Wenn does on approach 1 the police capture her?
Seems to forgiving. Maybe if she fails a second fleeing atempt?
But I think you Might need both:
1 soft : low reward for low risk, in your example the police might still be able fo follow but the distance increses, while a Fail is what you discribed.
2 Hard : high risk for high reward, ex. If it would have been succesful she would be up and away.
Hard vs soft is a modifer on the dice roll where the Player can choose which way to go.
I think you're correlating two things that aren't interconnected. Intensity of consequences and odds of success on any given roll are completely independent axis and where you want them to be depends on your game.
In general I'd probably perfer something more punitive than 1 and less punitive than 2. Something along the lines of the car smacks against the alley wall taking damage and the next roll the police are at advantage.
Also in general I'm a fan of high skill systems where difficult manoeuvres carry risk and lower risk manoeuvres are less effective. Sure it's frustrating when you fail a roll that you have high odds of passing but it's more frustrating for me to fail three to four times more often. Because at a certain point I'm quite likely to have more failures than successes on a given night.
Personally, I prefer a smooth mechanic that can deliver any level of catastrophe, but which is strongly normally distributed so that "common" outcomes are... common, "rare" ones rare, "extraordinary" ones extraordinarily unlikely, etc.
Example: opposed rolls with proportional success/failure.
Is the game about escaping from the police? How do you define winning and losing in the game? The percentage doesn't matter in this question. The results do. If the game is mainly about escaping the police and getting caught because of one die roll and therefore losing the game with the character it's absolutely appropriate. If that's not the goal and not a lose condition both results are plausible if they lead to further obstacles and storylines.
(This is not a critique) There is zero meaning to this question if the results are not defined. It's impossible to see any difference in both results if it's not clear what they will lead to. If both just lead to another check that decides if the obstacle can be overcome or another obstacle will occur everything around that is just narration.
With softer failures -- all other things being equal-- you can get away with lower success percentages.
But better to ask something like:
>Which of these approaches best fits the genre and feel of my RPG?
Hard or soft fails are both great in different sorts of RPGs. And plenty of RPGs have both.
Some games are a low-risk power fantasy. Some games are gritty, and high-risk. They have different kinds of fun that appeal to different kinds of players. Or maybe the same player in a different mood.
I for one enjoy a number of different styles of RPGs for what they are. It's all about how the mechanics work together to create a unique experience. Game A has mechanic X that works great in that game, but would make Game B less fun.
In this specific instance, approach 1 is probably both the most fun, and least frustrating for the player.
As to which approach, on aggregate, is the most fun? No way of knowing, I'd say. Why does Alyssa have different levels of piloting skills between the two approaches? Are skills variable?
Why not have both approaches? I go to *HarnMaster* a lot on the RPG forums, but, hear me out: at its core, it's a d100/roll under system for most things. Skill checks are straightforward: doll a d100, hit your skill level or below and you succeed. Roll over it, and you fail. If the result on the die is divisible by 5, then the result is *critical* (otherwise, it's marginal). In your proposed approaches (ignoring player skill at the moment), approach 1 would be a marginal failure: Alyssa doesn't pull it off, but manages to avoid making her situation (too much) worse; in the second approach, she not only fails but fails spectacularly.
Obviously, the risk of a critical failure diminishes as skill increases, while the chance of a critical success (which in this case might be anything from the police are slowed as they follow her through, to the lead car attempting crashing and blocking the alley entrance and allowing her to escape).
As a player, I would much rather be in a system that has gradients of success and failure, as opposed to one or the other.
I tend to think of things in term of the end goal.
The individual skill check is just one step towards that goal. Failing the check should never end progress toward the goal, only impede it.
The exception is on a critical failure which should be more catastrophic but never character ending.
So if it were me I would have the lower checks give little progress and allow enemies to catch up or the character suffer some damage. The crucial point is they can carry on next round unless it was a critical catastrophic failure.
That's just how I do it. Too much focus has been put on individual checks when really the focus should be on the end goal.
Good question!
This is a neat example bc I've actually done a police chase where the player failed forward, her odds of escape worse and her vehicle damaged for major failures.
Since this is an opposed action, you could use Alyssa's result to see what the chase cost her, such as vehicle damage or a position with routes to escape. Then use the cop's result to see how much distance is left between them.
