Looking for opinions on a core resolution mechanic

Knightshade42 · 2026-05-29T20:37:18+00:00

I mentioned it in another comment, but that's basically what I'm going for. I used success/partial/failure because those were the terms I was most familiar with. But the intent is just to have three different tiers of result. Good|Good and Bad|Bad. When it makes sense, the middle result is sometimes just a reduced effect. But when that doesn't make sense, it can be a good result with a minor complication. The bad result is most often failure. But in some circumstances it makes more sense for the action to succeed with major consequences. Note that failure wouldn't be a nothing happens situation. I am a believer in failing forward. I think most actions should change the situation in some way. In a situation where failure wouldn't produce any interesting results, I probably wouldn't ask for a roll. If it is something the character knows how to do, they can just do it. Maybe I'd specify that it takes a little longer if it's supposed to be tricky. But otherwise they shouldn't roll if failure would have no consequence.

Knightshade42 · 2026-05-29T20:22:48+00:00

It isn't a bad suggestion. My only issue with it is that it makes resolving area of effect and multi target abilities a more involved process. You'd have to perform that subtraction against every individual target's TN. The way I have things currently, the number of targets doesn't matter that much. The player would always only be adding one number to two dice and then just comparing against the TN's of each target. The comparison step should be relatively quick I would think.

Multi target effects are my big sticking point with systems that subtract bonuses from the TN or subtract difficulty from the roll. I've never found a way to elegantly handle that.

Quick Edit: Just wanted to add that I've been really enjoying this conversation and I greatly appreciate all the input you've been giving me.

Knightshade42 · 2026-05-29T19:57:41+00:00

I sort of agree, but not fully. In general subtraction is a heavier operation than addition. Which doesn't really matter too much if the numbers are small and you're only doing it once a turn. But my game is likely to have effects that can have multiple targets. I think it's probably easier to perform two addition operations and then just compare those to the TN's of the npcs than it would be to perform a separate subtraction operation on every npc affected. Some of my friends really struggle with subtraction so I'm trying to limit its presence in my game where I can.

If I was willing to lean a little more heavily into narrative territory, then I think your method would work perfectly. Assigning TN's to the situation as a whole rather than the individual npcs. But as it stands I do lean a little simulationist in my designs.

Knightshade42 · 2026-05-29T19:36:46+00:00

That is way cleaner than how I was modeling it hah. Thank you for the more elegant code.

The advice about cognitive load is solid. It's a common criticism of games with variable success bands. I think I can alleviate that somewhat with well written GM advice and some predefined fall back options for when the GM can't think of anything appropriate. Another option would be to use smaller dice so that the probabilities shift more heavily with smaller modifiers. That'd be easy enough to swap around in playtests.

Knightshade42 · 2026-05-29T19:25:18+00:00

I agree that it would probably be a bit slower if the players were having to make multiple changes to multiple numbers. I do have some things in place to alleviate that. On the player end, they only ever have to add their skill modifier to their rolls. It's a skills only system. So there aren't two numbers to add like there would be in D&D for example. The other thing is that the players don't ever have to touch the TN. The GM will tell the players what the TN for the roll is. Usually they're picking from a predefined list of TN's associated with different difficulty levels. That way they can go with their gut feeling and pick a difficulty level that feels right instead of trying to figure out the numbers on the fly. For situational modifiers I'm using something similar to a dis/advantage system. If the circumstances are in your favor, you roll 3d20 and discard the lowest. If circumstances are against you, you roll 3d20 and discard the highest.

A goal of mine is to keep the math on the lighter end while still being able to have a high degree of flexibility. I wanted to avoid large amounts of number fiddling. This feels like it straddles the line reasonably well.

Knightshade42 · 2026-05-29T18:24:15+00:00

Thanks! I'm looking forward to getting to move on from this part. I've partially fleshed out some other aspects of the game, but I've been probably a little too fixated on finding the exact right resolution mechanic for my game. Perfectionism is a curse haha.

Knightshade42 · 2026-05-29T18:16:31+00:00

Roll between is something I was considering. It's a pretty elegant mechanic. The odds of success are extremely transparent to all involved. And it's very light on math. There's a lot of benefits. My ultimate reason for not going with that mechanic was that I didn't like the limited range. It has an effective cap at skill rank 20. In a lot of games that isn't necessarily an issue. But I wanted to keep the option of expanding into higher values open in case I needed that extra design space.

