For my ttrpg I wanted the players to have more interaction with the game and make it feel more like they had control of the narrative rather than simply attempting to beat certain numbers that are set by the gm.
So, I set up a system where depending on what you roll decides success or failure and who gets to choose exactly what happens. Here is how it works:
The game uses a d12 (12 sided dice). All actions will be dedicated after any bonus or malice affecting the roll are tallied. Depending on the total something happens:
1-2: action fails, negative consequence dictated by the gm
3-6: action fails, positive consequence dictated by player
7-10: action succeeds, negative consequence dictated by the gm
11-12+: action succeeds, positive consequence dictated by the player
I have played a lot of games and my favourite thing to do is explain and explore my characters actions through the small unique flairs that they have. The way that they wield their weapon, how they choose to tumble through a dangerous trap, or the exact way that their magic manifests. This is sort of an outcome of that. Being able to be a more active part in the telling of the game through the actual mechanics is a big goal of mine. I love the idea that your greatest successes are yours to decide exactly how they work, effect the world, and how the action would occur in world. Even the concept of mitigating failure by trying to make to make the
Contested Rolls: the player and the gm roll in secret (no bonuses can apply to this roll) for actions that they want to happen, the player and the gm describe the current stalemate from both of their perspectives, the GM reveals what they wanted to do and their roll first and then the player does the same.
If the player and the gm end in a tie repeat this process until one of them succeeds
...
Ok, so being perfectly honest this blog post should not be hard to write. I come in, I say "hey everyone! Look! My ttrpg sometimes lets the player decide and describe the outcome of their own actions! Wow!", I talk about my experiences and the thought process behind the choice, and then I wait for applause. What has ended up happening is every time I come in here I end up changing and slightly adapting something.
The first time through I had rolling a 6 this big important moment because my dumbass was like "that is the middle number of 12!". I am not dumb for thinking that, that is just math. What I was dumb about was not realizing that it would split up the divisions in a weird way, either having more successes or failures. This wouldn't be a problem but it would just be a weird design choice. So, I made the change and sort of had this left over mechanic of contested rolls that I think is really cool just in my hands. Like an adult with poor impulse control at a pet store I immediately tried to find a home for it like it was a cute kitten.
What I ended up with is making a whole new use of influence, which is basically a free form resource that the player can use to do stuff. Influence was mainly being used for the character Origin powers but I always liked the idea of it having uses outside of that. Then I thought up something straight out of Magic the Gathering.
"Huh, I don't really have an action economy or reaction skills... what if influence can be used to do that?"
So, like a mono blue deck you can now deny actions through using influence, unlike a mono blue deck it is not certain. Let me break it down...
Interrupt
Using 2 influence you can have a single action of your own occur before another action outside of your own turn.
Contest
Using 2 influence you can attempt to deny an action or skill check that is being made against you. You and the storyteller roll in secret (no bonuses can apply to this roll) for actions that they want to happen, the player and the storyteller describe the current
So, that is what came of it. For the low, low price of 2 influence you can tell the friend that is running the game to hold their horses. These actions can only be done one time per turn so everyone isn't going bonkers with it. Even now I am looking at it and going "huh...maybe intercept should just be one influence...". Either way, I kinda hope that this makes players feel like they always have something to do and a reason to pay attention during other players turns. This also might have the result of being a sort of damage mitigation in a game where healing is a rare commodity.
I actually tweeted about how it seems like my entire writing of this has been me setting up rules and then mechanics to break them. I just think that is cool as hell. It is why I am utterly enamored with Horus mechs in Lancer. They just do stuff that intentionally break or deny some core game play mechanic. Whether it is Pegasus (its auto-hitting reality warping gun that can't be perceived named the Ushabti cannon) or Minotaur (the pilot cannot get hit be harmed while in the mech because they are in an alternate reality or something) they just decide that certain rules don't mean anything. Like, I understand how cool it is to master a system and do wild things within boundaries but this type of thing feels like you are looking on the other side of the fence.
I think that this all kinda points at the core feeling I want for the game. My ttrpg, The Banishing, is all about fighting back against monsters and the world that they have created for themselves at the expense of a world that you never got the chance to know. It is about understanding that the importance is to stand up and fight even if you have no hope of succeeding. When the players are given the opportunity to deny the gm and tell the story their way, when they can ignore the rules that govern them, it is mimicking the fight going on in the game. I want the players to rebel against the world around them. I want them to fight fate...
and win.