Analysis: Coriolis system

Analysis article - considerations of the Coriolis system and background

Checking on the Coriolis Discord, I read that the publishers are OK with players recreating tables, figures and data from the RPG source material where the only purpose is the facilitation of playing their game and I hereby promise this is my only intent with this article. The 'rules as written' referred to here are from the Coriolis RPG; the analysis is my own content - Doctor Weather

At the time of writing this I'm going through an exercise to work out how to better differentiate the games that I run in different systems. I'm pretty sure that, probably like most GMs, I have a 'style', so there's going to be a danger that I run the same game no matter what system I'm using; and I don't want to be so limited.
Coriolis wants me to run a far more narrative game than I'm used to as a more simulationist GM; but I love this game and I want to get better at running it. So, this article is designed to help me work out how to be more narrativist. The reader may well need no help in this; and if that's you then I'll happily take any and all comments to help me work this out, thanks.
Just to emphasise: the following is not how I think Coriolis should be run, rather the things I want to try.

Elephant in the room

Players can find the system very 'swingy'
Andrew, one of the players in my Whispers to the Star Singer campaign has given me the best description of this phenomenon:

• Players see a lot of apparent 'failures' on their dice - those not rolling sixes - and it can lead to a feeling of their character not doing well
• Technically they only need one 6 to succeed but, rules as written, one success is a success with an added complication, so players really want to see two 6s to feel good
• People used to dice systems that define character skill then, see a lot of failure and may feel their characters aren't as competent as they thought
• Suddenly though, they'll then see two, three or four successes on a roll and be rewarded with ultimate victory

...This feels like a wild swing.
Probability analysis doesn't help
You might do the maths and give players the actual probabilities of success but that doesn't overcome the in-game perception. Moreover, that seemingly partial success from one 6 can detract from the intended meaning behind "even one 6 is a success". It really only is if you've already embraced the idea that an extra complication is a good thing because it makes the outcome more interesting; and you probably only have embraced this if you're already a narrativist-style player. In this case to you it makes perfect narrative sense, as it's adding flavour; but if you're not...
Calling for a lot of rolls
I'm so used to calling for rolls to pass all challenges; but those extra rolls only add to the perception: the more dice rolled, the more you see those 'failures'.
Large dice pools exaggerate the perception
Perversely, the higher your skill, the greater your dice pool and so the more 'failures' you see. Again, probability suggests you'll also get more successes but repeat the argument about what one 6 gets you and put that through the lens of what you expect when you're an experienced character with 8d6 in a skill: You expect to be really good and pass most of the time without getting extra complications that would be expected with lesser skill.
Divine intervention is needed to be successful?
With 8d6 you'd expect to be good without divine intervention but you have a 77% chance to get one success and players will be looking for two - they think their experienced character should reliably be able to do this without divine interference...
Counter: everyone at the table just needs to embrace the narrative style
Complications should actually be interesting flavour and not be used as penalties - you're not being attacked by the Dark, it's that things are getting more interesting. Also, the game uses a highly religious background, so intervention by the Icons is expected and normal; and giving away more Darkness Points only allows for more of that interesting flavour. OK, sure. The GM has the responsibility to demonstrate and lead this and the players the responsibility to follow the example.
But turns out I don't find this very easy
So far then, all I've managed to prove is I really need more help running in a narrative style.
Things I know I should already be doing

• Try not to use Darkness Points to just penalise a character - the complication added must make things more interesting somehow, not just worse
• Only call for rolls at plot turning points, not at every challenge point - characters can just succeed at non-plot points

...But more analysis needed on how to run in a more narrative style
I could port in the dice rolling system from Twilight 2000 that reduces the number of dice rolled. Andrew also described it to me that, not only does this remove the sight of so many non-6 'failures', but that it's also much easier for non-mathematicians to reliably estimate their chance of success on smaller numbers of dice. This tackles both sides of the perception problem. And I may well make this dice change in future campaigns but that's not what I'm trying to work on here in this article: Before I try that dice-change solution I just want to spend a bit more time investigating narrativism - a least a little bit more...
JUMP TO CONTENTS