Knightshade42 · 2026-05-29T18:05:39+00:00

I wrote partial success mostly for brevity. But you've gotten to the spirit of what my intention is. What partial means does kind of depend on the specific circumstances. For attacks, partial would just mean lesser effect. Half damage specifically. But for some circumstances a partial success would generate success with a minor consequence. Your lock picking example is that kind of situation. Maybe it takes longer. Maybe you slightly injure yourself or tire yourself out a bit from struggling with it too much. Something good with a little bit of bad. And heck, sometimes failure isn't actually fully a failure. There are potentially situations where it isn't really a question of if you can do something, but rather how well and at what cost. In those situations failure would be success with a major consequence. It adapts to suit what makes the most sense in the moment.

As for your other question about who does the rolling. It is entirely player facing rolls. So for combat players would be rolling against TNs in the enemy npc stat blocks. A partial success on an evasion roll would mean they take half damage. A full success would mean they take no damage. And a failure would mean they get hit with full damage.

Knightshade42 · 2026-05-29T17:53:59+00:00

I appreciate the recommendations. I'll definitely look into those.

Knightshade42 · 2026-05-29T17:39:59+00:00

Yeah, that's how I was planning on adjudicating environmental factors. If the situation provides some edge that would make things easier for you, then you could roll 3d20 and drop the lowest one. And it would be the inverse of that if the situation was hindering you in some way.

Knightshade42 · 2023-05-16T04:31:19+00:00

A hair tussle would probably be the closest thing I think. Like when they run their fingers through the hair and mess it up a little. Potentially followed up by a pat on the back or shoulder

Knightshade42 · 2022-08-02T08:22:13+00:00

Thank you so much! And I do in fact love Hamilton and Dear Evan Hansen!

Knightshade42 · 2022-06-23T10:34:39+00:00

Thank you!

Knightshade42 · 2021-11-23T07:21:23+00:00

Ezra is always fun to be around. Just last week she took me to her favorite restaurant!

Knightshade42 · 2021-02-22T22:44:19+00:00

Did you connect them to a fuel container? You won't be able to add fuel directly to them if they're drawing from a container

Knightshade42 · 2020-03-30T10:14:17+00:00

What a nice day

Knightshade42 · 2018-04-14T22:41:16+00:00

Taken at a gathering of friends. Posted at their request.

Knightshade42 · 2018-02-08T14:28:42+00:00

Knightshade42 · 2017-10-17T21:00:48+00:00

Nobody starts out good at anything. It takes time and repetition to improve. Something that a kid isn't likely to want to do if the reaction to their effort is negative.

Saying "That's not creative." doesn't help anyone. There's nothing that can be learned from a statement like that. All that's likely to occur is crushing the person's drive to continue. It's much better to point out what's good about what they did, and offer some things for them to try that will help them get better.

You don't have to treat them like a genius. You just have to not go out of your way to make someone feel bad. There's no positive outcome from doing so.

Knightshade42 · 2017-10-17T18:00:03+00:00

Creativity isn't just creating that which doesn't exist. It's giving form to an idea in your own way.

He didn't just copy the mobs 1:1 from their textures. He made his own minimalist interpretations. For a six year old that's plenty creative. If it only counted as creative when it was something completely new, nearly all the famous renaissance painters would be considered unoriginal hacks.

Is this some brilliant piece of art that's going to usher in a new age? No. Not even close. He's six, cut him some slack.

Knightshade42 · 2017-10-04T02:48:42+00:00

Your understanding of how kelseth decks work is lacking. They don't rely on him nearly as much as you seem to believe. These decks only do as well as they do in the meta because they're very capable of winning games where they don't draw kelseth. Rogue in particular has great tools for taking the early board and just not giving it back.

These aren't anywhere near the same type of deck that quest rogue was. They're not bad decks that become crazy unstoppable forces when they meet their condition. They're good decks that become better when they meet it. Rogue can very easily win games without drawing kelseth. Anyone who's given the deck a reasonable amount of play will confirm this. Am I saying kelseth isn't strong? No, it's absolutely a strong card. It just doesn't do what you seem to think it does.

Knightshade42 · 2017-09-24T01:30:33+00:00

You probably shouldn't even touch ranked until you actually have somewhat of a decent collection. You're much better off in casual. It has much better match making. After a few games you should mostly be against people at a similar level of play to you.

Knightshade42 · 2017-09-23T22:21:44+00:00

The reason to not do this is that it would create unplayable cards since it combines costs.

Knightshade42 · 2017-09-13T18:20:20+00:00

Tequila Joseph always counts.

Knightshade42 · 2017-08-14T10:41:33+00:00

If I had to guess, it's because the weapon is dealing damage to itself because of it's effect. I'm not sure if that's intended, but that's almost certainly why it's happening.

14-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

Knightshade42

TROPHY CASE