This entry is part 4 in the series The Sixes System

Image by dric from Pixabay

0. Fundamentals (repeated for all posts:)

— The Sixes System has been used in my Dr Who campaign since September 2014, and has just come to a successful conclusion.

— Characters are constructed using a point-buy methodology with NPCs generatable using die rolls for speed.

— Success or Failure on tasks is determined by adding dice to a pool based on ability and circumstances which are then rolled against a target number determined by the GM.

5. Resolving Actions

The broad process is simple:

  • The player decides what the character is trying to do;
  • The player and GM collaborate on translating that desired action into game mechanics;
  • The translation determines the number of dice that are in the character’s pool;
  • The GM sets the target required, based – in part – on some elements of the size of the pool;
  • The player rolls the dice in the pool;
  • The outcome is determined and interpreted by the GM based on the roll.

Typically, it proceeds about that fast in play, too.

When you break it down step-by-step, there are a number of small details that complicate the process, which is detailed below in its entirety. Two symbols will appear now and then in the detailed procedure:

    † needed to determine the target number in step 14;
    ‡ further explanation in subsequent subsections.

It should be remembered that many of these steps are designed to proceed virtually simultaneously, or can be carried out that way.
 

  1. The player describes the action that his character is attempting to perform. Note that if the player includes a triggering condition, the GM may abort the die rolling process at this point and wait until that trigger is met, or he may carry the process through to the actual point of rolling and hold there until the triggering condition is met. The second is more dramatically effective but more work for the GM.
  2. The player proposes a stat and the GM either concurs or modifies the choice.‡
  3. The player announces the value of the stat.†
  4. The player sets aside dice equal to 1/2 this value
  5. The player proposes a purpose and the GM either concurs or modifies the choice (may be combined with 2 above)‡
  6. The player announces the value of the purpose (may be combined with 3 above)†
  7. The player sets aside dice equal to this value, announcing the total number of dice.
  8. The player chooses a skill from his list that he considers appropriate and the GM either concurs or modifies the choice. NB: The character might not have an appropriate skill.‡
  9. The player announces the number of ranks that he has in the skill.
  10. The player sets adds dice to the pool equal to the number of ranks. It simplifies the process if these are in a different color to the other dice in the pool. Note that if the character does not have a suitable skill, he will be directed by the GM to remove two dice from the existing pool.
  11. The player announces any other skills that he has that he thinks might contribute to his chance of success. The GM concurs or disagrees.‡
  12. The player adds one dice to the pool for each additional skill accepted (usually done as each skill is accepted).
  13. The player announces the effect value of any equipment contributing to the success or failure and adds to or subtracts dice from the pool accordingly. The number of dice of color 2 may not drop below 1 due to poor equipment, and good equipment can only replace dice of color 1 unless the character has a skill in using it that applies.
  14. The GM assesses the conditions, situation, and what the character is attempting to do and determines both a target number and a number of “sixes” required. These assessments and how to set a target are defined in section 6 of the rules.
  15. The GM announces the target number. He does NOT announce the number of sixes required.
  16. The player rolls the accumulated die pool and organizes the results for easy counting (totals of 10 are best). While he is doing so, the GM counts the number of ‘true’ sixes that have been rolled and compares this to the requirement that he determined in step 14, above. He also counts the number of true ones.‡
  17. The player announces the total and the GM compares that to the target.
  18. There are four possible combinations of interest:
    • The total equals or exceeds the target and the number of true sixes exceeds the requirement (possible critical success);
          (a “true six” is a die with a result showing on its face of 6).
    • The total equals or exceeds the target (success);
    • The total fails to reach the target, and the number of true 1’s is greater than the number of true sixes (possible critical failure);
    • The total fails to reach the target, but the number of true 1’s is not greater than the number of true sixes (failure).
  19. Critical Success and Failures are considered an optional rule outside of combat. They are interpreted as adding extra flair or flamboyance to the outcome or the performance of the act described by the player. (In combat they are ‘critical hits’ and ‘fumbles’ and NOT optional). If the GM does not exercise this option then critical successes simply become successes.
    • On a critical success, the character succeeds in performing the action described, possibly with extra flamboyance as described.
    • On a non-critical success, the character succeeds in performing the action described within a reasonable time frame. He may encounter difficulties en route, described by the GM in narrative, but overcomes them, also in narrative.
    • On a non-critical failure, the character may fail outright or achieve a partial success. The GM may also determine that additional time may yield a success.
    • Fail outright: the character fails and may not make a further attempt; the game narrative moves on.
    • Partial Success: this may permit the character a second attempt at the GM’s discretion. This process is described in section 5.9 below.
    • Further Time to Succeed: game focus shifts to determining how much extra time will be required and what else might take place in the meantime. The character can abandon the attempt at any point. This process is described in section 5.10 below.
    • On a critical failure, the events should be more spectacular and may result in negative consequences beyond the obvious. The GM may still permit a partial success, albeit with an additional handicap resulting from those consequences.
    • The failure should be such that additional time and effort will not and cannot achieve a success. This last restriction applies even if the (optional) other critical success & failure rules are not implemented by the GM.
  20. The GM describes the action in narrative form, incorporating the character’s attempted action into the unfolding story.‡

