific method.

This means an action made as an attempt to open a lock sometimes just sets one of the three pins needed to fully unlock it. It also means that five different people can face the same lock and all have different ifs and hows.

A resolutionn mechanic is designed to fit every scenario the DM needs it to fit. Creating a list of all the things it can be applied to where the story is created cooperatively is an absolute nightmare.

If a successful resolution always means success, the roll itself very much represents what the player's intent was and how he intended to approach the problem. This means a player will have to declare he's rolling for speed, competence, foresight, how much attention his attempt draws, whether he fails forward, whether some resource is lost etc. Some wizards and sorcerers I've played with reflavor all their skills as spells, meaning the lockpicking would be to manipulate the weave inside the lock, rather than a lockpick.

In each of those scenarios, a failure will mean different things.

Speed -> You fail to do so before something happens
Competence -> You cannot attempt the action again.
Foresight -> You forgot something at home, and are unable to improvise
Attention -> The BBEG notices you fiddling with the lock, and turns his attention to you
Fail Forward -> You sneeze with the lock in your hand, jerk the lockpick upwards, and somehow open the lock.
Resource -> You break your thieves' tools
Spell -> A spark flies from the lock and hits you in the face; you are blinded until the end of your next turn.

Kane0
2019-09-30, 05:00 AM
You roll when the outcome is in doubt, or in other words you turn to the dice to resolve uncertainty.



Maybe my question would have been better asked, "How can mechanics help describe if and how characters avert disaster?"

In an active or passive sense?

GGambrel
2019-09-30, 06:17 AM
In each of those scenarios, a failure will mean different things.

Speed -> You fail to do so before something happens
Competence -> You cannot attempt the action again.
Foresight -> You forgot something at home, and are unable to improvise
Attention -> The BBEG notices you fiddling with the lock, and turns his attention to you
Fail Forward -> You sneeze with the lock in your hand, jerk the lockpick upwards, and somehow open the lock.
Resource -> You break your thieves' tools
Spell -> A spark flies from the lock and hits you in the face; you are blinded until the end of your next turn.
Thanks! Rolling for 'Foresight' in particular is something I hadn't really thought much about before in regards to describing the game world.


In an active or passive sense?
If I understand your question correctly, I mean in an active sense. Who rolls in a given situation can vary from game to game, but usually if a PC acts their Player rolls and the result determines what happens. What I'm wondering is: How many broad categories are there for the interpretation of the result of the roll?

DeTess
2019-09-30, 06:35 AM
Something I've been thinking about lately is the purpose of resolution mechanics. It seems to me that their purpose is to answer open questions players have about the characters' interactions with the world and each other without resorting to GM fiat or player consensus.

Following this line of reasoning, my question becomes, "What questions should a resolution mechanic be able to answer?" Some seem pretty obvious to me:


Did the character succeed?
How well did the character do?
How fast did the character do it?

Are there other questions that resolution mechanics do/should answer that don't fall into these categories? For instance, damage rolls in D&D might be described as "How fast did the character(s) defeat the enemy?"

If your view on resolution mechanics is different than what I've described above, I'd be interested in hearing it as well.

I think you covered the basics pretty well. Everything regarding when you have to roll and the like are not inherent to the resolution mechanic, after all. However, one question that you didn't mention and that is also very important to the resolution mechanic is 'how do my character's skills influence the roll?' Most good mechanics make this very clear: 'I roll d6's equal to my skill level and try to get as many 6's and 6's as possible, so more skills improve my odds', 'I roll 1d20 and add modifiers, and my skills give me those modifiers'. Ideally, it should also be fairly easy to parse your chances of success.

I bring this point up because, at its base, any RPG system is a resolution mechanic and a character sheet that shows you numbers that interact with that resolution mechanic. Everything else is mutable, so thsi base should work well together. Take DnD for example. It's generally used for fantasy swords and sorcery, but you can strip away all the fantasy stuff and throw in giant mecha and sci-fi stuff. However, if you're doing that, the one thing you'll always keep is the 1d20 roll and the basic character sheet layout (ability scores, skill ranks, etc.).

stoutstien
2019-09-30, 10:48 AM
Thanks! Rolling for 'Foresight' in particular is something I hadn't really thought much about before in regards to describing the game world.


If I understand your question correctly, I mean in an active sense. Who rolls in a given situation can vary from game to game, but usually if a PC acts their Player rolls and the result determines what happens. What I'm wondering is: How many broad categories are there for the interpretation of the result of the roll?

An infinitude. You stumbled onto the heart of tabletop RPG. You can have a series of set possible outcomes but the lack of restrictions on a player's actions is what gave birth to the genre. How a player addresses the current dramatic question or what ever you want to call, is more important than any dice role to determine the outcome.

If you are looking for some ideas for degrees is success or failure I personally gutted somd out of the skill section of Pathfinder 2.0 and dungeon world. I am firm believer of failing forward to keep the tension in an encounter. Failed and reroll ablity checks kill pacing and timing.

Kane0
2019-09-30, 04:44 PM
If I understand your question correctly, I mean in an active sense. Who rolls in a given situation can vary from game to game, but usually if a PC acts their Player rolls and the result determines what happens. What I'm wondering is: How many broad categories are there for the interpretation of the result of the roll?

I've seen two broad ways games handle it; either the game wants the (out of game) player to do the rolling as much as possible or the game wants the (in game) instigator to do the rolling as much as possible. Plenty of games do a bit of both though, like how D&D changes style between attacks and saving throws (not counting 4e).

The number of result categories can be as few as a binary pass/fail or as many as there are possible results. Simple mechanics, or ones you will be doing very often, usually won't have many different states to choose from because the mechanics have to balance complexity against playability. Rarer, more important ones (especially if one roll has a greater impact at a later time instead of just within the current scene) would be where extra degrees of success and failure become more common.

GGambrel
2019-10-01, 06:37 AM
However, one question that you didn't mention and that is also very important to the resolution mechanic is 'how do my character's skills influence the roll?' ...
I bring this point up because, at its base, any RPG system is a resolution mechanic and a character sheet that shows you numbers that interact with that resolution mechanic.

My personal view is that improved character competence, whether from skills/attributes/powers, should increase both the odds of success and the expected degree of success (when degrees matter). Years ago I read A Treatise on Different Dice-rolling Mechanics in RPGs (http://rpg-design.wikidot.com/evaluation), which has colored what I seek in a resolution mechanic. The 'simulationist' in me feels it wouldn't be unreasonable to have 2-3 ways of building dice pools and interpreting the result, so long as each is easy to remember and gives results that "feel right" for the character & situation. For instance, I believe a die roll shouldn't allow a character to run at 2x speed one round but only 0.5x speed the next without some aspect of the character/situation which makes those results "reasonable"...

Maybe I just need to focus on how to interpret results for one mechanic but in different situations.