[Spoilers] Commodore bakes a double entenada.

[Commodore]

Hey look, Agriculture resource. Dry rice, wahoo.

I'm scouting deep with my scout; timing works out well to weave in a warrior before settler and being Creative means third ring borders will pop before I settle. I'm confident that this big land is contested, there are over 5,700 tiles on this map but this area is too big to be backline.

I'll also note this looks like a heavily massaged script, less hand-built. So that's cool. Are the elevation->trees something you did manually Ref?

[Commodore]

Or more talk about tabletop RPGs and other such.

Okay, so I didn't have a lot of time to talk about the resolution mechanic in my game when you asked, but now that the map is off my hands, and while we're waiting for B4ndit:  I said the devil was in the details, didn't I?  I could talk about those details at some length, and ... well, you did ask, right?  So I'm hiding them behind spoiler tags where they won't get in the way of your stuff about the actual game.

1) Basically every roll is "opposed":  The player rolls 2d10, and the GM secretly rolls 2d10 at the same time.  (There are exceptions that mainly apply when a lot is going on at once or when the number of variables in a situation is small enough that there's no point.)  The main advantage/idea is that players don't know how well they did just by looking at their die roll - though they know the odds are heavily in their favor when they roll high - so they can't easily infer the difficulty of a task, they don't know for sure if their (e.g.) perception check is resulting in an important clue or red herring, and the work of telling them the outcome of their actions falls more on the narrative and less on the numbers.  The weirdest thing about this is that a 2 isn't really the worst roll a player can get; the worst is basically a 9.  That's the most non-intuitive thing about this game system, I think.

2) Only the higher of the two (natural) rolls counts, except in case of a tie in a truly-opposed situation like combat - in which case both count at once!  A high roll by the GM is the same as an equivalently-low roll by the player, and vice versa - which I think would be a problem if the game were numbers-based with the kind of granularity that 2d10 allows:  I don't want to have to look up the exact bonus or penalty, I don't want to resort to a computer, and I don't want to spend time looking up charts and tables during a game.  So if I'm going to have any charts or tables at all, they have to either be for pre-game prep only or simple enough and small enough in number that I can memorize them really easily.  This means...

3) The results are fairly qualitative (as opposed to quantitative) - I do have some numbers as guidelines, but the system embraces the way I found myself reading die rolls in the moment most of the time anyway:  As the GM, I decide what's probably going to happen when a character tries something.  Then, if the high roll (no matter which) is in the range of 10-12, what happens is what I expect.  If the player's roll governs and is higher, or if the GM's roll governs but is lower, I adjust the results a bit in the player character's favor - or a lot if the difference is large.  Likewise, things go worse for the player character if the GM's roll governs and is higher, or if the player's roll governs but is lower.  I've found that the range of probability for 2d10 is very intuitive for my players and myself, which is a big reason I use it.  (Boxcars on 2d6 or especially 20 on 1d20 feels like a much bigger deal than probability says it ought to be, for instance.)  My favorite thing about this is that it basically skips two steps that skill-based systems use that I feel really just get in the way:  You never have to figure out a task's numeric difficulty or the specific bonus and penalty for each situational advantage, and then you don't have to translate the numbers back into actual results - you just ask, "Okay, in these circumstances, with these tools, what'll probably happen when this character tries to do this?" - and then let surprising thing happens to the extent you're surprised by the dice.  Likewise, there's no way for a player to "min-max" the system numerically:  If you want to push for an advantage, you don't say, "I get +2 from my thingamabob, and I stacked the whosit and whatsit proficiencies, so that's +8 total with the multiplier" - you can still say, "Remember, I'm using my special thingabob, and I think that trick I learned when we were staying with the whosit and whatsit monks will help," but then instead of talking about mechanics, you're participating in the story, and whatever advantage you get fits the context by definition.

3a) When I need to roll for NPCs doing something unopposed by the PCs, I just roll once of course, with a high roll shading things in their favor and a low roll shading the results against them.  Perhaps surprisingly, it turns out that the probability of each result (even each specific numerical result) is exactly the same as with the "high roll governs" system described above.  Likewise, if there's a lot going on or the probabilities are blindingly obvious to everybody, I may not bother to make a secret roll; I just let the player's roll govern for their PC's actions automatically.