There is a lot to unpack in that process, and some steps are missing significant details, as shown by the ‡ marks!

    5.1 Choosing A Stat

    Most of the time, the choice will be obvious from the described action. The Self-defined Stat will usually account for about as many rolls as the rest of the stats put together, with exceptions where something like Strength is considered the defining characteristic by the player. The shared stat is the least-used, and it’s generally a last resort.

    In theory, the choice should be value-agnostic, but in reality, it never will be. In part 1 of the game system, I recommended listing stats in sequence from high to low; this not only improves speed of play, it assists players in making decisions (“Is stat #1 appropriate? No? Then how about Stat #2?”) – it places stats in their order of relevance and importance to the character, and the things that the character tries to do in-play should be a reflection of those defining traits.

    There will be times, however, when you need to fall back on the exact definitions provided in part 1, and even do a little hair-splitting, before you can come up with the right choice.

    Note, too, that the player proposes the choice of stat, and the GM can either accept that proposal or modify it if he has good reason to do so. Some players will have problems with this, especially if the rulings are inconsistent, because the GM is almost certainly forcing the player to choose a lower-value stat. So it’s important to always have an iron-clad justification that derives from the players’ statement of what the character is attempting to do.

    5.2 Choosing A Purpose

    Experience shows that choosing a purpose is often trickier than selecting the appropriate stat. Is trying to change someone’s mind about something an attack? Or a defense? Or – well, you get the point.

    It’s for this reason that the rules about tie-breaking were included. The specific definitions may also provide guidelines in a nuanced situation.

    The other weapon that the GM has in his arsenal is always the question, “How?” The player will usually respond in relatively detailed form (from past experience) which the GM can then abstract to reach a decision on the overall process.

    It can sometimes be that the player is attempting to do too much at once – breaking the one plan into a couple of die rolls for different sequences of events can cut many a Gordian knot.

    One other aspect of the tie-break rule needs to be pointed out: just as the player can with stats, so the tie break means that the purposes can be considered in sequence until one is found that fits. This can greatly speed the resolution of this question.

    5.3 Choosing A Skill

    This is usually straightforward – once the rules described in 5.4 and 5.5 are taken into account. Without those rules, splitting hairs is often undertaken in an attempt to choose the right skill.

    5.4 A difference that is no difference: Speeding the process

    If two skills have exactly the same number of ranks, it doesn’t matter which one is ultimately chosen (except possibly to the GM’s flavor text). So choose one and be done with it.

    5.5 Related Skill contributions

    A related skill is one that can’t be used to perform the entire action, but which may make part of it significantly easier.

