You make a really good point! My table doesn't like 5e or pathfinder because, as you said, combat drags on a lot, there's a lot of ways to just avoid problems via spells, and there isn't a lot of tension. We went pure OSR systems and it went the other way, players were so focused on problem solving out of combat the planning phases would drag on - instead of having cool tense moments, they were agonizing over making the correct decision so their character wouldn't die after one or two bad rolls. EZd6 feels like an excellent middle ground - as long as they players have karma, they feel empowered to make mistakes and try things. Once it runs out, death is only one or two bad rolls away and they need to strategize.
Your idea of giving big bads Luck Dice rocks! I might even test having decisions the players make add or subtract from their luck dice pool - the longer they take to kill the big bad, the more luck die they have, for example, or the more magic items they take from the tomb the angrier and more powerful the guardian mummy becomes. Thanks for the idea!
That sounds cool, I might check them out! I think it's hard to draw a balance between randomization and making games feel like luck isn't a huge factor. I love betrayal at house on the hill, but it definitely feels like luck is a huge part of the game. I really like King of Tokyo and Wingspan because they have a lot of randomization, but it always feels like you're given enough choices that the randomness doesn't matter as much.
That's true, I really love the rules for a lot of PbtA games! I think my personal GMing style doesn't mesh well with them though, something about how much rigid narrative control the moves have trips me up. I've run Monster of the week, The Sprawl, Dungeon World, and some space PBtA that I forget the name of, and they are pretty good for a few sessions but by session 3 my table usually wants to play something else.
I'm finding that I really like having failure mechanics in my games. For those unfamiliar with the concept, the idea is that players gain a token or dice when they fail a roll they can 'cash in' later for a bonus on rolls when they really need it. DM Scotty's Luck Dice rules and the rules of EZD6 are the best examples of these kind of rules I can think of.
In my opinion it adds a really interesting dimension to games. Rolling hot still feels great - but failure becomes more of a choice when you can spend resources. Failing a roll also stings less when you know you are getting a bonus you can use down the road. Instead of just trying to build the most mathematically optimal character, it becomes important to manage your resources as well.
Going from EZD6 to playing a low-level 5e game gave me a bit of whiplash. It definitely doesn't feel good to know you have about a 50% chance of hitting an enemy or essentially wasting your turn. Nothing is more disappointing than waiting 10 minutes for your turn in combat for it to end in 20 seconds after missing your single attack per turn.
Recently I've been playing a lot of EZd6, and I'm planning on adding DM Scotty's Luck Dice mechanics to a game of Vaults of Vaarn I'm planning as well. I think I'd like to add some kind of failure mechanic to all of my games going forward.
What do y'all think about failure mechanics? Is it something you also play with? Are you curious about it? Or do you have negative feelings or experiences with failure mechanics? Let me know!
Cal’s flashlight searched the dark waters of the sea of Hunnk for the wreck of his starship. If his ship was mostly intact, Zandar’s tribe of handsome fish-like aliens could probably drag it back t…
Hi! I've been writing a scifi-action-comedy starring a queer dog-man bounty hunter. I've posted a link to the first chapter, I have a few more chapters as well as some other short fiction up on my blog. Don't be fooled by the first paragraph, it is not actually a poorly written erotic thriller about mermen. Check it out! I wrote it just for you!