W.F. Smith from Prismatic Wasteland suggested I should participate in the Resolution thing. I said I was considering a “second shot” at an old post to explain it better and asked if it counted. Smith said yes, so let’s go once more with feeling. First, what games inspired the mechanic (called here Weird Hazards) and why. I will list what I like and what I dislike about them for context. Every game here that uses d6s for everything has that going for them.
- Into the Odd. Like: speed, elegance, easy NPC creation, inspiring hyper-focus. Dislike: rolling under randomly generated stats, however infrequently.
- World of Dungeons. Like: elegance, distills the interesting parts of PbtA conversation to its essence, stating NPCs isn’t even necessary, interesting character creation. Dislike: partial success as something inherent to the roll, forcing three possibilities to be discussed or awkward use of the Die of Fate otherwise if you just want binary.
- Primeval 2d6. Like: character creation and philosophy. Dislike: the resolution isn’t my jam.
- Tunnels & Trolls/Monsters! Monsters! Like: high-maneuver conflict, Monster Rating, invitations for player creativity. Dislike: T&T carries some extra mechanical baggage for my taste, M!M! is good as it is.
- Blades in the Dark. Like: how it formulates Position/Effect and resource depletion of stress. Dislike: not my thing otherwise.
So, for my solo gaming at the time, I wanted a low bookkeeping, highly modular central mechanic that captured the speed of ItO combat and saves while keeping the tense depletion from BitD, the freeform madness of T&T, the action-reaction nature of PbtA in a single roll + NPCs without stats, the Position/Effect approach, and that could easily support any character creation method regarding fictional capabilities, be those weird classes or equipment packages or whatever.
The Mechanic
PCs need four numbers on their sheet:
- Three Resistances, modifiers from +o to +3 (WoDu): Strength, Dexterity and Will.
- Grit, representing how much physical and psychological stress the PC can bear without a short rest.
To solve the ItO issue I have with random stats, Grit is fixed at creation (more on that later) and stats are randomized by rolling on a table that distributes three points, identical to Maze Rats (I had more complicated tables but now I’d keep it simpler). Character creation can use backgrounds, weird classes, writing down some words etc. Anything works.
When the PC does something dangerous, the referee determines what Damage they can suffer, both Collateral and Hazardous. Collateral Damage is calculated from 1-3 Grit depending on how many precautions or how much defense the PC can wield (on its own way, using BitD as basis):
- If they are Cautious, they risk 1 Grit as Collateral Damage.
- If they are Brash, 2 points of C.D.
- If they are Reckless, 3 points.
Hazardous Damage is the nature of the threat itself, expressed as depletion of Resistance, possibility of Deprivation (instead of recovering full Grit at a rest, recover up to half, erase fractions), or instant death/metamorphosis/etc.
Once both C.D. and H.D. are determined, and what the PC wants to accomplish is settled, the player throws 2d6 + relevant Resistance:
- 10+: they succeed.
- 7-9: they succeed but suffer C.D.
- 6-: they suffer C.D. and H.D.
If any Resistance falls to -2, the PC is in Critical Condition and can’t act. If they are stabilized, the Resistance returns to -1. Otherwise, they are out of the game. If Grit falls to 0, any Collateral Damage becomes damage to a Resistance (if you see a situation where a PC would lose two points of Resistance due to C.D. and Hazardous Damage, H.D. probably should be instant loss or instant Critical Condition at least).
Analysis
Some things are obvious. First of all, the only Move in WoDu was transformed by turning partial success into an extremely concrete and consistent idea the referee can rely on without much improvisation. It keeps a certain pacing to play, of consistent risk and depletion, without the possible snowballing of consequences nor feeling constrained to search for three results to every roll. Practically, it’s a binary roll when we think impactful fictional results.
The action-reaction nature of PbtA is still here without the need for opposing rolls or the like, condensed into a single throw where you establish success (player’s intended action) and failure (the Hazard’s action) in relation to one another instead of isolated in separate rolls. The “partial success” increases the feeling of back-and-forth by what Collateral Damage can represent. I believe it matches the speed in ItO’s Saves, conserving the one roll (which makes sense when we consider comparisons between ItO and PbtA Principles).
If the fictional situation is combat, it moves fast. Attack and defense are represented by the single roll and take pretty much the aspects of ItO’s auto-damage and T&T Stunts, emphasizing what is done and how. Collateral Damage, again, serves as pacing and evokes HP depletion in ItO, as well as the transition to Ability Score damage in that ruleset. Since enemies only do Hazardous Damage, you only need to note down what Hazards they represent and defeating them can be taking actions to disable those possible Hazards.
The modular nature of H.D. means the referee is never beholden to Grit or Resistance damage out of mechanical obligation, as they also have the tools of Deprivation or instant loss to play with. It’s sturdy enough for context. If the referee is inclined to that kind of negotiation, they might as well let players suggest failure effects.
The preservation of the Move structure means the referee can create specific Moves for specific traps, enemies, or interactions (much like its predecessor, the Reaction Roll table). So, interacting with a damaged psychic machine can be:
- 10+: success, C.D. of 1 Grit.
- 7-9: success, C.D. of 1 Grit and 1 Will.
- 6-: brain fried.
It doesn’t restrict character creation because it only requires introducing Grit and Resistances to the sheet in a corner, so whatever method or character types available will work. You can use that information to determine what success looks like and the amount of possible C.D.
As for increasing the stats, back then I thought of an equivalent of EB’s Scars. Grit would start at 6, players at the end of an adventure could roll 2d6 for each Resistance that suffered damage and use the WoDu table of determining stats (6-: +0, 7-9: +1, 10-11: +2, 12: +3) to see if they increase. Grit could increase if during the adventure they suffered Resistance reduction due to having zero Grit, going up by 1 if they roll +5 on a d6. Another way would be the ItO levels according to number of expeditions, going from Grit 3 (Novice) to 15 (Master). I’d recommend using Scars for Resistance increases even then. And, of course, there was also the option of no codified advancement, in which PCs started with 9 Grit and come what may.
/—/
So. There’s that. Resolution mechanics are a dime a dozen and end up meshing especially in the adventure games genre, but this is mine that I developed once at a time of need, streamlined after practice (separate Armor number is removed, terms are renamed for more in-world logic etc.). It was a bit fun revisiting. Maybe I’m cheating because it’s a mechanic that implies modifying the character sheet and how advancement works instead of a straightforward resolution, but it is what it is.
Roll to Doubt 