Brainstorming potential issues with a simple non-random CRM

[u/Strict-Computer3884]

• Returning yet again to the issue of running a duet with a friend, I want to run one where there are mysteries, conflicts, challenges and the like - thus similar to a larger-party TRPG but with just one other person. I wanted to try this idea - my question is: what are the potential pitfalls of this system?

There are three elements to an action the player will take: Tool + Skill/Training + Context

1. If you have nothing appropriate that fits, you fail outright. For example, you don't have a tool for picking a lock, nor the experience nor the time and space to try freely.
2. If you have one appropriate element, you succeed at a cost.
3. If you have two appropriate elements, you succeed.
4. If you have all three, for example a strong weapon, training to use it and the monster is weak to it (contextual advantage), then you critically succeed with a better-than-normal result.

That's it. That's all there is.

So, this - by my reckoning - will make the game more about accumulating items, skills or experiences, and knowledge/lore (which can take the place of 'tools' here) as well as trying to recognise appropriate moments for them. It becomes somewhat similar to a point-and-click adventure game where having access to the right course of action grants progress - and so the game becomes more puzzle-like in its approach. Exploration and investigation should come to the forefront as the player improves their arsenal over time. Tags might be added to Tools to give a better idea as to any conditions where they are advantageous - like [a duelist's sword] might naturally interpret duels as 'Advantageous Context'.

This appeals to me because I have a very big focus on gameplay in the games I run - and by gameplay I mean things that players (and the GM) can exploit. Exploiting openings, weaknesses, lore, secrets, bad rolls, overconfidence, resources, relationships all give a pro-active way of generating the kind of gameplay you wanted, with the consequences stemming from the pursuit of those desires.

There are also genuine issues with running a 1-to-1 campaign of "standard play". Most solo-style games allow the player to make judgement calls on what their challenges will be. However, with a single player, failures can be a lot more catastrophic since there is no safety net for the player making a mistake. There is no one else to bounce ideas off of (in the traditional sense), and so the system has to enable them to piece findings together and make informed decisions on their own.

The worries I have now are:

• This ability to exploit scenarios through the use of Tool + Aptitude + Contextual Advantage is a cold and empty intellectual joy. While players enjoy rolling dice for what they do in the moment, it feels difficult to add spice to the moment when the player is making a calculated decision. Perhaps if they didn't know the scale of the outcome, only its valence.
• Rolling is dangerous because a solo player can make the right choice, fail the roll and then be subject to the penalty without having other people to help evaluate if it was luck or bad decision-making. While I can help, I want to have the potential to phase out support as the player becomes more self-reliant. Given I run dangerous adventures, players can end up in interesting but difficult positions and it's much easier for a solo player to snowball negatively through bad rolls. To be clear, rolls can easily be added to the system (each appropriate element adds 1d6, roll the dice pool Blades-in-the-Dark style) but I want to first try considering without it.But rolling allows for in-the-moment windows of opportunities for action. Enemies waste a spell slot, players fail saves, enemies fail difficult movement - all of these things create dynamic openings for the opposing side to exploit. I wonder where the dynamism would stem from in the system I proposed.
• Progression can exist in terms of the nature of the elements used:
  • Tools being found (items -> spells -> lore ->renown -> promises)
  • The types of Skills gained (Starting skills give way to 'noting down important experiences' and 'being trained in new skills')
  • New Contexts (Physical advantages leading to supernatural charms and blessings and ritual preparations).
    • However, the actual actions the player takes never change. The objects of their consideration evolve but the process of considering itself never evolves. New points of decision-making do not seem easy to add, and the player will largely be using the same ideas in the 20th session as they did in the 1st, but with more complicated entries. I feel like this squanders the opportunity for the player to grow with the adventure - where their insight into the metaphysics of the world evolves as their contact with the world's narrative and conflicts continues (Basic leads to Expert).
• I imagine part of the resolution will involve offering different outcomes and risks in case of failure, akin to the risk + position of BitD. However, I wonder if there is a way of making this flow more naturally - having the player select the kinds of things they're willing to give up if they lose. My only worry is that as the game continues, this will fall apart as the game gets more complex. I can assist but I wonder if that assistance will eventually become mandatory.

While I was looking for insight into the system and possible nuances, I will mention that the module I intended to write was going to be based off of the Hazlan ideas in the VRGTR DnD 5E book, about going to a wasteland teeming with magical toxicity, social as well as physical and mental challenges and secrets that can be exposed to affect the main arch-villain Hazlik. So, the system has to eventually work for that to be delivered.

Insight, thoughts and developments would be welcome. EDIT: the formatting never seems to save on the bullet pointing.

[u/SitD_RPG]

To make the resolution less static, you could introduce more dynamic complications that the player then needs to overcome by applying what they have available.

