This is a bit of a prologue or “term/concept map” post from which I’ll get into more specific/practical things and a way for me to test the formatting system on Blogspot.
I’ve discerned two main types of tools that individuals interacting with the game (both the GM and the players) have at their disposal - transformative and resolving. “Tools” being whatever you use to mitigate or otherwise solve conflicts, problems or achieve a goal.
A resolving tool fixes a problem and can be reused generally an infinite number of times by its design, or until it’s somehow taken away as a GM fiat. A “god” tool effectively. For the purpose of clarity, an example.
Problem: getting inside a boarded up building > Tool: crowbar > Solution: boards are removed, you can get inside.
Usually such tools are rather specific, or have the potential to misfire in some way, turning into a transformative tool (the crowbar breaks). A resolving tool gives the player/party a sense of power and allows the game to move forward without dwelling too much on menial things.
Examples of such tools can be: multiple-use tools (crowbars, axes, magnifying glasses, books), knowledge (though not always) and sure-fire magical abilities that don’t require spell slots.
A transformative tool turns one problem into another, more manageable one. Let me give an example.
Problem: papier-mâché tentacles > Tool: greek fire > Resulting problem: resource expenditure
The “resulting problem” is most often some form of resource expenditure, but it can produce a different problem entirely. There are two types of these resulting problems - problems that stem from the design of a tool, and problems that stem from its particular use.
Some tools are designed for limited amount of uses. Generally no matter how we use them, we expend a resource. Examples of such tools include: greek fire, healing potions, ammunition, etc.
Other tools have a design that might cause a misfire. In some situations they may be resolving, in others transformative depending on how the GM wants to modify them at the time. For example:
Problem: raw food > Tool: Campfire > Resulting problem: forest fire.
The significance of the difference between the two comes up in play. Too many transformative tools end up with the game turning into a fractal mess of menial problem resolution without getting anywhere (solutions produce more problems whose solutions produce more problems and so on and so on). This is why it’s very important for the GM to know when to say “you just do it” instead of pushing for frequent rolls.
It’s the most visible in Powered by the Apocalypse games ran by inexperienced GMs. In most of those games conflict resolution and usage of character sheet tools is as follows:
Roll 2d6 + modifier
On 10+ full success
On 7-9 success with a twist
On 6 failure
You’ll very often end up rolling 7-9, which in theory sounds great, as the “with a twist” part is often interesting if used well, but in wrong hands it spins out of control, producing more and more menial problems, until the GM’s imagination for them runs out. Similar situations can be produced by modern game (5e, OL, etc.) GMs insisting on rolls for menial tasks instead of simply fiating a “you just do it”.
This is an example of a tool designed to be transformative. PbtA, or at least some of those games (Dungeon World in particular) tend to fix some of the problems with the “twist” by offering the player various options of a “cost” to choose from (usually expenditure of various resources).
A tool needs to be at least relatively balanced. Every tool has its strength, reliability, versatility and cost. Generally the act of “balancing” is usually picking which of these a tool has. If it’s strong and reliable, it should be specialized or costly, etc.
Now, while the other three are pretty well explored in most games, playing around with reliability may often result in similar issues as explained above. Open Legend is the best example of how to not handle this. Namely, characters created in it have access to a wide array of effects they can create, but because every single effect needs a roll to invoke (even beneficial ones), sometimes with a hard border to hit. You end up with a character that can theoretically do anything, but in practice can only be built to at best create one or two specialized effects, or end up wasting half their actions.
Versatility is generally defined by the players rather than the GM. One tool may seem utterly worthless in the hands of one person, and be overpowered in the hands of another. However, some tools are at first glance more versatile than others, and while versatility cannot be accurately measured, it can and should be approximated by the GM and balanced accordingly.
Rather than making weak or unreliable tools, it’s better to mess around with the costs, i.e. the resulting problems. Most often used cost is a resource expenditure - higher level spell effects require higher level slots, or more expensive scrolls. This is nothing new.
I’ll iterate on how you can use this breakdown to your advantage in future posts.
No comments:
Post a Comment