    A term that I came across in relation to motor-sports about twenty years ago is “Mechanical Sympathy” on the part of a driver, meaning that the driver in question had a clearer understanding of the limitations of the mechanical components of his vehicle and of the amount of stress being placed on them by different maneuvers, and could manage those stresses to reduce the likelihood of something breaking.

    A term often used by Pilots is spacial awareness; a pilot who has a better spacial awareness than another has a clearer idea of exactly where other aircraft are, relative to his own, and where they will be. This can allow them to maneuver and put the enemy into his cross-hairs far more efficiently than a pilot with a more limited spacial awareness.

    In neither case can these attributes control the vehicle – they are not Driving and Piloting, respectively – but Mechanics and Spacial Awareness (respectively) can clearly improve a character’s ability to do so.

    In practical terms, a related skill is anything that the GM thinks would help the character perform the task in question. That becomes significant when trying to select between two skills of the same rank – because you can pick one (it doesn’t matter which) and the other becomes a related skill.

    Some game systems / GMs require a successful skill roll against a related skill before it can contribute to the main problem. Others place limits on the number of related skills I recommend against both practices with this game system; the former is usually associated with much larger benefits than the +1 rank that this system confers, and the latter is less significant because of the small size of the
    related skill’ benefit. Instead, this system views the skills, experience, and expertise that the character can bring to bear on the problem of carrying out a desired action to be a compound of all the relevant skills, experience, and expertise that he possesses. The combination of a nominated skill and any number of related skills is a quick and straightforward mechanism to achieve that compounding.

    5.6 True Sixes vs Virtual Sixes

    The development history of this game system is replete with good ideas implemented that, in practice, went a little too far and needed moderation. The very name of the game system, The Sixes, refers to one such idea – the notion of setting a target and then reflecting situational difficulties as a number of dice that must come up sixes within the scope of the target. The results, in practice, were all little too knife-edge; so the ‘moderation’ was introduced, in the form of the concept of Virtual Sixes.

    By incorporating the sixes requirement target into the main target number, virtual sixes come into existence, because any die that exceeds the specified average contributes to a total in excess of the target. If the target average is 3, for example, every 4 rolled contributes 1 pip toward a “virtual six”, and every 5, two pips – with a total of three pips needed to transform an on-target roll (a three) into a “six”. So, against a target average of three, a four and a five creates a “virtual six”, distributed over two dice, and three fours creates one distributed over three dice.

    A target of 3.5 is more interesting. A four contributes half a pip in excess of the target, a five, one and a half pips, and the target requirement is – theoretically – a total of 2 1/2 pips. So the minimum number of dice over which a virtual six can be distributed is three, and it may take five.

    Equally, ones and twos, being below the target, undermine virtual sixes by taking away pips.

    But the bottom line is that a total rolled in excess of the modified target is enough to satisfy BOTH targets. And that means that a very fast, very simple mechanic can encompass a raft of subtle complexity – beneath the surface. And it makes it easier for a good roll to succeed, while still preserving the essence of the game mechanics.

    5.7 True Ones vs True Sixes

    Remember what I said about good ideas going too far? The ‘moderation’ of virtual sixes is an equal fit for that description. The thought runs that natural sixes should represent some sort of advantage – if there are enough of them.

    If you have more natural or ‘true’ sixes than you do ‘true’ ones, the odds are pretty good that you’re going to achieve any reasonable target. The greater that inequality, the more unreasonable the target that you can expect to achieve. So an excess of sixes becomes naturally associated, conceptually, with critical hits, and an excess of ones with a fumble.

    As a general rule of thumb, the number of dice divided by 6 gives the expected number of both sixes and ones, on average. Natural variation will add or subtract one to each tally every now and then, especially if rolling 12 or more dice – the more dice, the more opportunity there is for one of them to ‘go rogue’.

    The natural consequence is that if you have a large die pool – i.e. good Stats, strong Purpose, and significant Skills – you are both more likely to achieve a critical hit – or a fumble.

