Here’s a thing I’ve been thinking about it recently. It comes up a lot when we play The Score but it also sneaks into other RPGs all the time – and I think we probably find ways to do this kind of thing more than we might imagine, but it’s not written down in any rulebooks. And pretty much the entire history of RPGs is thinking of things people are actually doing and turning them into written rules.
First, let’s do an example, and I’ll do Star Wars again because I’m old. Luke wakes up to find his new droid has wandered off into the desert. He goes looking for it, and finds signs of sandpeople. He pulls back to see if he can see them from a distance, and they – having set a trap – ambush him and knock him out. He is saved at the last moment by the appearance of a strange figure using crazy mind powers, who is luckily, a person Luke has been thinking about.
As a writer, here’s how you might think about this scene: you want to establish some character beats. Luke isn’t as tough as he thinks he is. Obi-Wan has mysterious powers. We can show that by having a nice moment of “plot zig zag” – Luke finds the droid is gone (oh no), Luke finds the droid (hooray), Luke sees sand people (suspense), Luke is attacked (surprise), Luke is saved (hooray). You would write this all as one scene, and the chief purpose of the scene would be to get the two characters together in an interesting way, and establish some character and world building.
Obviously there isn’t and can’t always be a parallel between non-participatory storytelling and participatory storytelling, but here’s how this might look in an RPG: Luke would make a roll to see if he can find R2D2s trail. He succeeds! Then the GM has him roll perception to notice the sand people. He succeeds! He decides he will hide. The GM decides (somehow) that the sand people are setting up a trap so gives Luke some rolls to see if he can figure this out, like say Local Knowledge and Perception. Fail, and fail. Okay, Luke, give me a dodge roll. Fail? Okay they knock you out. But … I guess an old wizard comes along and stops them from eating you? Luke’s player will spend a point on his I Know This Guy stat to say this is an old mountain hermit he’s met a few times.
And at this point someone might go – and it might be the GM, and it might be in secret, or it might not – “oh, can that be the person my character, Princess Leia, was trying to find?”. And that’s the kind of thing I’m talking about. It’s a lot like retro-active continuity but done in the act of creation. It makes sense that this thing that we’ve already decided happened and that thing we’ve already decided happened are linked. Perhaps causally or through an heretofore unestablished connection. And like I say, I think we do this all the time.
So often when I’m generating random stuff from tables, I’m putting two or three things together so that they are linked like this. Which has got me pondering: is there a way to make this an explicit mechanic? In The Score I’ve been toying with the idea of drawing two cards at once, so that you can explain the failure of the first by the arrival of the second, or resolve the failure of the first with the success of the second. However particularly since the game is all about drawing cards, it tends to work better at the table if everything is atomic. And that’s when it hit me: almost everything we do in TTRPGs is atomic like this. The example above was something you might call a scene but each roll stood on its own. The GM might have prepared several ways the encounter might have gone, and seen that as a cohesive whole but each roll was “what happens now, at this point” with Luke rolling to see if he gets a yes or a no or a sort of outcome. The story branches around these atomic choices. And that’s fine…
…but if you were writing this scene, you’d write this at the very least as a one-two punch. First this, then that. Luke takes a hit, gets rescued. You’d get the two things at the same time.
There are some systems that can work like this. You could do a scene-based resolution where say, Luke’s trying to “find R2D2” and he gets a yes but, and the player decides that he gets ambushed then saved. In this case though the test is still a kind of an atomic thing – a yes no maybe of “does this happen”. And if you go out to this step, the scene with Obi-Wan is connected to Luke not being at home when the stormtroopers arrive and to Luke finding Obi-Wan and getting some of his backstory.
Alternatively you could have a tug-of-war style system (like in Dogs in the Vineyard or Cortex) where the GM is playing “planetary threats” and there’s a back and forth wagering until finally Luke wins but with a sacrifice (he takes a wound, say). This does get to the idea that we build in connections and outcomes but it does still feel like we’re trying to solve a singular situation. We have a procedural scene: Luke wants to achieve an outcome and rolls to determine if he does. And certainly we can start with that idea and bring in what I’m talking about, because “solving a problem” is a pretty standard core RPG mechanic.
But what I’d like to see is something that steps outside the atomic. Imagine a situation where every roll in an RPG is always two rolls, in the sense of we’re getting two ideas we want to link together. This isn’t the same thing as rolls that produce lots of information, like in the Genesys system, because that still feels to me sealed inside the atomic concept. Although again, that’s probably a good way to come at this problem – it might be that we’ve solved this issue already, with this idea. But I’m curious about what else we might do. Another way to think about this is systems where everyone rolls their initiative at the start of the round so you know that when you finish your action, who is coming next. Similarly the Balsera Initiative system where you decide who goes next is going to prompt into this area as well. What we want is for players to think about connections, and what just happened and what’s about to happen is a start.
But what if whenever Bob the Fighter wants to do X we get Eric the cleric to roll for whatever they are doing next? Of course you’ll say they don’t know what they’re doing next, but we often DO have some idea. Maybe Bob is trying to bust down the door and Eric the Cleric is going to blast some spells. Roll both. Then explain and describe the whole thing when you know all the things coming into the scene. In this case there’s basically four outcomes, but they’re all kind of interesting. Can Bob fail to get the door down but Eric look badass when casting spells? Maybe. If I was writing that scene, I’d have Bob hit the door, hurt himself, have a comedy beat and then a skeleton shoot out of the door a second later and getting blasted. Or maybe the door opens but Bob goes sliding in, looks up and sees a skeleton about to kill him – and then Eric saves his life. If Bob wins and Eric wins, then it’s a moment of two comrades acting in perfect synchronicity. If Bob wins and Eric fails then Bob slams open the door only for the skeleton to shoot past him and Eric’s faith to fail. If they both fail…the skeleton kicks the door open, knocks Bob down and Eric fails to get his holy symbol up.
Of course all of those situations can be achieved with atomic rolls but I hope you can see how starting with lots of information coming into something BEFORE we interpret the roll, we can get different results. And that currently, we mostly do RPGs where each player makes an atomic choice and gets a singular answer back from the system before we move on. And there’s probably a whole other series of things we could be doing that aren’t atomic like this. Games naturally teach us to take turns and keeping things atomic does mean that each player feels independent and in control. Turns, in other words, make sense. But they’re not the only way to play. We don’t take turns in tug of war – we all come in at once.
I do not have the answers here. I only have this question, this start of an idea. I’m putting it here because I want to see someone take it somewhere. Because that’s what I’m talking about – collaboration. Collaboration, like narrative, is rarely atomic. Let’s see where we can go, not just one step at a time, on our own.
D-Constructions 