 |
| I have more ideas than time, so I set up a a simple grid and counter play-test area next to my laptop, to let me test ideas while still getting work done. This is actually a later play-testing for a different approach to the rules than discussed here. |
The method in brief: roll 2d6. On a 10+ you succeed (in the RPGs in question, the player narrates their success). On a 7-9, you partially succeed (the player narrates their partial success. I may be remembering this incorrectly, and it may be that the GM does a "Yes, but"). On a 6 or less, the GM makes a "move" - some kind of failure result. There are modifiers up or down in the rules as well.
So, for example, you declare you will attack an enemy unit. If you roll an 11, you destroy that unit. On an 8, you succeed in pinning the enemy, on a 4, you miss and that unit returns fire. Modifiers it should be noted are not narrated and are part of the game rules themselves. For example, in a war game, cover modifiers would be pre-assigned just as they usually are.
In a war game, as opposed to an RPG focused on story-telling and not combat, you also probably want to keep your successes more limited - destroying all of the enemy units on a single roll of 2d6, while a victory for your side is a loss for war gamers everywhere.
If you're familiar with Featherstone's simplified rules for modern war games from his War Games: Battles and Manoeuvres with Model Soldiers, you may notice a similarity to his method for determining vehicle damage.
I think the key to using the system without a GM, but when playing another player, is to assign results ahead of time, much like Featherstone's method, in order to avoid disputes.
Solo, as I now think about it, could work with a more free form narrative method where the results are narrated by the player as determined by the situation at hand, and I may have hampered my own play testing by approaching it as if I was writing rules for two players. I also played with degrees of success (7-9, 10-11, 12+ ) which required multiple markers to track and I've already mentioned how found that unappealing.
In any case, while I've moved away from this method for my rules (at this time), it is still quite useful for special scenario situations that aren't covered by the game rules.
For example: You need to blow up a bridge. Your rules have no demolition rules. Roll 2d6. On a 10+, the bridge is completely destroyed, 7-9 the bridge blows, but unfortunately it doesn't collapse entirely, leaving a way for the enemy to cross albeit at a reduced rate, and finally on a 6 or less, something has gone wrong- perhaps the ignition wire has a break in it somewhere and good luck finding it.
I gave up on this approach for combat resolution - perhaps too hastily - and I think I may have to revisit it at some point, but in the more narrative manner of the original RPG, and less as a traditional war game with all results assigned prior to rolling.
'Night Witches' uses the Apocalypse engine and that method of task resolution. It has predefined results for actions but in some cases there is a choice; you may have three possibilities on the 6-9 roll for example, so you succeed, but must choose one of the three qualifiers. So your fire on the enemy hits but you must either (i) go low on ammo (ii) become pinned by return fire or (iii) advance towards the enemy position.
ReplyDeleteAh, here you go - here's how an aircraft attack run is dealt with:
"When you lead an attack on a target, roll +guts. On a 10+, your
payload connects! Choose one. On a 7-9, it’s a hit and you choose
two consequences:
„„ The damage to the target is not significant and it is your fault.
„„ You fly through a storm of flak (triggers Enemy Fire).
„„ A plane in your Section is damaged, GM’s choice.
„„ You and your fellow airwoman are Marked.
On a miss, either abort the attack completely, which will surely
trigger an Informal Interview back at base, or desperately press
on, Tempting Fate. Planes relying on your leadership can choose
which miss condition they would prefer."
Note that one of the options is simply that your hit is actually a miss. Sometimes that's better option than mental or physical damage.
Thank you for the Apocalypse engine example Kaptain Kobold! I really do need to pick up 'Night Witches'. I'm not sure I'll be able to run it properly but I can easily see mining it for ideas.
DeletePbtA is a beautiful system. Makes sense to apply it to wargaming - good spot.
ReplyDelete'Yes, with consequences' can have a lot of impact, could be victory - but with morale roll or victory - with unacceptable casualties.
Really nice idea.
Thank you Duc de Goblin. I am looking forward to giving a game a try using that method entirely. Using the more free form version, it seems to me the narrative that would emerge might have a more cinematic quality to it as the game wouldn't necessarily rely on the typical mechanical bits - like counting hits, modifying rolls for cover, etc. Just as it does in the RPG. The alternative, pre-assigning results, as Kaptain Kobold showed with the Night Witches example above, could do the same with more of the typical consistency found in war game rules, provided the results were suitably interesting and don't fall back to typical war game like results.
DeleteInteresting. I have used occassionally impromptu rolls something like this for specific tasks, like blowing a bridge but with scores set to match the difficulty of the task.
ReplyDeleteImpromptu rolls for success, based on a GM determined score, is fairly common in RPGs in my experience (I have only played a two GM"d war games ever) but the results to be binary. Partial success is not usually codified into the rolls. As I think about it now, I wonder how that would work in a war game where the condition of victory is to blow a bridge, but you only partially succeed. Is it a draw? A loss? A minor win or loss? I suppose in one-off games it almost doesn't matter, but in a campaign it could be a quite meaningful depending what victory or defeat in a given battle mean for the sides.
Delete