    5.8 Describing A Success

    It’s important that the GM be guided in his narrative by the constituents of the successful or failed die roll, and by the original description of what the character was trying to achieve and how he was trying to do it. The definitions of the different elements provide clues to such interpretations.

    This matters because the narrative should provide reinforcement and reminders of the game mechanics even as it abstracts the game mechanics. It’s as though there was a virtual layer between the player’s narrative and the game mechanics labeled ‘abstract interpretation’ – or possibly, ‘metagame interpretation’.

    For example, if the character is using attack and a skill labeled ‘intimidate’ to coerce an NPC’s decision, then he is (1) actively trying to intimidate the NPC, and (2) instructing the NPC on ‘how to get on his good side’ or ‘get him off you back’ or whatever. That requires the player to be clear from the outset on what he wants the NPC to do or agree to. So the GM should first describe the intimidation and the NPCs reaction to it, and then the demand and the response.

    5.9 Partial Success

    A partial success generally means that part of the action was completely successful, but that another part went off the rails somehow, but sometimes it means that some of what the character wanted to achieve was done, but not enough to completely achieve the whole. How the GM interprets a situation depends on what the PC was trying to do.

    The GM should be particularly mindful of two possibilities: More Time To Complete, and Second Chances.

    Image by Peter Lomas from Pixabay

    5.10 Further Time To Success & Second Chances

    Further Time means that the task is going to take longer than the PC originally thought it would, for some reason, but – given that time – the die roll was good enough that they will succeed eventually.

    How much extra time – and, in fact, anything else about the process – are entirely up to the GM’s sense of what’s reasonable. Is it reasonable that the player be able to set the research aside, do something else for a while, and then resume it? Then it might take weeks or months, but as long as the player makes room in the character’s life for the ongoing effort, he will get there eventually.

    A Second Chance means that whatever went wrong with the previous attempt to create the partial success, it isn’t unsalvageable. As a general rule of thumb, targets should be one grade easier, maybe more – part of the task has been completed just fine, and doesn’t have to be re-done.

    The difference is that a second roll, made immediately, catches the error and corrects it. NB: The GM is perfectly entitled to decide that the failure rules out any attempt by the character who failed to notice and correct the mistake, but that another PC can make a roll to step in and fix the mistake at the last possible minute – if he has the skills to do so.

    5.11 Describing A Failure

    As a general rule of thumb, outright failures should bring a full stop to attempts to achieve the character’s goal by the described means, but should not exact any further penalty (except in unusual circumstances). Attempting to defuse a bomb, an outright failure would not mean that the bomb goes off immediately, but it does mean that the character was unable to defuse it for some reason which the GM then has to provide in his narrative.

    It’s possible for a character to fail and not know why but it should be relatively rare.

    5.12 Describing A Critical Failure

    At the very least, a critical failure should actively rule against another attempt by that character. It may in fact rule out any chance of success by ANY character (the bomb detonates). On a less critical task, perhaps a key tool breaks – something of that nature.

    The very least outcome should be that the character is frustrated. It should only get worse from there. But the GM should be careful not to put words or actions in the PCs ‘mouth’ – having something happen that will frustrate or anger the PC is fine, deciding how the character will express that emotion, or what he will do about it, is going too far. By all means, tell the player that his character is angry and frustrated as a result of the failure – but let him them describe how those emotions manifest.

    5.13 Shared Actions

    There are two types of shared action: Constructive, in which each participant has an identified role to play, and Collaborative, in which there are no such defined roles. An example of the first might be two people building a wagon or boat or whatever; an example of the second is two characters searching a library for a clue about something, or engaging in a research project together.

    The two participants do not have to be equal, and usually will not be; whoever has the larger die pool when the time comes to roll will take the lead in the project.