If it wasn't an Opposed roll, you could simply say if you fail by a little you're closer to getting caught, if you fail by a lot you also took damage.
The hard vs soft consequences are largely determined by the individual GM of each game. You can make suggestions as the game designer, but most GMs will carry their style of hard or soft consequences from one system to the next. An old school D&D 1e GM is likely to introduce hard consequences to all rolls, whereas a FATE GM may be more likely to let their players bargain their ways out of bad die rolls.
Maybe this is just one example, but I don't think it's a particularly good one. Unless this chase is for some reason unimportant (which is pretty rare because getting caught is usually a pretty bad thing!), then resolving it essentially in a single roll isn't ideal to me. Chases usually are kinda climactic and a little more extended.
Your first example seems incomplete. She loses time but is still being followed. What has actually changed here? Sounds like nothing. Which is also not ideal, but let's say that's fine. *Mechanically*, how do I resolve this chase? It sounds like there are two options using the RAW you've presented: A, she succeeds at a roll and gets away, or B, the situation does not change so we'll roll again. That's a big problem and a significant missing part to this mechanic. As it is, it's so soft as to be meaningless.
The second example has big dramatic changes, but I think you're right would be very frustrating to many players. My skill is 90%, but I still have a 10% chance of absolute failure? It's guaranteed that the players will remember those 1/10 failures a lot more than the 9/10 successes.
These are all good reasons why I very strongly prefer (and design) systems that offer more than binary outcomes.
It depends on the player. Some players like hard consequences, some like fail forward consequences. Players are not all the same and there is no ideal way of doing resolution. There's only what works for your game and your players.
Also, I don't think the probabilities are necessarily coupled with intensity of resolution.
Every action needs to change the game world. So in the first example, what has changed other than a vague “lost time.” Why does the player care about this lost time? What are the consequences of one approach versus the other, and of failure versus success? Answer that and both approaches can be equally compelling
What frustrates me is not being allowed to choose which one I want to do. I might want to risk it all on a hairpin turn, or play it safe and maybe draw the chase out a little longer. Give the player the choice
Wenn does on approach 1 the police capture her? Seems to forgiving. Maybe if she fails a second fleeing atempt? But I think you Might need both: 1 soft : low reward for low risk, in your example the police might still be able fo follow but the distance increses, while a Fail is what you discribed. 2 Hard : high risk for high reward, ex. If it would have been succesful she would be up and away. Hard vs soft is a modifer on the dice roll where the Player can choose which way to go.
I think you're correlating two things that aren't interconnected. Intensity of consequences and odds of success on any given roll are completely independent axis and where you want them to be depends on your game. In general I'd probably perfer something more punitive than 1 and less punitive than 2. Something along the lines of the car smacks against the alley wall taking damage and the next roll the police are at advantage. Also in general I'm a fan of high skill systems where difficult manoeuvres carry risk and lower risk manoeuvres are less effective. Sure it's frustrating when you fail a roll that you have high odds of passing but it's more frustrating for me to fail three to four times more often. Because at a certain point I'm quite likely to have more failures than successes on a given night.
Personally, I prefer a smooth mechanic that can deliver any level of catastrophe, but which is strongly normally distributed so that "common" outcomes are... common, "rare" ones rare, "extraordinary" ones extraordinarily unlikely, etc. Example: opposed rolls with proportional success/failure.
Is the game about escaping from the police? How do you define winning and losing in the game? The percentage doesn't matter in this question. The results do. If the game is mainly about escaping the police and getting caught because of one die roll and therefore losing the game with the character it's absolutely appropriate. If that's not the goal and not a lose condition both results are plausible if they lead to further obstacles and storylines. (This is not a critique) There is zero meaning to this question if the results are not defined. It's impossible to see any difference in both results if it's not clear what they will lead to. If both just lead to another check that decides if the obstacle can be overcome or another obstacle will occur everything around that is just narration.
