Examples of good non-combat resolution mechanics?

[erik]

Insofar as it's not a 100% success - yes.

But it's not a total failure, and at that point, what's a partial failure and what's a "success at a cost" is semantics.

I honestly don't understand. Your goal is sneaking in undetected. The result: You got detected by an 'innocent' sentry.

In what way is that not a total failure?

I agree it is not a total failure. But that's a really shitty goalpost for a success to not be the opposite of success. There's a wide spectrum between total failure and total success that includes more failure than success.

You are attempting multiple things.
1- Getting in.
2- Being undetected by all antagonists of set n.

Succeeded at getting in.
Succeeded at not being noticed by n-1 antagonists.
Failed at being detected by 1 antagonist.

I suppose a total failure would be not getting in and alerting the entire nest of antagonists.

The problem is that something doesn't need to be a total failure for a "success with a cost" to be a colossal fuckup.

You could just as easily use this logic to justify accidentally stumbling into the guard mess hall. You didn't alert Joe the lazy security guard who was sleeping in his car, but everyone else is onto you.

[Krakatoa]

Why would you walk into a mess hall full of guards? What do you mean by 'use that logic to justify it'? A mess hall full of guards is not a quiet or subtle thing. And if there's a mess hall full of guards, and they have to be sneaked around to get to your goal, you shouldn't be relying on absurdly good dice rolls in the first place--create a distraction, use a ritual to make yourself invisible, throw in some sleeping gas... get creative.

Still, there are plenty of examples of good non-combat resolution. Dungeon World does this really well, with degrees of success on a 1d10 role. Paladins have some nice abilities there.

Rituals/Martial practices as seen in D&D are a good idea on how to mete out non-combat abilities without them becoming I-win-buttons.

Fate systems have degrees of success and failure, the higher your role the more resoundingly effective you are.

Even the classic d20 doesn't have to be binary success/failure. The idea that things have to be binary is the same bullshit thinking that led to Skill Challenges.

[erik]

Why would you walk into a mess hall full of guards?

You seriously cannot imagine any possibility where our hero accidentally walks into a room full of bad guys? None whatsoever?

get creative.

Right back at you.

What do you mean by 'use that logic to justify it'?

I mean applying the argument that success with a cost is essentially success with some degree of also failing.

If that is the case then there is not enough structure because it could be a success with a nominal cost like having to expend some cheap expendable items or it could be a colossal fuckup where you only technically achieve your main objective.

[Omegonthesane]

Why would you walk into a mess hall full of guards?

You seriously cannot imagine any possibility where our hero accidentally walks into a room full of bad guys? None whatsoever?

"But, but this area was labelled 'Torture Chamber'!"
"The owner of this fine establishment has read the Evil Overlord List, milord."

What do you mean by 'use that logic to justify it'?

I mean applying the argument that success with a cost is essentially success with some degree of also failing.

If that is the case then there is not enough structure because it could be a success with a nominal cost like having to expend some cheap expendable items or it could be a colossal fuckup where you only technically achieve your main objective.

No more than "success with a cost" could be parsed as "success but you are so fucked over that you might as well rip up the character sheet" without allowing for instances where the "cost" includes partial failure and having to murder some guards.

They appeared to want the original Apocalypse World to support grimderp post-apocalypse survival stuff rather than, say, superheroes, so the example was probably tailored to the genre.

[Krakatoa]

Why would you walk into a mess hall full of guards?

You seriously cannot imagine any possibility where our hero accidentally walks into a room full of bad guys? None whatsoever?

Of course I can, but not as the result of a partial success on a roll to sneak. That's something you'd think would happen on a Natural 1.

I mean applying the argument that success with a cost is essentially success with some degree of also failing.

If that is the case then there is not enough structure because it could be a success with a nominal cost like having to expend some cheap expendable items or it could be a colossal fuckup where you only technically achieve your main objective.

But that sort of dick-you-over interpretation is on the DM, and a bad DM can interpret even highly structured rules in an overly literal or pedantic manner to mess with players.

The point of non-binary resolution is that dice rolls shouldn't be roadblocks. They should move the game forward, backward, or sideways, not stop it in its tracks.

[silva]

that sort of dick-you-over interpretation is on the DM, and a bad DM can interpret even highly structured rules in an overly literal or pedantic manner to mess with players.

The point of non-binary resolution is that dice rolls shouldn't be roadblocks. They should move the game forward, backward, or sideways, not stop it in its tracks.

Great words, man.

[virgil]

Of course, why didn't I see it before? Overtly vague & incredibly subjective rules arbitrated at a fundamental level by the DM is awesome. That's why Apocalypse World is such a great game, because it includes the rule to not be a jerk. If you're don't have fun, it's because the DM was breaking the rules.

[fectin]

Cake and BJs; your criticism is invalid.

At least Krakatoa's consistent: he made that same argument defending 4E.

[Previn]

The point of non-binary resolution is that dice rolls shouldn't be roadblocks. They should move the game forward, backward, or sideways, not stop it in its tracks.

The point of having dice rolls is as an impartial random factor to deciding outcomes.

