There is this clear line in a lot of pen-and-paper games. Is narrativism written into the system, or is it up to the referee? Dungeon World, Genesys, FATE, and others with that "chance of outside trouble" baked into the dice rolls.
Dungeon World is a great example, you roll 10+, and you do the thing! You roll 7-9, and you do the item, but... And 6 or lower is a failure. Contrast this with Cepheus, D&D, Index Card RPG, and others. You may pass or fail, and the degree of success or failure "can" be taken into account, but it isn't strictly enforced, and nothing in the rules precisely rules "something else happens."
Sometimes I love narrativism for solo play since it takes a lot of guesswork out of my hands and puts it with the dice. There are other times I struggle with narrativism because I get tired of all the "piling on" and thinking up of the "what else happens" and the constant interference by the rules in what should be things up to me as the referee.
I know, rule zero, just make it pass-fail and ignore the "something else," and that is a good point.
There were times in Genesys I absolutely loved the symbols and the situations they created. Especially with a group, a character makes a streetwise roll, and the dice would throw complications into the mix, like enemies in the area looking for the group. Other times my brain did not want to process all of the results, especially during combat when there were a LOT of throws, and keeping track of who had a bonus and who had a penalty, what they were, and what the next one was - it felt all too much.
To the B/X referee, we sit there and wonder why we need special dice and number range reserved for "yes, but a bad thing happens!" Um, you make a save, to-hit, or any other roll within 3 points of the AC or target number? There is your "yes, but!" Even failing a roll by a few points could still be ruled a success, but with a "yes, bigger but!"
Narrative Complication Strike Zone
+0 to +2 over = minor complication
-1 to -2 under = major complication
All you need to do to add narrativism to a B/X game is put a 2-point "strike zone" around a target number. The game becomes a little easier since success has that fudge range, and you now have two levels of complication: major for low rolls and minor for rolls above. Your character rolls 2 points under that "save or die" poison? Well, major complication: you live but drop unconscious for 8 hours. That is the price to pay for hitting the narrative strike zone, but hey, you made the save after all.
Make the save or die roll but just by a few points? Minor complication. You are sickened for 8 hours and suffer a -2 on combat checks and skill rolls.
Want this to apply to to-hits and damage? Roll an 11 to hit that AC 13 monster? Maybe call it a weak hit and do half damage. You can also choose to ignore minor complications on to-hit rolls if it speeds up play. You can rule hitting the number exactly is a minor complication, just to give the benefit of the doubt.
Next Round Advantage and Disadvantage
18-20 = next round advantage
Same during combat, and you can also put an 18+ advantage rule in place just for fun. Roll a natural 18 or higher, and you gain a next-round advantage. Maybe you go first. Perhaps you get a +2 to-hit. Some extra move. A save bonus. A +2 damage bonus. Disarm the enemy. Whatever narratively makes sense, I would let the player come up with this for fun and keep the bonus to the +2 level just to keep things fair.
Roll a natural 3 or lower? Meet the next-round combat disadvantage. The same sort of rule, get a -2 on something, go last, drop a weapon, fall prone, lose a piece of armor, you get it.
Easy Mods, No Narrative Game Needed
So if every number around your target number has that 2-point buffer, and you have 3 points at the top and bottom of the d20, that is about 10 points of the roll covered by either the major-minor complication or advantage or disadvantage rules. Half your rolls will have a special effect, and the other half will be B/X standard straight pass/fail.
Expanded Complications:
If you want less, narrow the ranges; if you want more, widen them a bit. And they don't need to be rigid set; you could rule if a character fails that poison save by 3 points, that could still trigger the major complication rule and be just fine. The middle strike zone could float out to 4 points for many things, and you could say the 1-2 point minor complication zone is the -2, and the 3-4 the -1. For major complications, floating the middle zone to 4 points gives you two levels of major complications to play with, our for an hour up to out for a day.
Expanded Next-Round Advantage/Disadvantage:
Similarly, the next-round ranges could be pushed out to 4 points, and the game would be fine. But your straight pass-fail results with both expanded ranges every roll is likely covered by special effects. For some, that might be a bit much; for others who like a more dynamic game, this may be just right.
The ranges can float a little depending on the situation, and be generally set to the lower value, so you can shift things around as you like. Myself? The default narrow ranges feel right, and they preserve half of the d20 range for those straight pass-fail results.
They are All Optional Rules
And again, all of these ranges can float, and any of them can be ignored if the situation calls for it, or the complication or advantage would create too much work or record keeping. If you feel a range should be modified, modify it. If you feel a result should be pushed up or down, do that. If you feel a result should be ignored, ignore it.
The entire system is optional and should be used to make a game better and more engaging - not bog it down. If a result does not make sense, or you feel stressed out trying to figure out what it means - instantly ignore it and move on. If you get a next-round advantage on the last turn of a fight, what does it matter? If you barely hit the giant spider and don't want a minor complication, ignore it.
If the result adds nothing of value to a game or feels like it is punishing players, ignore it.
All Within B/X and All OGL
What I love about this system is it gives me optional narrative dice results in a B/X framework. I could use this framework in Cepheus Engine with a little tweaking of the numbers, or anywhere else. Really, this is all just common sense, and what good B/X referees could do anyways, without needing to set aside special ranges. I wrote a set of rules to emulate what narrative games do, and you could do this a hundred different ways and be right.
Or you could just interpret the rolls and never need these rules. The reason why I like writing them is it gets me thinking in that mindset, that when you give a target number that isn't necessarily a hard pass-fail threshold. That is a "target" number. Think of it as an archery target, what happens when you "come close?" We have had that "meet or beat" thing beaten into our heads since the AC system started.
Putting that "meet or beat" expectation on them takes away narrative options and flexibility in rulings. Yes, as a result, the game becomes slightly easier, but is it really? With loads of complications being added, does a two-point reduction in to-hits and saves matter? That "save or die" poison save is the perfect example. What was once an "oh great gotta make it" thing now has a chance of making you violently ill and taking you out for 24 hours. Your party has to carry you around. Perhaps they have to get the sick character to a doctor or they will die.
Monsters will be hitting you for half-damage as well on rolls that would have missed otherwise. The game will balance itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment