The Flummery Tap (OOC)

[roryb]

The OOC area.

Something I noticed with the rules...they mention success counting. They don’t exactly say how the outcome works. With minimum and maximum dice, we have the following possible die results:

• Blunder!
• 0 successes
• 1 success
• 2 successes
• 3+ successes

Does that mean, one can have ”No, and...”, ”No...”, “Yes, but...”, “Yes...”, or “Yes, and...”? There is potential for outcome nuance here. But I also find simple binary results are charming (it’s a success as long as one die shows up as a success) — BUT GM’s prerogative allows for a “but...” or “and...” qualifier to be added to any result. Thoughts on this? Maybe you would like the satisfaction of getting something for potential critical rolls?

[tibbius]

Try [ list ] without the "="

I have a hard time fixing an opinion on this question but I'll bloviate and hope something I write will be useful.

Graduated degrees of success, assigned by the dice instead of by fiat, make the game more interesting for a GM because it's not as predictable and every result requires some invention. It's particularly more interesting when the players have agency to come up with reasonable "no, and ..." "yes, but ..." and "yes, and ..." results. Though too much of that, and the players can start to lose interest.

On the other hand, the implication of a success ladder like you're proposing (I can't remember where I've seen that before) is that a character at a disadvantage (no relevant trait, or outnumbered, or small, etc.) can hope only for "yes, but" at best. Edit to add: a character not at a disadvantage and not at an advantage could hope to get an unqualified "yes" only 1/9. That kind of spiral of complications alternating with failure would detract from the fairy-tale quality that makes the Hobbit different from other settings.

What do others think?

Edit to add: one option for graduated success that still gives the "little guy" a chance at unqualified "yes": if you roll only 1d6 and get a success, roll a second 1d6. If that's also a success a 6 (to give 1/18 probability), you get the desired result without complications (less often than the guy with straight 2d6, but still occasionally).

[Rex]

I have played a lot of HarnMaster which uses 4 levels and it works very well. In HM they are:
Critical Failure
Failure
Success
Critical Sucess

In this game you could have
Blunder (all 1's), in combat you trip or drop a weapon or something like that
Failure (no 5's or 6's and at least 1 non 1), miss in combat
Success (1 5 or 6), do 1 damage in combat
Critical Success (2+ 5 or 6's), do 2 damage in combat

You could add another level of success, it would work for Combat easily enough but may be too granular for non-combat.

[Mr Stereo1]

Personally I quite like the creative possibilities of Yes/No But/And, but I have the same concerns that Tibbius does that anyone without high skills doesn't really get to exercise that creativity by the numbers. Rex's suggestion could work, and for combat it feels right, but having played more FATE I'd suggest Fate Points as a model. Going off to rails suggesting it, I know, but maybe the players could have some kind of And/But Tokens, so we can voluntarily take Buts to save up Ands for later use like FATE compels? It might be at a bad ratio to compensate for the convenience, like 2 or 3:1, but I think having some initiative somehow could help give everyone some creative flair to their actions, maybe.

[tibbius]

Out of the four options we've presented, Rex seems to have the simplest. It breaks down to

• no, and
• plain no
• plain yes
• yes, and

Giving the little guy a decent shot at "yes" and even a chance at a bonus event by spending Fate. Leaving "yes, but" to narrative demands / player initiative / GM fiat. (As an aside, I think in combat the "plain no" equals no progress while the "no, and" equals taking a wound because only the player rolls for combat.)

I'm opposed to introducing additional mechanics to this rule set. But it is rory's call which way to go with this.

[roryb]

Some good discussion here. I am at work and on my phone, so I will keep this brief. We can use the four outcomes as suggested. I think that the use of Fate … this game’s Fate attribute (not the Fate Core system’s version of points)… can serve a purpose for digging down deep to achieve those higher ends of results. They seem to allow characters to add more dice to their pool.

[tibbius]

I'm going to revise my understanding of the four-way schema in combat, for the following reason:

• If a wound occurred only on all 1's (the "no, and" result), then even the least worthy combatant would get wounded only 1/6 but would inflict a wound 1/3. That doesn't make sense.

Perhaps better would be that a wound occurs on "no" (no 5's or 6's). Then the little guy gets wounded 2/3 of the time (inflicts an injury 1/3), the moderately skilled gets wounded 4/9 of the time (deals damage 5/9), and the really skilled suffers a wound only 8/27 of the time (brings the pain 19/27). "no, and" (what the rules call a "Blunder") could indicate a penalty beyond just getting wounded. Maybe double wounds, maybe lose a weapon ... up to rory's discretion?

[roryb]

Thanks for thinking that through. The four part schema works for me. Keep in mind some of those odds can change quickly when you start throwing Fate at it. With a group of 5 to 6 characters, that’s actually quite a few combined points of Fate. We might find it takes a lot to deplete that resource and start pressing on the heroes (especially with those capable of plucking up Courage). Let’s see how it works in play. We might need to edge those number of successes around after a few scenes.

By the way, the idea for 0 = no, 1 = yes, but, 2 = yes, 3+ = yes, and is found in Lasers & Feelings, which also has a die range for actions of 1d6 to 3d6.

[Mr Stereo1]

Thanks for thinking that through. The four part schema works for me. Keep in mind some of those odds can change quickly when you start throwing Fate at it. With a group of 5 to 6 characters, that’s actually quite a few combined points of Fate. We might find it takes a lot to deplete that resource and start pressing on the heroes (especially with those capable of plucking up Courage). Let’s see how it works in play. We might need to edge those number of successes around after a few scenes.

By the way, the idea for 0 = no, 1 = yes, but, 2 = yes, 3+ = yes, and is found in Lasers & Feelings, which also has a die range for actions of 1d6 to 3d6.

I'm perfectly open to playing with the numbers at your discretion, but I feel like the Fate points (in this system) really have to be looked at in relation to 'Havens'. Taking the Hobbit as our inspiration there could be several 'sessions' between each one. Bilbo and the Dwarves only get to rest up at Rivendell, Beorn's House and Laketown. The stretch between each has at least a couple of serious sessions, like escaping from the Elves or fighting through Goblin Town, where Fate Points get spent freely and maybe a couple of less violent sessions where the party could use help dealing with other problems, like navigating in a pitch dark forest.

[tibbius]

I'm perfectly open to playing with the numbers at your discretion, but I feel like the Fate points (in this system) really have to be looked at in relation to 'Havens'. Taking the Hobbit as our inspiration there could be several 'sessions' between each one. Bilbo and the Dwarves only get to rest up at Rivendell, Beorn's House and Laketown. The stretch between each has at least a couple of serious sessions, like escaping from the Elves or fighting through Goblin Town, where Fate Points get spent freely and maybe a couple of less violent sessions where the party could use help dealing with other problems, like navigating in a pitch dark forest.

This is an excellent point. Fate (and Toughness) are assets that can be depleted fairly easily. However, Ray Otus provided the Take Courage mechanic, where if you have a creative player and a skilled character, those assets (usually [19/27]) can be partly replenished anytime the party gets a few minutes to rest - consistent with the source material.

For what it's worth I think the Mirkwood elves of The Hobbit are much cooler than the Lothlorien elves of LotR. Faery circles dancing around vanishing fires ... creepy beauty, exactly the uncanny valley that's prevalent in Celtic myths of fae.

[roryb]

For what it's worth I think the Mirkwood elves of The Hobbit are much cooler than the Lothlorien elves of LotR. Faery circles dancing around vanishing fires ... creepy beauty, exactly the uncanny valley that's prevalent in Celtic myths of fae.

Totally agreed on this point.

[roryb]

Looks like our character roles are pretty much done. We haven’t heard from StevetheNPC, so I’m assuming he’s no longer interested. Today is a busy day, but I might do some tinkering and have follow-up questions for you.

I feel the burden of Tolkien’s titanic literary spirit, so it may take a while to get a good opening going, though I feel we should still start after the journey begins rather than force an intro to establish your hooks. I’m also dabbling at some poetry...I’m horrible at it, so we’ll see.

[tibbius]

rory, I'm really glad you're running this. Looking forward to your open, I will keep my expectations low as if I've never played with you before.

Thinking more about the "yes, but" option ...

... maybe a player could accept or impose a "yes, but" complication on a "plain yes," in order to regain a point of Fate or some other benefit?

[roryb]

rory, I'm really glad you're running this. Looking forward to your open, I will keep my expectations low as if I've never played with you before.

Please do keep them low! And sorry it was a busy day, so I got nothing done. But please keep talking about character connections, y’all!

Thinking more about the "yes, but" option ...

... maybe a player could accept or impose a "yes, but" complication on a "plain yes," in order to regain a point of Fate or some other benefit?

I like this idea...sounds like something that that each player could exercise once per scene not to abuse it.

So, to be sure, we’re talking:

• Blunder (no, and...)
• 0 Successes (no...)
• 1 Success (yes... or yes, but... in exchange for 1 Fate)
• 2+ Successes (yes, and...)

Correct?

[OGRE MAGE]

Take all the time you need roryb, we arent going anywhere. I would prefer to wait for the good stuff instead of having you rush into something.

[tibbius]

Take all the time you need roryb, we arent going anywhere. I would prefer to wait for the good stuff instead of having you rush into something.

From experience (sorry if I'm bumping up expectations) it will be worth the wait.

Also:

So, to be sure, we’re talking:

• Blunder (no, and...)
• 0 Successes (no...)
• 1 Success (yes... or yes, but... in exchange for 1 Fate)
• 2+ Successes (yes, and...)

Correct?

That's what I'm talkin bout. "No" in combat means you take a wound, "yes" means you inflict a wound. Is everyone else ok with this?

[Rex]

I agree with OM, no rush. I am OK with whatever.

[Jernau35]

Oh absolutely yeah, no worries. Take your time!

[roryb]

Thanks, all! Seems the coroNUH is wreaking havoc hear in Seattle. I run a small school, so we're having to adapt. This has been distracting me more...but in the end, it may end up meaning more time for me. We'll see.

[Mr Stereo1]

Yeah, no rush pal. Take the time to come up with something you like, and don't torture yourself over poetry. I think it'd add something to the story for us all to take a stab at song and such, Tolkein-like, but aside from Tibbius (hard luck buddy) at least our characters are all amateurs themselves. (And hopefully take precautions for any inconveniences that might be coming your way. Not to panic-monger or anything when I say that.)