    In a Constructive shared action, the participants roll separately to achieve “their part” of the whole. I like to use the basketball team analogy: ‘A’ grabs the rebound and passes the ball to ‘B’, who takes it part way up the court before passing it to ‘C’, who immediately passes it to ‘D’, who rushes the basket and attempts to score. While all rolls can take place at once, and this can be described as the single action “We grab the rebound and try to score”, the success of the whole is dependent on each part being successful enough. If B fails, his attempt to pass to C may be blocked, for example; either way, C and D find themselves with a clear path to the basket but no ball. However, B might have a chance to correct the failure, or another player (D or A) might attempt to do so. So the ball gets passed to D, say, and then to C, who stalls while D gets into position, passes the ball back, D shoots, he scores….

    In a Collaborative shared action, there is one die pool – that of the character who is taking the lead. Other characters may contribute skill ranks to the total, increasing the size of the pool. Alternately, the GM may permit separate die rolls against a single target by both, with ones and true sixes being added to the lead character’s total; if the score reaches the target, the team succeeds.

    5.14 (Advanced) Coordinated Team Actions

    The most extreme type of shared action is when two or more individuals combine to achieve a specified strategic outcome with a pre-planned (and usually practiced) tactic. These outcomes can’t be as grandiose as “beat the enemy”; they have to be more granular and specific than that. But one character pinning the enemy down so that his or her slower but more powerful ally can get a clean shot? Totally acceptable. Attacking while falling back to lead an enemy into position for an ally to knock them off the balcony by swinging from the chandelier? Totally acceptable. Tickling a dragon (literally or metaphorically) to get it to expose the hole in its defensive armor to an ally’s bow-shot? Totally acceptable.

    The GM can rule statements of intent as too broad to be a coordinated team action, but he cannot define an activity as a coordinated team action, even through an NPC; at best, he can suggest it to the players involved. The players have to invoke this sub-section of rules. If they do not, the GM must define what they are attempting as either a Collaborative or Constructive shared action, and use the rules in the previous section to resolve the action.

    Declaring a Coordinated Team Action means that the players are foregoing the option of a partial success for an all-or-nothing combined action that has a better chance (overall) of success.

    Coordinated Team Actions have to be split into components, each to be performed by a different character. Implementing this may require accepting a broader action description than the GM would normally permit; if that occurs, the GM should compensate by designating one part of the action to be the ‘heart’ of the action, using that as the basis for the skill check, and increasing the target average one step (this will make more sense after reading section 6, below).

    The character responsible for the first component of the coordinated team action (sequentially) rolls as usual, and sets aside any (true) sixes and ones if successful. Note that the GM cannot determine a partial success, but can permit the action to succeed after extra time is taken, based on whether success is better or worse for his narrative. The character responsible for the second component then rolls as usual. He can replace any die (other than one with a true 1 showing) that he has rolled with a six from the first component, but must also replace another die (other than one with a true 1 showing) with a matching true 1 if there are any remaining unallocated. If there is to be a third component to the tactic, true sixes and ones are then set aside (provided that the second component was a success), and the process repeated.

    Let em offer an example (shorn of context to make it more universally applicable).

    The coordinated team action is to have three components. The first component has a pool of 12d6 and a target of 27. The player rolls 2×1’s, 2, 2×3’s, 4×4’s, 2×5’s, and 1×6, easily achieving the target; the 1’s and 6’s are preserved.

    The second component has a pool of 10d6 and a much harder target of 33. The player rolls 1, 4×2’s, 2×3’s, 5, and 2×6’s, for a total of 32 – one short! But he can import the preserved true six in place of a rolled 2 – at the price of importing a true 1 in place of another 2. That makes his roll 2×1’s, 2×2’s, 2×3’s, 5, and 3×6’s – a total of 35. The second component succeeds; the three 6’s and two 1’s are preserved for the benefit of the third character.

    The third component is the coup-de-grace, the payoff for the whole team action. Everything else has been about creating the right conditions and positioning to create the opportunity for this part of the whole action. It is 12 dice against a really difficult target of 45. The player rolls 2×1’s, 3×2’s, 2×3’s, 4, 2×5’s, and 2×6’s, a total of 40 – not even close. He turns to the dice whose results were preserved from earlier components. He replaces one 2 with a six, another with a matching 1. He replaces the last 2 with another 6 and one three with a matching 1. That leaves only an unmatched six in the inherited dice, with which he replaces the last three. His roll is now 4×1’s, 0×2’s, 0×3’s, 4, 2×5’s, and 5×6’s, a total of 48. The teamwork succeeds, and the Coordinated Team Action is successful.