3b) There will be players who hate this system because they want to build characters with clear-cut, explicitly-defined, numerical statistics and abilities, or because they want to be able to celebrate a good roll without waiting to see if the GM's roll overrode it.  I'm not going to try to pretend my game design works for everybody.  One of the things I decided when building the system (and the main reason I wanted to avoid e.g. combat maps) was that I didn't want the game to make me (or the players) do anything a well-designed video game could do better.  Now, cool-looking maps like yours can have a kind of power that works in a whole different way from even the most advanced computer graphics, but since I don't have time to find or create a cool map for every potential encounter, and since I literally wanted to minimize the number of seconds that the players (including the GM) spend paying attention to anything other than each other, I went a different way.  (Die rolls are the biggest exception to my attention-on-each-other goal, to provide a random element and something physical for the players to do to drive home their characters' actions, but point number 1 above exists in no small part so that attention will shift from the dice back to the story we're telling together ASAP.)

3c) I intentionally designed the system to be easy for players to pick up even if they're completely new to RPGs - but I also designed it with myself in mind as GM; all this qualitative stuff doesn't work very well for a GM who isn't comfortable in the flow of the story and capable of (and interested in) adapting it rapidly when the player characters and/or die rolls take it off in weird directions.  It also demands a lot of trust between players and GM since there are really no explicit rules and numbers to which the players can appeal.

4) There's one other resolution mechanic kindasorta borrowed from e.g. "Force Points" and "Karma" and the like from various other game systems:  The player characters each have a (small) pool of "reserves" they can "throw in" to (heavily) modify their die rolls.  I went with a small number with very large impact here because I don't want the decision to be tactical; it's meant to be used for character-defining (or story-defining) moments, or as glass to break in case of emergency.  Each character starts with 2 points of reserves, and if used, they have a chance to regenerate as the character gains experience; the (maximum) size of the pool also slowly grows as the character's experience level increases.  There are two ways to use reserves:  You can spend one point after rolling the dice (but before the GM reports the actual result) to override the die roll and replace it with a 20.  Obviously this is really powerful!  Alternatively, you can spend one point before a roll to massively increase the potential effects of your characteer's action:  For purposes of any negative effect that the roll might have (e.g. getting injured in combat) the unmodified roll applies normally, but at the same time, for purposes of any positive effect of the roll, the GM treats the "most likely"  or "expected" result (i.e. the result of a 10-12) as slightly better than what you would have gotten on a normal roll of 20!  You can only use one point of reserves on a single roll - thus, if you spend one before the roll for maximum potential effect, you can't then spend another afterward to turn the roll into a 20.

Note of course that a roll on which a player spent reserves in advance does take a bit more work from the GM than a normal roll would, but it also applies only rarely and at key moments.  Hopefully that'll work well in practice; I actually haven't seen a single use of "reserves" since introducing the mechanic - which I think is mostly a good sign!

Cool, I grok it. 2d10 gives a nice flat curve while still maintaining some likelihoods. Are there numeric modifiers (+1, -2, etc) or advantage/disadvantage mechanics (IE 3d10 take best, or even stuff like 1d10+1d8, or 1d10+1d12)? I could see the system lending itself to either based on character skill or player inputs. Or are you going FATE and encouraging players to push more into narrative control?

Some of this reminds me of Monte Cook's Cypher System. The "reserves" concept can be pushed into an economy like XP in that system if you'd like the players to push more. How are you handling advancement/character growth? What's your world/setting? (GM equivalent of "please actually do tell me about your character")

[RefSteel]

RPG stuff spoiled again because there's a lot of it:

Are there numeric modifiers (+1, -2, etc) or advantage/disadvantage mechanics (IE 3d10 take best, or even stuff like 1d10+1d8, or 1d10+1d12)?

Nope, none!(!)  I used to run a version of this with numeric modifiers, and I like the way they work on 2d10 too, but I prefer the qualitative way I resolve things now:  Instead of coming up with a numeric difficulty for each action, then applying numeric modifiers to the roll, then figuring out how to describe the character's success or failure as dictated by the various numbers and dice, I figure out what makes sense in the game situation, and describe it - or a version of it where the character is especially effective or ineffective, or where everything comes together perfectly or where something goes improbably and hilariously wrong, depending on where the dice fall - accordingly.  Characters have skills (and even levels) but the way that applies to the result is that I'm thinking, "This character is good at dancing; he doesn't fall on his face every time he rolls a 7.  The performance is still good, just not his best effort."  One other effect of this is that, to the extent magical (or other cool) items are in the game, they have to (either be consistently and impressively described or) do stuff - which I regard as clearly a good thing.  In my view, there's nothing less magical than a "sword +1."

Or are you going FATE and encouraging players to push more into narrative control?

I think FATE is a cool system, but I think you need a set of players who wouldn't mind being GMs if they had a bit more time for preparation.  My preference is for players to drive the narrative mainly through their characters' actions (and sometimes through ~out-of-character speculation about the game).  I've heard what I do described as "sandbox gaming," where the GM creates a world for the characters to move through, with adventure hooks available, but with the characters free to pick and choose among them or go off on wild hares of their own devising.  (I like creating stuff on the fly.)

