The Wyrd System
The Wyrd System is a system to support resolving the outcome of events. It is designed to handle any type of event, to be quick to interpret as the GM or in solo play and to allow for the results of rolls to be hidden from players.
Wait what is Wyrd? Wyrd is an Old English term meaning something like: fate, chance, destiny, luck. In Old English it was something that was both determined or which could be resisted via Will (or Ellen, fire). In popular culture you can think of Lord of the Rings and the Will of the characters. Those whose will is weak get swept up in events or controlled by others, those whose will is strong resist and forge their own path (for a time at least, the Wyrd will always get them in the end). This system is designed around these concepts.
Overview
Whenever the outcome of an event is uncertain or dramatic, the GM will roll a d12. One or more of the players will roll a d8; the smaller the difference between the two numbers the “better” the outcome of the event for the players. The result on the d8 can be shifted towards or away from the number of the d12 based on the actions or skills of characters.
The System
Events and Willed-for Outcomes
When the outcome of an event is uncertain or dramatic use this system. This event might be as small in scale as a single action, or as grand as the outcome of a battle between gods.
The event will have at least one “willed-for outcome”. Typically this will be what the players or characters want to have happen in an event. It is important that the willed-for-outcome is quite clearly established by the GM and players,to ensure that resolving the event is happening in an open way and to aid in understanding the event fully.
Where there is a contradictory willed-for outcome, the event can still be treated as only having one outcome, which if not achieved, leads to the contradictory outcome. For example in a quick draw pistol duel, the willed-for-outcome of the player is “shoot the bady guy first”; and the bad-guy’s is “shoot the character first”. In this event we can act as though there is simply one outcome, the player’s that is being competed over.
The dice roll
The GM rolls The Wyrd Dice, a d12. This is rolled either in secret or in the open. For each “willed-for outcome” in the event a player rolls a Will dice, a d8. The results of the two dice are compared. The smaller the difference between the dice, the more the willed-for outcome comes to pass.
For each significant character acting upon or influencing that outcome nudge the result on the d8, moving it 1 point towards/away from that on the d12, effectively increasing or decreasing the difference depending upon the support or opposition of the willed-for outcome.
The dice roll - suggested results
A difference of 0 means the willed-for outcome comes to pass
a difference of 1 means it comes to pass with a downside or complication
a difference of 2 means it comes to pass with a significant downside or complication
a difference of 3 means it comes to pass but in such a way that you might wish it hadn’t or that sets up a huge complication a difference of 4 or greater means that the willed-for outcome does not come to pass and, as the difference increases, its opposite does.
Some Comments
Above is the system in its entirety. Below are some thoughts about some of the decisions you might make in using this.
Nudging, Narrative and Outcomes
The nudging of the Will die towards or away from the outcome should happen fairly sparingly. For each player character who explains how they are affecting an outcome, or how their knowledge etc. is valuable then nudge by 1. Players must give some narrative/fictional description in order to achieve nudging. They do not need to (and for my tastes, shouldn’t) declare “I am nudging”; the GM can interpret their actions as nudges independently.
The average event may apply from a nudge of around 1 - 3. The odds (discussed below) in this system seem harsh, but a nudge of just 1 takes the odds of a difference of 0 from around 8% to around 35%, and a “success” of any type from around 56% to 66%.
The descriptive/narrative details given as part of nudging, or the wider description of the scene, also play a role in helping the GM to decide on the nature of an outcome. If a player emphasises their strength, then a failed outcome might involve damaging a muscle or being humiliated by a stronger opponent.
It is important to emphasise that as a GM you are not playing the game on your own, if you cannot think of ways to adjudicate these distinctions then ask your players for a pause, or to help with your thinking.
Nudging “beyond” zero
If you naturally roll a difference of zero, you may be applying enough nudge to go “beyond” zero. In these cases you might consider treating this either as described above in the table, or as some form of “critical success”.
Nudging as the GM and the environment
As the GM, it may be best to limit the amount of nudging you do on behalf of the non-player characters. Your nudges will tend to be functioning to simply remove the nudges of the player and you want to avoid a situation where the players make the effort to describe their cunning actions and brilliant insights and you wordlessly ignore that effort because the three of them are fighting three baddies.
Try to limit nudging to particularly important, significant or powerful features of a character.
The landscape and other environmental factors should not “nudge”. Instead you can think of these things as defining the nature of an outcome. A bad outcome having a fight on a flat plain might see you fall to the ground, the same thing on a cliffside may be far more significant.
Actions and Events
It is important to note that Actions and Events are not synonymous. An event might involve multiple actions which feature either as “nudging” or as narrative details for an event. For example, imagine a group of adventurers trying to shut the door on a charging minotaur. The barbarian and fighter heave on the ancient stone door; the ranger fires arrows to slow its charge; the wizard casts a spell of sealing to hold the door when it closes. This four action (five including the minotaurs) but only the one outcome is significant: the door is shut or it isn’t.
