Realisations about narrative dice mechanics — everything I have learned so far

[Randozart]

I sadly hadn’t been able to respond all day, so here’s me reading everything that has been posted in the meantime.

@pieartsy

I’m curious if you think all of these points need to be implemented for a game to do this in a satisfying way, or if something else about DE dissatisfies you. It, like citizen sleeper, is inspired by ttrpgs (d&d/a custom system called METRIC, and blades in the dark respectively). but it seems iirc you didn’t like CS either (it also does many of these alleviation points).

Let me actually start off with this. I’d like to at least clarify I do not at all advocate for implementing all of these methods simultaneously. I’m honestly not even sure if it would make a good game if you would do that. I would like to also state I think Citizen Sleeper is a really good game, and definitely works the way it’s set up. Outside of that setup, perhaps not so much, but I feel it’s one of the fairest dice roll mechanics out there.

However, that circles back to a game like DE which might already implement some of these. Your comment on this had me reflect on the game. One of the pillars it tries to adhere to is for failure to be fun and interesting, and while I agree some failure states are indeed interesting, they kind of feel like a kick to the gut. Even if they don;t directly close off certain narrative paths (after a single check), they certainly feel like they do. This was what prompted the discussion under point 7.

Esoteric Ebb is very much a DE-like, but failing does not feel like narrative paths/entire narrative sections are immediately closed off. It might really just be presentation, but it does a much better job at communicating that the roll didn’t just block you off from a lot of potential interesting content.

And yes, DE does have rerolls, but usually on the checks that feel like they really don’t matter as much, at least in my opinion. Mostly the ‘gate’ checks that might be useful in progressing the story.

@zarf

DE does characterize the player as a bumbling fool; this is the entire premise for Harry’s story. Some people find that off-putting. That’s not a problem with the mechanics though. The mechanics support it fine. So does the writing; failure is entertaining and also story progress.

To this I would like to clarify that I also agree. Harry is a bumbling fool. He’s incredibly well written that way. I do believe I would enjoy that more if I didn’t feel like a single roll would block me off from a great deal of interesting things to explore. I suppose this has to do less with narrative agency (point 1 of the problem statement, since the character is very well defined), but instead the narrative weight of the roll (point 2).

The “interesting” failure outcome still very much feels like a locked gate. To put it in modern TTRPG/improv theatre terms, it’s less of a “No, but…”, but more of a “No.” or a “No, and…”. This is much more permissable in a TTRPG I feel, because if the regular path doesn’t work out, the player can usually think of a new interesting path around this. In a computer RPG this only works if that path had actually been written and is narratively satisfying to the type of character you are trying to play.

Yes, Harry is a bumbling fool, but the game has done a great deal of flagging that this check, which I have a 96% success chance for, is an important one for pursuing that particular manner of investigation. Failing that requires very well written story to compensate. If the check had been 50%, maybe, sure. But even then, if the check is made to feel important, it’s difficult to justify.

@Mewtamer

Failure, but still looking awesome is another possible route.

Which, in some way, might be alleviated by this. If the check is of such great story importance, at least let me fail gracefully. If the check has much less weight to it though… I suppose looking like an idiot is not the worst, and well written narrative is a nice reward for failing.

@HAL9000

You punch out the drunkard (success or mastery), but you send him flying into the barmaid spilling everyone’s drinks and now you look like “trouble” to all the patrons (failure, but with mastery) versus your opponent stumbling and avoiding your pathetic strike attempt (failure without mastery).

Or this, this is a fascinating way to do this! Now, I should stop referencing DE, because I genuinely think it’s a good game, and I might sound like it’s the worst thing in the world, where I genuinely do enjoy it, but… Imagine if, during important checks, there is the pass state, the fail state, and the automatic-mastery-pass-but-you-rolled-a failure state. (@HAL9000 I promise I’ll read your link later to see how Charge and Dash handle it)

I.e. total JÖCK Harry tries to fight his way out. You put all of your points in the body skills, so you expect to fail raw intellectual reasoning, but you can hit your way out of a situation. Or at least, you’re supposed to. In this case, you could automatically succeed at the main objective, but create a different problem you need to find a way around. It’s kind of what you would do in a game which lets you pick consequences, but perhaps easier to implement in a more linear narrative.

@HanonO

It hasn’t been mentioned and assume everyone is familiar with Fallen London’s QBN “grind” mechanics.

I actually recently started playing FL due to your recommendation, because I wanted to understand the way it implements QBN better. Point 5 and 6 (and in some way 8) hinges on this. I really like the opportunities this gives, and I’m currently working to implement a QBN system in a Roguelike I’m building, while also considering it for an RPG I had on the backburner.

This could serve as a way to offer a simple dice roll on one option, or pick a certain option obtained or paid for due to grinding qualities (and thus having performed several dice rolls already). If done correctly, it makes situations you excel at mostly matters of resource management, whereas other situations become more tense.

@pelle

“Every time you call for a die roll it should mean something interesting is
going to happen, No MATTER THE RESULT. Don’t have players make rolls if the result is not important to the story, or if failure will stop the momentum of the story.”

I believe this is advice echoed by so many designers in the indie scene. In fact, I think it was originally mentioned by Vincent Baker in Apocalypse World if I recall correctly. However, while great advice for tabletop roleplaying games, I feel this applies less to digital RPGs, for the mere reason that not everything can be interesting, and the author of the narrative is not directly able to connect with the player of the narrative,and thus estimate where the line is between interesting and punishing.

Writing this out though, I think is an interesting point to consider in and of itself. Huh.

@kcatdino

Also, one of the major differences between TTRPGs and the games I like to write is the number of timelines.

I just wanted to throw this in as well, since it made me think of a few things I was considering a while back.

1. A meta-currency earned from failure which can be used to load an earlier savegame
2. The fact that failure can feel less bad in a game like Crusader Kings, because you know the event you might have just failed will probably come up again some other time, some other place.
3. Another idea I had where each time you load an earlier savegame, or choose to reroll a check, you commit the game to a “darker” timeline or a different timeline where things have been changed outside of your control