In AW that's not what happens. It's rolls do not map to any logical range of outcomes. The same dice result can be anything from 'tore your favorite shirt' to 'accidentally killed your sidekick' to 'sliced off both your feet' even on the same action.

3 players could all be jumping a fence, all roll a 7, and each gets a different one of the above out comes.

This is not ok.

[Omegonthesane]

Cake and BJs; your criticism is invalid.

At least Krakatoa's consistent: he made that same argument defending 4E.

4E is a lot harder to defend than the *World engine, in all fairness. I wouldn't be surprised if the later hacks of AW didn't have the "success ~= horrible horrible death" espoused in the Read A Sitch example.

[silva]

Of course, why didn't I see it before? Overtly vague & incredibly subjective rules arbitrated at a fundamental level by the DM is awesome. That's why Apocalypse World is such a great game, because it includes the rule to not be a jerk. If you're don't have fun, it's because the DM was breaking the rules.

Youre late. Krakatoa already responded to this.

here:

that sort of dick-you-over interpretation is on the DM, and a bad DM can interpret even highly structured rules in an overly literal or pedantic manner to mess with players.

[Username17]

Cake and BJs; your criticism is invalid.

At least Krakatoa's consistent: he made that same argument defending 4E.

4E is a lot harder to defend than the *World engine, in all fairness. I wouldn't be surprised if the later hacks of AW didn't have the "success ~= horrible horrible death" espoused in the Read A Sitch example.

Well, there's a lot less explanatory text in, for example, Dungeon World. But it does have this gem:

Carouse
When you return triumphant and throw a big party, spend 100 coin and roll + extra 100s of coin spent. On a 10+ choose 3. On a 7–9 choose 1. On a miss, you still choose one, but things get really out of hand.

[*]You befriend a useful NPC
[*]You hear rumors of an opportunity
[*]You gain useful information
[*]You are not entangled, ensorcelled, or tricked

Wat.

The thing that I think is interesting here is that on a 10+ you have the option to select "not getting fucked over" as one of your three selections. But it's not even that, because it doesn't give you blanket protection from bear attack, just certain kinds of bear attack. The implication is that you get bear attack if you don't select that "option", but I don't see any implication that you don't get bear attack of some kind even if you do. Just not the particular flavors of bear attack listed in that option (which doesn't include "chased out of the city", "have your loved ones killed", or most notably of all: "attacked by bears").

So while Dungeon World doesn't literally have any examples of "You got great success: Bear Attack so you automatically lose", that is just because it doesn't really have any examples at all. The implication seems to be that the authors would still totally hit you with a bear attack on a strong hit.

-Username17

[RobbyPants]

But that sort of dick-you-over interpretation is on the DM, and a bad DM can interpret even highly structured rules in an overly literal or pedantic manner to mess with players.

Do note that those sort of dick-you-over interpretations are supported at least twice in the examples of the rule book. This isn't a case of a bad MC being mean; it's a case of him following the examples from the book.

[silva]

If I put Frank on "Ignore", does it count for this thread only ?

[silva]

Do note that those sort of dick-you-over interpretations are supported at least twice in the examples of the rule book.

Sorry but I don’t get it.

In the Read a Sitch, the GM just describes something that was already established previously (TUM-TUm Water Cult followers), instead of creating something out of their ass.

In the Sneak in Undetected, it’s a perfectly logical "success at a cost" - you succeed at sneaking into the camp at the cost of killing a youth sentry.

Whats the problem with those again ?

[Omegonthesane]

In the Read a Sitch, the GM just describes something that was already established previously (TUM-TUm Water Cult followers), instead of creating something out of their ass.

The example heavily implied that not rolling an 11+ would have resulted in not seeing the bears cultists, and thus the bears cultists not existing - or at least not attacking.

In the Sneak in Undetected, it’s a perfectly logical "success at a cost" - you succeed at sneaking into the camp at the cost of killing a youth sentry.

A lot of people got their knickers in a twist about the fact that that youth sentry spotted you before you killed him, and felt that this entailed you having completely failed.

Because apparently if you try to forge 100 swords in a year and only manage to forge 99, that's exactly as bad as if you spent the whole year snorting coke instead.

[Emerald]

A lot of people got their knickers in a twist about the fact that that youth sentry spotted you before you killed him, and felt that this entailed you having completely failed.

Because apparently if you try to forge 100 swords in a year and only manage to forge 99, that's exactly as bad as if you spent the whole year snorting coke instead.

As Kaelik explained upthread, leaving a corpse lying around can still make your mission fail even if you stop one particular sentry from detecting you right now: the problem isn't "Oops, one out of 20 sentries saw me, I totally failed," the problem is that your two choices are to either not kill the sentry (in which case he yells to the rest of the camp, and thus you're directly discovered) or to kill the sentry (in which case there's a corpse lying around that makes it pretty obvious that someone's trying to sneak in, and thus you're indirectly discovered).

In both cases your action results in a failure, the only difference being that in the first case you're discovered immediately and by everyone, while in the second case you remain undetected at the current point but the complication of "...and also, the guards discover the corpse you shoved into a locker and raised the alarm" can be added to any later succeed-at-a-cost roll result.