Events are defined by the outcomes being significant. In some cases that means an individual or small set of actions should be treated as their own event as they dramatic enough to warrant the attention. In the example above, the GM or players might want the ranger’s action to be resolved as an event as the outcomes of that attack will impact on the outcomes of the next event where everyone is acting together.
Secret rolls
An advantage of this system is that the player rolling the dice doesn’t need to know the outcome of an event. For example, if an event requires lying to someone in a “roll high” system, a player knows their likelihood of success even if they don’t know the exact target number. In this way, the intepretation of the dice roll supersedes the “reality” of the fictional world even in situations where the outcome of an event shouldn’t be immediately visible.
In the Wyrd System a 1 may be just as “good” as an 8.
The specific way the dice can be rolled can change depending on the tastes of the group or even individual players. A simple question of “do you want to know what number you are trying to match?” gives the player that choice. The players may not want to roll at all, in which case the GM can roll both the Wyrd and Will die. Or, the player may want to roll both dice. All approaches work and have slightly different feels in play.
Optional: auto-success
In this system the GM may be aware that success in an event is totally impossible. The odds tend towards complicated successes but sometimes a player will roll a will dice for 1 and the Wyrd dice shows a 12. These no-hope-of success outcomes are built into the system - the wyrd is more powerful and wide-ranging than will. However, I personally find that players should have the option to auto-succeed if they want. In a future release I will share a method I use when playing in The Wyrd Lands setting.
Solo-play and wider uses
This system is a strong way to quickly tell the outcome of events. I have found it works well in solo play and when deciding the outcome of events with no player characters involved. It is easy as the GM to establish simple “willed-for outcomes” that allow the dice to function almost as an oracle.
Imagine a player or one of your characters has asked “is this book in the library” and you don’t know the answer. If we imagine the willed-for outcome is “yes” then a quick drop of the dice might tell us straightaway that it isn’t; or maybe only fragments of it; or it was never returned and so forth.
I have used this for deciding on things like the course of a rive over the millenia, the emotional reactions of spirits and gods and so forth.
It can also help you to narrow down outcomes when using other systems. For a while in a 5e game with its binary success/fail outcomes I was also rolling The Wyrd and Will dice, and doing some nudging based on the 5e result, to help me decide on the degrees of success/failure and other complications.
The odds and playing with them
This system seems to have quite difficult odds for the players. However, because of the wide band of “partial success” this result is more likely than not, particularly when we take into account nudging. Just rolling a d8 and a d12 without nudging the chance that you will have a difference of 3 or less in the results (which still sees the willed-for outcome come to pass, albeit in a complicated way) is around 56%, each point nudge increases that odd by approximately 10%.
The basic odds for a perfect result (a difference of zero) is about 8% but with a nudge of just one, that odd becomes about 35%. These numbers are not exact but they demonstrate that in-play it is more likely that characters will progress in complicated manners rather than being stopped outright.
It may be that you want to play with these odds somewhat. For example, if you have only one player character you might decide to give them a basic nudge of 2 to ensure that they are meeting their wills more regularly.
Another option to change the odds is to change the bands of success. This could even replace the use of nudging. For example, you might say that a very hard outcome requires a difference of 2 to hit even the complicated success, or a much easier one might require a difference of 5 (approximately 75% of the time). I personally prefer the use of nudging when running as it requires me to look at the details of the players and the world which can help with the narrative of outcomes.
A worked example
The characters have confronted the lord in the hall. She, realising that her treachery is about to be revealed, makes a run for it. The GM asks the players what they want to do, establishing the “willed-for outcome” as well as the actions that they are taking in the event. Character A is a wrestler makes a leap at the lord to grapple her; Character B has a long spear and tries to trip her. These actions match their characters’ skills and so the GM will nudge by 1 for each.
This table has agreed that they don’t want to know the number on the Wyrd Dice (d12) that the GM rolls. The GM rolls the d12 in secret and gets an 8. One player rolls a Will die (d8) and gets a 7. The GM privately nudges the result by 1 (to a 6) for the Lord who has been described as a nimble character, but nudges back 2 for the player characters.
This creates a difference of 0 and the GM says something like: ‘Character A, you slam into the lord but she just seems about to slip through your grip when Character B’s spear comes in and trips her and you end up pinning her in place.’
Now consider the same event with a roll of 6, with a difference of 1: ‘Character A, your hands just slip as you grab the lord and you slam painfully onto the ground, just dragging on her; B your spear flies in tangles on her legs but it isn’t until she stamps on your spear haft and snaps it that she loses footing and falls.’
A roll of 5, a difference of 2: ‘Character A, there is a nasty crunching sound as your head crashes into her armour as you tackle her, she is pushed away from you but you don’t hold her; B your spear comes streaking out and trips her but she manages to right herself and draws her sword. You have held her here, but she is about to strike.’
A roll of 4, a difference of 3: ’Character A you crash into her and she staggers forward, B your spear catches her and she flies to the ground. There is a horrific cracking sound as her head strikes a bench and she lies still. You consider the fact that you haven’t yet proven her guilt as you hear the others gathering outside.
A roll of 3 or less, a difference of 4 or greater: ’She gets away…