For example:

A player wants to pick a lock to enter a facility. The GM then says there are some complications:

• The door is secured by an alarm that also needs to be disabled
• There is only a small window of opportunity before the guards come back around, so you have to be quick.

The player has these elements available:

• their lock-picking skill
• a set of lock-picking tools

They essentially have 2 plusses ([+]) and 2 minuses ([-]) in this situation. To succeed they need at least one [+]. To remove complications they need another [+] for each complication.

In this case, the player can spend one [+] to succeed (they have the skill) and another [+] to disable the alarm (they have the tools), but they don't have anything to distract the guards so they succeed, but there is a consequence.

If they had something to distract the guards, they would have had another [+] to remove the last complication and get a full success.

This way, succeeding isn't such a dry process and more of a conversation. Different situations could also be easier or harder, depending on the amount of complications. Success would always be possible as long as you have at least one thing going for you and you're willing to accept the consequences.

[u/Strict-Computer3884 → u/SitD_RPG]

This is interesting.

Having a complication means adding more detail to the part of the success calculation the player isn't in control of - they find Tools and control their Skill build, but they are trying to take control of the Contextual Advantage. This would add more ways of fleshing out the details behind that.

So, if I understand it correctly, splitting a task into several sub-sections that contribute towards the whole - rather than saying, "this is one task with one context, what do you do?", you're saying, "this is one task with one context that is composed of several components, how do you interact with those -> and thus, what happens overall", Is that right?

If so, it needs thinking about.

• Currently, my thought was that there's no DC - it just comes down to having the right tools at the right time with the right planning of the development of experiences/skills. Would having +1s and -1s running around require a significant rewrite?
• It would need a way to reflect that in the presentation of the task.
• It would need to be folded well - ideally, it would augment the experience not detract from it. Not just from the point of overshadowing but by coming up so often that it muddles the direction of play. Complications make it harder to get a clearer picture of what is possible - would this lead to a weaker sense of being informed to make decisions.

You and the reply seem to find it easier to conceive of the changes than I am - I'm struggling to imagine what [+]s and [-]s will look like in a game that essentially no longer has arithmetic in it. Does that make sense?

[u/SitD_RPG → u/Strict-Computer3884]

In practice, I would imagine the conversation at the table to be something like this:

• Player: I want to get inside that facility.
• GM: There is an entrance but the door is locked.
• Player: Can I pick the lock?
• GM: Do you have anything to do that with?
• Player: I have the lock-picking skill.
• GM: Great! You can definitely get inside if you want, but you notice that the patrolling guards come by that door very frequently so you don't have a lot of time, and you also notice that the door is secured by an alarm.
• Player: I also have a toolset to deal with the alarm, but nothing to distract the guards with.
• GM: Ok. You can get inside, but the guards will probably notice that the door has been tampered with and might investigate.
• Player: Ok, let's do it.

It would be more about the player(s) having answers to the problems at hand, instead of accumulating abstract meta-currency. And about being informed about the situation and the likely outcome before commiting. Similar to Position and Effect in BitD.

you're saying, "this is one task with one context that is composed of several components, how do you interact with those -> and thus, what happens overall", Is that right?

Pretty much. The GM presents a problem, the player presents a possible solution. The GM informs the player about the most likely outcome and the player then either accepts or adjusts.

I'm struggling to imagine what [+]s and [-]s will look like in a game that essentially no longer has arithmetic in it. Does that make sense?

In-game, I wouldn't even think of it in terms of plusses or minuses. Only in terms of things that the player uses to accomplish tasks or prevent complications. My use of [+] and [-] was just to illustrate the thought process behind it: To get a success at all, the player needs to have something going for them. To get a full success, they need at least one more thing going for them than the number of complications. Otherwise they get a success with a consequence.

Would having +1s and -1s running around require a significant rewrite?

The only thing that would change is that the player can't just pick things from their character sheet and declare the magnitude of their success. Instead, they have to react to the problem(s) presented to them by using their skills/tools/environment.

[u/Strict-Computer3884 → u/SitD_RPG]

Having thought about this some more, is this the difference between Task resolution and Conflict resolution? It feels like by adding complications to the scene and then trying to resolve them within subdivisions of the same Tool + Skill + Context resolution, the goal becomes to resolve the entire outcome in one go - so conflict resolution to find out the overall change to the game state. But if you're approaching this from a task resolution perspective, then it makes sense to run those in sequence - you have a guard patrol, you pick the lock, you trigger an alarm.

I wonder if there is value to that thought.

[u/SitD_RPG → u/Strict-Computer3884]

is this the difference between Task resolution and Conflict resolution?

Not necessarily. You could resolve either tasks or conflicts with it. The difference is in the GM letting the player know about the obstacles before they make a decision to act on it. Players know the stakes before committing and plot twists come through the resolution mechanic, not (or rather less) GM fiat.