Event Resolution
In my last post I talked about the idea of event resolution and a couple of people asked me to say how I do that, so that is what this post is.
What is an event
Events are the building blocks of narrative. We can think of them as being composed of three elements: outcomes, objects and actions. When objects/actions interact they lead to some change in state that we can call an outcome.
Melkior the sharp fires an arrow straight at the heart of the dread-dread beaver and slays it. Objects: Melkior, an arrow, the dread-beaver. Action: Firing an arrow. Outcome: the dread-beaver is slayed
Objects and actions are pretty broad descriptors.
Objects are any “thing” in an event, whether that is a human, a dragon, a sword, a leaf, an emotion, a spell, etc. We might think of objects as having a sub-category of “characters” because characters are normally the most important object in an event, but ultimately they function in the same way.
Actions can be seen as any kind of “verb” this will normally be clear actions (throws or stabs) but it can also include verbs of status such as “to be” or “to have”, as in Melkior the Sharp is in the throne room.
This is a slightly abstract summary, but helps me describe what I do, when I resolve events I focus on the outcomes, objects (including characters) and actions.
Resolving Events
Below I have outlined four stages in thinking about events. Really I do these things as a bit of an amorphous blob but I’ve described them here as though they are a system. I’ll illustrate these with an event:
Three young warriors (A, B, C) played by the players have been set task in their combat class. Using their spears, shields and other weapons, they have to get their teacher from a high point as a part of a “king of the castle” fight.
1. Establish willed-for outcome
The outcome is the reason for thinking about events. One event can have multiple outcomes but I think it is easier to start with one important event that the characters/players want to happen. In The Wyrd System I call this a willed-for outcome. Typically we will only be “resolving an event” when something dramatic is happening and so the players are trying to achieve a specific outcome.
Often this outcome is clear from the narrative already given but it should be clarified with the players.
The players want to get their teacher off the rock
- Establish relevant objects/actions
Once you have the desired outcome, you can begin to establish which objects and actions relate to it. These can be picked from what is being said at any moment as players/GM describe what the characters are doing, or the environment. Often in the flow of discussion there are many details being given. The desired outcome helps you to select from those as you can focus on those which directly relate to the desired outcome and ignore the others.
In play this typically looks like asking people what their characters do to try and achieve the outcome they want. If things aren’t clear, this is an opportunity for players to add more into the narrative.
Warrior A has a heavy shield that they want to try and surge forward and crash into the teacher with; Warrior B has been training with the spear and wants to try and trip the teacher at the same time. Warrior C decides to hang back and observe - and so isn’t necessarily a part of this event. But they recall how the teacher (their parent) has an injured right leg they haven’t told anyone about. Warrior C is certain they would have told the other warriors.
- Consider how the outcome is affected by the objects/actions.
The way in which the objects/actions interact determines the possible outcomes that may come to pass. This is a creative and often intuitive process that comes - for me at least - with trying to imagine the physicality of a situation. Typically I take quite a gut-led approach to this but I will often ask players if I’m not sure how things might work. I also sometimes list out the things I am thinking about, partly to give an option to players to add extra thoughts and ideas as well as play with my own.
The charge of warrior A with a shield will need a lot of momentum and strength, but will allow for limited manoeuvring. The tripping of the legs by Warrior B may work well with the shield bash but runs risks of leaving themselves vulnerable by lowering their weapon, and also it may be difficult to control the weapon among the flying legs of the combatants. I also know the teacher is proud and will likely be ignoring their injury and not account for how much it might impact them.
- Determine the actual outcome.
Finally I use a tool to tell me how close/far from desired is the outcome. I use the Wyrd System which is designed around my process and gives me a varying set of outcomes as to how close or near to the willed-for outcomes comes to pass.
From here I take the interactions between objects/actions I have identified and narrate them happening with a mind to getting through our change of state, our outcome, to allow for a future event. Often as I talk I am still processing the objects/actions and their interactions. I personally allow my players to add things here as far as they make sense.
We end up with a Wyrd System result of 2: ‘The willed-for outcome comes to pass but with a significant complication.’ I decide that they knock the teacher down but their injured leg makes them fall faster than expected and Warrior A falls with them, and Warrior B’s spear ends up dangerously tangled among their legs.
[Bonus thought] Difficulty and why it doesn’t really exist
Typically in order to find out how good/bad the outcome is, people introduce a difficulty to a roll. Hang on - I just said “how good/bad the outcome is” isn’t difficulty about whether or not the desired outcome comes to pass?
While this is sometimes true I think most uses of difficulty are really about scales of success. Obviously some systems encode this in them but even when they are binary this is still true (I will say I am not talking here about “to hit” difficulties, number-combat systems being their own, um, special thing).
Let’s work through the example of killing a womp-rat.
Imagine a typical d20+modifier system where a total of 35 could be described as “impossible” what DC would you give to hit a womp rat with your gun? Maybe a 10 or 15? If they “fail” what’s the worst that’s going to happen, they accidentally hit something else or look foolish for failing to shoot a wild animal. If they pass, they kill(?) the womp rat and look cool in front of their painfully uncool friends.
Now let’s imagine hitting something of equivalent size, with a much more sophisticated weapon but the outcomes now link to the fate of the entire galaxy. I wouldn’t give the same DC. So now I, as GM, say “Hitting the exhaust pipe, without the targeting computer!?! The DC is… 40!” and bask in the resultant guffaws of astonishment at such a high number being said out loud!
The actual act might be a similar difficulty, but I could never give the same DC here. This is something you see in actual plays all the time: “give me a perspective check, difficulty of just 6” - because the outcomes are totally insignificant and no matter what the player rolls they’re having everything explained to them. Or the opposite side being: “I’ll allow it if you get a nat 20 right now” because again the outcomes are going to be significant.
So yeah, difficulty doesn’t really exist except as a banding of outcomes. [If you are feeling the urge to um actually about whomp rats and exhaust ports, i beg you to consider how flippant I was being and consider if its worth arguing with a fool].
My games on itch; Email:wyrdrpgs@gmail.com; Bluesky:@thewyrdlands.bsky.social