Some of this reminds me of Monte Cook's Cypher System. The "reserves" concept can be pushed into an economy like XP in that system if you'd like the players to push more.

The truth is actually that I don't want to drive the players push more; I just want to keep the option on the table for those who want to take it.  The "reserves" system is there largely so that if a player wants to establish a character-defining moment, or considers a result unacceptable for their enjoyment of the game, they don't have to announce it out of character; there's an in-game mechanic for them to throw a huge weight behind a given moment or "reverse" a bad roll entirely.  If my players never use it (and they haven't so far, though we've only played about five games in the new campaign) it hopefully means they're enjoying the game without it, and don't feel the need to change anything!  On the other hand, as the game continues, I imagine players will start calling on reserves more often (or at least at all) to accomplish something they consider important.  (I do think one thing stopping the players from using them so far is just risk/loss aversion:  Two guaranteed 20s are probably enough to get your character out of a bad jam, but just one might not be....

How are you handling advancement/character growth? What's your world/setting? (GM equivalent of "please actually do tell me about your character")

Heh - thanks!  So, item by item here:

- I do use experience points and levels to broadly define advancement - with dice and reserves (and sort of injury/fatigue) these are the only numerical mechanics in the game.  Broadly, characters get an average of 2xp per game session, more if they're in a situation where they're a little out of their depth or give something up (e.g. pursuit of their personal goals) for other members of the party, less if they're not taking on real challenges or are behaving uncooperatively:  You don't get better by retreading stuff you already know by rote, and the best way to learn is often to work with other people who see things from a different perspective than you do.  Characters advance a level each time they collect 10xp.  Apart from the way xp interacts with the Reserves system, level is just used as a generic reminder to the GM of how good a character is at more or less everything:  L10 characters are presumed to have picked up a lot of random tips and tricks over many adventures, and be very, very good at their core skills.

- Apart from generic xp/level as described above, characters' skills and focus can evolve as dictated by their players' interest and the direction in which the story takes them.  Part of this is driven by the player, part by a combination of game events and experience that allow a character learning special/esoteric skills (such as wielding magic) can develop unique abilities.  And of course players can acquire (and/or "unlock" the abilities of) special (e.g. magical) equipment. ("Unlocking" by learning that they exist, what they are, and how to activate them, for example.)  This is a little tricky, as balancing different and sometimes-magical abilities without hard numbers might seem a tad difficult ... but in my experience, the theoretically-polished mainstream game systems that try to balance sometimes-magical abilities with hard numbers turn out not to be balanced at all.  One of my rules about magic - and one that's completely at odds with the cypher system, I think - is that in general magical abilities can be called upon constantly and repeatedly, but they're either highly constrained in their effects or extremely unpredictable ... but likely to always at least be interesting....

- The world is kindasorta faux-medieval/renaissance fantasy, but the campaign starts in a remote village where magic and fantastic creatures are - mostly - subjects of legend and speculation.  It's actually a corner of a campaign world I've been developing since my early teens, with its original roots in D&D, but it's evolved - a lot - since then.  One example I like to give my characters:  There aren't really any legends about dragon-slayers.  There are legends about heroes who went on a quest to stop a dragon from coming, the way one might go on a magical quest to prevent a prophesied earthquake or hurricane.

[Commodore]

Agriculture it is, then. The desert where the scout sits might be a decent city site, wet corn, dry rice, and shares deer; I'd call it a clear third city but if copper/horse aren't in the capital BFC we'll need to prioritize strategics.

[Commodore]

Holy crap. This might be too good of a city, actually. I'm willing to try suffering through it, though.

I'm interested in this plan, seems like the mappers gave lakes as fresh water rather than rivers. I'd say it boosts Fin, but cottages in RtR beyond the first 4-5 cities are a fool's game.

I'm nervous about this gems. Am I going to be forced to backlines early? That'd suck.

[Commodore]

HAH.

Oh yeah

[Commodore]

In case anyone wondered, that's a Chinese border. SMDH

[darrelljs]

Do you believe in conspiracies, Commodore?

Darrell

[Commodore]

Do you believe in conspiracies, Commodore?

Darrell

[Commodore]

Why are you going to lose this game?

Because this is one heck of a rough neighborhood.


Gavagai. That's a slightly more dangerous proposition. He's aggressive and owns war chariots. He's not stupid, he won't berserk or anything, but if he senses weakness he will take a crack at me. Or Pin, for that matter, assuming he keeps traveling north. Once bronze working comes in I'm going to have to seriously consider my first settler going directly to copper wherever it lies. On the plus side, third ring will have popped then, so might not need to spin out that way. Need spears, yo.

Pin east, Gav south...who is going to be north, Mack?