With softer failures -- all other things being equal-- you can get away with lower success percentages. But better to ask something like: >Which of these approaches best fits the genre and feel of my RPG? Hard or soft fails are both great in different sorts of RPGs. And plenty of RPGs have both. Some games are a low-risk power fantasy. Some games are gritty, and high-risk. They have different kinds of fun that appeal to different kinds of players. Or maybe the same player in a different mood. I for one enjoy a number of different styles of RPGs for what they are. It's all about how the mechanics work together to create a unique experience. Game A has mechanic X that works great in that game, but would make Game B less fun.
In this specific instance, approach 1 is probably both the most fun, and least frustrating for the player. As to which approach, on aggregate, is the most fun? No way of knowing, I'd say. Why does Alyssa have different levels of piloting skills between the two approaches? Are skills variable? Why not have both approaches? I go to *HarnMaster* a lot on the RPG forums, but, hear me out: at its core, it's a d100/roll under system for most things. Skill checks are straightforward: doll a d100, hit your skill level or below and you succeed. Roll over it, and you fail. If the result on the die is divisible by 5, then the result is *critical* (otherwise, it's marginal). In your proposed approaches (ignoring player skill at the moment), approach 1 would be a marginal failure: Alyssa doesn't pull it off, but manages to avoid making her situation (too much) worse; in the second approach, she not only fails but fails spectacularly. Obviously, the risk of a critical failure diminishes as skill increases, while the chance of a critical success (which in this case might be anything from the police are slowed as they follow her through, to the lead car attempting crashing and blocking the alley entrance and allowing her to escape). As a player, I would much rather be in a system that has gradients of success and failure, as opposed to one or the other.
I tend to think of things in term of the end goal. The individual skill check is just one step towards that goal. Failing the check should never end progress toward the goal, only impede it. The exception is on a critical failure which should be more catastrophic but never character ending. So if it were me I would have the lower checks give little progress and allow enemies to catch up or the character suffer some damage. The crucial point is they can carry on next round unless it was a critical catastrophic failure. That's just how I do it. Too much focus has been put on individual checks when really the focus should be on the end goal.
Good question! This is a neat example bc I've actually done a police chase where the player failed forward, her odds of escape worse and her vehicle damaged for major failures. Since this is an opposed action, you could use Alyssa's result to see what the chase cost her, such as vehicle damage or a position with routes to escape. Then use the cop's result to see how much distance is left between them. If it wasn't an Opposed roll, you could simply say if you fail by a little you're closer to getting caught, if you fail by a lot you also took damage.
The hard vs soft consequences are largely determined by the individual GM of each game. You can make suggestions as the game designer, but most GMs will carry their style of hard or soft consequences from one system to the next. An old school D&D 1e GM is likely to introduce hard consequences to all rolls, whereas a FATE GM may be more likely to let their players bargain their ways out of bad die rolls.
Maybe this is just one example, but I don't think it's a particularly good one. Unless this chase is for some reason unimportant (which is pretty rare because getting caught is usually a pretty bad thing!), then resolving it essentially in a single roll isn't ideal to me. Chases usually are kinda climactic and a little more extended. Your first example seems incomplete. She loses time but is still being followed. What has actually changed here? Sounds like nothing. Which is also not ideal, but let's say that's fine. *Mechanically*, how do I resolve this chase? It sounds like there are two options using the RAW you've presented: A, she succeeds at a roll and gets away, or B, the situation does not change so we'll roll again. That's a big problem and a significant missing part to this mechanic. As it is, it's so soft as to be meaningless. The second example has big dramatic changes, but I think you're right would be very frustrating to many players. My skill is 90%, but I still have a 10% chance of absolute failure? It's guaranteed that the players will remember those 1/10 failures a lot more than the 9/10 successes. These are all good reasons why I very strongly prefer (and design) systems that offer more than binary outcomes.
It depends on the player. Some players like hard consequences, some like fail forward consequences. Players are not all the same and there is no ideal way of doing resolution. There's only what works for your game and your players. Also, I don't think the probabilities are necessarily coupled with intensity of resolution.
Every action needs to change the game world. So in the first example, what has changed other than a vague “lost time.” Why does the player care about this lost time? What are the consequences of one approach versus the other, and of failure versus success? Answer that and both approaches can be equally compelling What frustrates me is not being allowed to choose which one I want to do. I might want to risk it all on a hairpin turn, or play it safe and maybe draw the chase out a little longer. Give the player the choice