    Note that while many of the terms are suggestive of combat, because that is where the majority of Coordinated Team Actions will be utilized, these can be used in any other coordinated activity if the GM approves the request.

    That makes the GM’s power of veto especially important to understand. In essence, the GM should look for a purity of purpose, i.e. an objective which is simply stated, but very specific; an intentional chain of events that are intended to provide the opportunity for that purpose to be achieved, in which no character plays more than one role; and the dramatic benefit to the plotline of multiple characters uniting to achieve something that they could not accomplish with individual efforts. In particular, the logic connecting the components of the proposed coordinated team action that makes each preliminary step essential to the success or failure of the whole, must be (relatively) iron-clad.

    This rewards characters working out tactics that combine the efforts of two or more of them at the same time.

    Image by WikiImages from Pixabay

    5.15 (Advanced) Uncoordinated Team Actions

    An uncoordinated team action can be described as several characters attempting to do the same thing, and failing to trip each other up or get in each other’s way. For example, it might be determined that a target is vulnerable to attacks from the rear, so a plan is hatched to surround the target; whenever he turns toward a character, whoever is on the opposite side will attack while the character faced will step back out of reach (a brutal but effective strategy which relies on sheer weight of numbers to whittle away a defense).

    Or, it might be determined that a character’s motivation is his weak point, with multiple characters successively targeting the reasons why the target is where he is, doing what he is, by engaging in conversation. Some may use persuasion, others ridicule, or intimidation, or even bribery. All of them are doing essentially the same thing – trying to find a way to reach the target and reason with him.

    Uncoordinated Team Actions cannot be invoked by the GM, even through an NPC, just as the GM can’t invoke a Coordinated Team Action. Only a player can make that call. The GM can, however, veto one or deem certain contributions as ineligible to be included because there is insufficient commonality amongst them.

    The GM sets a target based on the character with the smallest pool. This target will be the same for all characters. Actions are resolved in sequence of small pools to high. (break ties with a die roll). If any one of the characters succeeds, the overall action will succeed. It follows that – all else being equal – there will be an increased chance of success with each subsequent character’s attempt. Unfortunately, all else is not equal.

    Any true ones rolled by the first character to attempt the team action are preserved and ‘displace’ unrolled dice for the next and subsequent characters, providing a cumulative handicap that has to be overcome. However, each subsequent character in the uncoordinated attempt may discard one of these inherited dice after his roll.

    Once again, an example might be useful about now: Five characters, die pools of 9, 10, 10, 11, and 13. The GM sets a target of 38 based on the 9-die pool.

    The 9-die pool character goes first. He rolls very well – 2×1’s, 2, 4×5’s, and 2×6’s – but his total of 36 is still short of the target. Worse still, both ones are preserved to handicap the others.

    One of the 10-die pool characters goes next – but two of his 10 dice are displaced by the ones preserved from the first attempt, so he only gets to roll eight dice – but he also rolls very well. His results: 2×1’s (+2 more that were conserved), 2×4’s, 2×5’s, and 2×6’s, for a total of 34 – not enough, and now there are 4 ones to be conserved – except that he discards one of them.

    The other 10-die pool character follows – but three of his 10 dice are displaced by the ones preserved from earlier attempts, so he only gets to roll 7 dice. His roll is good, but not as spectacular as those who have gone before – 3×1’s conserved, 2×3’s, 3×4’s, 5, and 6, a total of 32 – not enough, but at least he hasn’t added to the penalties faced by the rest. In fact, he is able to make a contribution by eliminating another of the conserved ones, reducing their number to 2.