[deaddmwalking]

Whats the problem with those again ?

The 'problem' appears to be that the 'cost' can be anything from 'virtually nothing' to 'virtually death'.

Slipping under the barbed wire fence could include any 'cost' with the penalty from a minor inconvenience (torn clothing) to ultimate failure (break your leg and you're unable to walk when you get to the other side).

The severity of the consequences are not directly related to the die roll, they're determined entirely based on what 'feels right' to the DM. Further, since the nature of the success can vary from 'total failure' to 'complete success' regardless of the actual roll (ie, a total failure can be treated as a total success and a total success can be treated as a total failure) without 'invalidating' the roll (as long as it is justified by events determined by the GM from the original brainstorming session), the roll itself is actually meaningless.

There isn't really any difference between the GM deciding 'success with a cost' or rolling 'total success' and then having the GM decide 'success with a cost'.

[fectin]

If I put Frank on "Ignore", does it count for this thread only ?

No. It's board-wide.

So, to be clear: your argument is that psychic bodyguards coming out of nowhere on a success and dictating the players' next action is
- not a railroad, because they were placed during setup,
- not pre-planning because they only appeared on a roll, and
- not an indictment of the mechanics, because the DM left a way out.
Allow me to introduce you to the idea of Kettle Logic.

[Omegonthesane]

A lot of people got their knickers in a twist about the fact that that youth sentry spotted you before you killed him, and felt that this entailed you having completely failed.

Because apparently if you try to forge 100 swords in a year and only manage to forge 99, that's exactly as bad as if you spent the whole year snorting coke instead.

As Kaelik explained upthread, leaving a corpse lying around can still make your mission fail even if you stop one particular sentry from detecting you right now: the problem isn't "Oops, one out of 20 sentries saw me, I totally failed," the problem is that your two choices are to either not kill the sentry (in which case he yells to the rest of the camp, and thus you're directly discovered) or to kill the sentry (in which case there's a corpse lying around that makes it pretty obvious that someone's trying to sneak in, and thus you're indirectly discovered).

In both cases your action results in a failure, the only difference being that in the first case you're discovered immediately and by everyone, while in the second case you remain undetected at the current point but the complication of "...and also, the guards discover the corpse you shoved into a locker and raised the alarm" can be added to any later succeed-at-a-cost roll result.

If you're in and out before they find the corpse, it's still a success. Other than that, you have a point, as did Kaelik.

(And indeed, the GW myth where I got the 99 swords example from indeed ended in catastrophic failure when Kaela Mensha Khaine discovered that not all of his magic swords were actually magic.)

[Kaelik]

If you're in and out before they find the corpse, it's still a success.

Except for the like six examples I gave off the top of my head where it was still a failure.

[virgil]

Having the kid spot you is a failure on your ability to not get noticed. If you really cared about what "yes, but..." means, then death should be a consequence of staying unseen rather than a requirement, which is a subtle but powerful difference. There could be a kid about to suffer a terrible accident, and is out of reach of everyone but you.

[John Magnum]

It seems pretty straightforward to me.
If your declared action is "Sneak in undetected", and you roll a success or a success-with-a-cost, then you should sneak in undetected. The cost shouldn't be "you are detected".

[Username17]

It seems pretty straightforward to me.
If your declared action is "Sneak in undetected", and you roll a success or a success-with-a-cost, then you should sneak in undetected. The cost shouldn't be "you are detected".

Pretty much this exactly. If you sneak in undetected and someone detected you, then you haven't fucking snuck in undetected. That is not by any stretch of the imagination a "You succeed but...", that is a "You fail but...". And that would be a totally fine thing if Apocalypse World distinguished between a mitigated failure and a mitigated success. But it does not.

On a 7-9, the MC says something good and something bad, but the scale of those two things are pulled right out of his ass. Having rolled a 7-9 does not tell you whether you have failed with a silver lining or whether you have succeeded with a minor drawback. Thus making the die roll rather pointless. It does not do the one thing rolling dice is actually for, which is to resolve whether or not we succeed at the task at hand.

-Username17

[Omegonthesane]

Having the kid spot you is a failure on your ability to not get noticed. If you really cared about what "yes, but..." means, then death should be a consequence of staying unseen rather than a requirement, which is a subtle but powerful difference. There could be a kid about to suffer a terrible accident, and is out of reach of everyone but you.

I will concede that this would be an improvement on "you have to actively murder the kid who detected you", for the reason you say - no need for arguments about whether or not it's "really" a success.

If you're in and out before they find the corpse, it's still a success.

Except for the like six examples I gave off the top of my head where it was still a failure.

Emphasis mine, as I go check your examples to see which ones actually relied on them finding the corpse before the mission was complete.

And apparently three is "like six". Who knew? But nonetheless, in all those examples you do not fail whole task. You don't even fail the most important part of the task (scouting the base, killing the lord, stealing the horn). And nothing about "you had to fucking kill someone" means you can't dispose of the body - in fact, do it right, and in the case of the lord and the horn they'll be specifically hunting for the suddenly missing guard for weeks instead of thinking it might have been a break-in.