    Second last to attempt to act is the character with an 11-die pool. He inherits two ones, so he gets to roll 9 dice. His roll is very average – 1 (+2×1’s conserved), 2, 4×3’s, 4, 2×6’s, for a total of 33. The target is proving elusive, and now the group are down to their last chance. Three ones should be conserved, but this character is able to at least discard one of them, even though he has rolled a replacement.

    The last character has a 14-die pool, with two conserved ones. He rolls 12 dice, getting a very good result: 2×1’s (+2 more, conserved), 4, 6×5’s, and 3×6’s, a total of 56, and succeeds easily.

    The GM’s narrative should be filled with a comedy of errors as one PC after another almost trips (literally or metaphorically) over each other.

     

    You may be wondering what the advantage is to this game mechanic – after all, if the 14-die pool character had gone it alone, he would have probably succeeded on a roll like that, and would not have inherited any ones.

    The answer is that it provides multiple attempts to reach the target, and only ONE of them needs to succeed. What’s more, the target that is set is based on a lower number of dice – and a glance back at the introduction post will show how powerful that can be. If I were to set the target for the 14-die pool alone, it would have been 48, not 38 – and his chance of success would thus be substantially reduced. You can think of an uncoordinated group action as all the early attempts showing the most skilled character all the ways to fail, eliminating blind alleys and letting him focus in on a path to success.

    5.16 Long-term Actions

    There is nothing stopping a character from declaring an action that will take weeks or months to come to fruition. “I’m going to design a deep-space observatory satellite for positioning in Neptune’s L3 and L4 points relative to the sun, and an ion-propulsion constant-G rocket to get it there,” says the science nerd of the team when faced with the prospect of an interstellar invasion. “I’ll position two more in the orbit of Uranus. Between them, we should have a constant early warning system.” “You realize that this will take quite some time?” replies the GM. “Yep,” replies the player. “O-o-k-a-y, then,” answers the GM. “How many dice will be in your pool?”

    Long-term actions differ from most actions in that the GM secretly rolls the success or failure of the project, then determines from the roll how much work is involved before the project comes to fruition. Each natural 1 indicates a breakthrough of some kind is involved; each natural 2 or 3 indicates a problem or bottleneck that has to be overcome. The GM counts these up, assigns descriptions to them that can be provided in narrative form as the project proceeds, (two steps forward, one step back principle) and decides how long it will take to achieve the required sub-success. In addition, the GM can add any other breakthroughs or problems that he can foresee, in the form of additional 1’s and 2’s, REMOVING 6’s, then 5’s, then 4’s and so on as necessary. The difficulties may well mean that the project is officially a failure until they are overcome, or they may simply handicap the result.

    When a milestone is achieved (i.e. the character makes a breakthrough or solves a problem), the GM should permit the character to roll against a difficulty assigned to the task. If the character succeeds, the ‘1’ or ‘2’ becomes a ‘6’. Achieve enough successes, and the overall project goes from a failure to a success – at which point, the character has the option of ending it, or continuing to eliminate problems and shortcomings that the GM can use to compromise the results. This means that a character who improves his die pool while a project is underway can bring his improved capabilities to bear on the ongoing problem.

    One more example: A character has 12 dice in his pool when he begins a long-term project. The GM sets a difficulty of 52 to the overall project, and then rolls 3×1’s, 2×2’s, 2×3’s, 2×4’s, 2×5’s, and a 6, which total 37 – nowhere near enough. To make matters worse, he imposes an additional 3 problems (on the principle that problems, which are more easily solved than breakthroughs needed, should outnumber the harder problems), replacing the 6 and both 5’s with 2’s. The total is now 27; more importantly, there are 3 breakthroughs (natural ones) required, and 5 problems to be overcome along the way.

    The GM doesn’t tell the player about the problems right away, but he does announce two of the three breakthroughs needed. He resolves that the milestones of the project will be:

    • Breakthrough #1 (success: a 1 becomes a 6, total becomes 32)
    • Awareness of Problem #1
    • Awareness of Problem #2
    • Solution to Problem #2 (success: a 2 becomes a 6, total becomes 36)
    • Breakthrough #2 (success: a 1 becomes a 6, total becomes 41)
    • Awareness of Problem #3
    • Solution to Problem #1 (success: a 2 becomes a 6, total becomes 45)
    • Solution to Problem #3 (success: a 2 becomes a 6, total becomes 49)
    • 1st Prototype construction
    • Discovery of Problem #4
    • Discovery of Problem #5
    • Solution to Problem #4 (success: a 2 becomes a 6, total becomes 53)
    • 2nd prototype construction to test solution – succeeds but reveals the need for Breakthrough #3.

    The character will be able to end the project at this point, but the consequence will handicap and maybe even cripple his creation. But it will achieve part of the intended purpose, and will partly achieve the rest. The GM is required to assume that the character will choose to continue his efforts, though:

    • Breakthrough #3
    • Third prototype succeeds
    • Assembly begins.

    The GM decides that the breakthroughs needed are (1) Sensor Precision, (2) Ion Engines, and (3) Signal Compression, respectively. The problems are (1) Cavitation in the Drive, (2) A Computer Programming Bug (3) Electrical Stability (4) Analysis Of observations & rejection of irrelevant data and (5) Progressive Memory Corruption (indexing error) that will eventually leave the on-board computer with insufficient RAM. If the player goes ahead with the Prototype 2 design, the observatory will be able to report or observe, not both at the same time.

    No more detail is needed; the GM can wing it when describing specifics if the player wants them. Though the GM may want to develop some specific technobabble if he isn’t good at extemporizing such. The project will proceed at the speed of plot – the GM sets a baseline of 1-2 game sessions for each breakthrough, and 1 for each problem. This means that he can provide ongoing narrative on what the character is doing to advance the project at regular intervals, and change/update the report regularly. Thus, the character will feel like he is making ongoing progress.

    Again, most of these will be research projects or artistic projects (including writing a book). The term “breakthrough” is capable of multiple meanings, some literal.

    5.17 Turn Structure & Initiative

    As a general principle, the GM just goes around the table and asks each player what their characters are doing, then decides what the NPCs are doing in reaction / response, and so on. Whoever makes the decision to act, first, has (effectively) the highest initiative.

    In a lot of cases, who has the opportunity to choose first to act will be obvious from the circumstances. But, from time to time, a die roll may be needed.

    The GM selects a stat for each PC based on their personality and what they are doing, and translates that into a die pool. He may or may not permit a Purpose – this usually indicates some sort of forewarning. The player then rolls an initiative total; most sixes goes first, break ties with most 5’s, then most 4’s, and so on.

    If a character is deemed to be ‘surprised’ by the GM, they may not act until they roll a cumulative total based on the depth of the surprise. This is a skill check like any other, except that the totals keep getting added together for the character until he comes out of surprise. Certain actions – including someone else saying “snap out of it” or words to that effect – may confer extra rolls toward the target.

    Total Surprise: 120
    Deeply Surprised: 90
    Moderately Surprised: 60
    Slightly Surprised: 30

    The stat selection is obviously very important. It should be based on how the GM expects the character to react to being surprised.

I should point out that two sections of the rules above have been labelled “advanced”. It is recommended that players and GM spend several game sessions getting used to the rules before implementing the rules in those sections.

I knew from the moment I broke this post down into topics that it would be a struggle to get it finished in time. If absolutely everything had broken right, it might have been possible to pull it off, but it didn’t.

That left me with a choice: a filler post or splitting the planned part 3 into two posts. And I had a filler topic in mind, ready to go – but events left no time to actually write it. And so, my choices narrowed down to one, if I was to post on time.

All of which means that the other half of what was intended to be above this wrap-up will appear in the next post. As always, I’m happy to resolve anything that readers don’t understand, but I would ask readers to bear in mind that this was all written with the expectation that the other half would be here.



Discover more from Campaign Mastery

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.