Fail forward

Figuring out what this really means
I keep hearing how essential 'fail forward' is for narrative games but it's taken forever to grasp even an inkling of what it means. The way it was first described to me it sounded like the PCs always succeed, that even when they fail they somehow win anyway. But if that were true then there'd be no challenge anymore, which is just naff. So, I must assume that my first impression was wrong. Eventually I've come to think that it's more like this:

• The players fail to stop the bad guy blowing up the bridge, so he escapes and they can't follow - they've definitely failed
• But the game can't just stop there and the GM should try and help the players move on anyway - the GM improvises a change in the plot
• Locals hear the sound of the bridge exploding and come up for a look on their boats
• The PCs now have an extra opportunity they didn't have before: they need to persuade the nervous locals to give them a ride on the boats across the river, allowing them to give chase to the bad guy

So: the PCs have missed one possible victory but they've been given a chance at a different possible victory.
Fail forward summary
Failure closes off the first attempted route to success but it also opens up another route previously unappreciated or unconsidered.
More analysis of Darkness Points needed to see if this holds at all levels of play
That plot-level fail forward seems fair enough but does the principle hold up at the tactical level when you're implementing dice rolling 'failures' and Darkness Points in an encounter?
JUMP TO CONTENTS

Quick look at what the maths implies

Chance of one success - without praying / with prayer:

• 2 dice - novice: 31% / 50%
• 4 dice - capable: 52% / 74%
• 6 dice - competent: 67% / 87%
• 8 dice - experienced: 77% / 93%
• 10 dice - master: 84% / 96%

Competent people still need the Icons
You're only really competent when you have the Icons with you: usually succeeding with an 87%. Even experienced people and masters are only consistently and truly great when the Icons are with them. This is so undeniable that it just has to be part of the game. The Icons and the Darkness are fundamental to everything the players do, so no part of this can be a bad thing.
Even the Darkness cannot be a 'bad thing' in the game
At the start of GMing this game I always thought of the Darkness as an evil force that wanted to bring the characters down - that it hated them - but this can't be true. Equally, swinging back the other way too far (see page 325 of the Core Rules), such that "the darkness is actually just energy, raw and pure – so pure that it has no goal or direction" seems to also take a lot of the fun out of it. Somewhere in the middle then, seems best.
A mischievous Darkness?
Perhaps the Darkness likes to toy with those people the Icons have marked out as having a greater destiny. If the Icons want to claim that these humans are somehow greater souls then the Dark maybe wants to put them to the test, to see what they're really made of?
How much do the Icons and the Dark affect success? Is human skill just an illusion?
If you only call for a roll at plot points and allow characters to always succeed at all other times then does that imply that the characters are only failing becuase the Darkness is watching? If it wasn't plot critical then the character would have succeeded after all?
JUMP TO CONTENTS

Possible solution to 'why did I fail with such a high skill?'

Possible interpretation of failure: the higher your skill the more the failure must have been due to the intefering Darkness
Not sure how much I like the below yet but it's something I'd like to play with a bit more to find out.
How much the Darkness needed to interfere:

• 2 dice (31% / 50%): as a novice it's quite likley it was your own skill not being good enough - the Darkness didn't see you as much of a challenge
• 4 dice (52% / 74%): with the Icons' help you've a good chance of succeeding but there's only so much they can do - the Darkness might have messed with you to balance the Icons' influence
• 6 dice (67% / 87%): these odds probably feel to the player very much like 4 dice strangely, but the Darkness must be taking more interest by now
• 8 dice (77% / 93%): as you usually succeed with the Icons' help then it must have been the Darkness that threw you off
• 10 dice (84% / 96%): pretty much the same as 8 dice from the player's perspective

So, somewhere around 6-7 dice its the Darkness that's starting to be more responsible for the failure
...and by 8-10 dice it must have been because of Dark intervention:

• Sunlight reflects off something into your eyes
• A cruel smile from a person in the crowd shows the presence of The Darkness nearby
• A snake rears from hiding to distract you

JUMP TO CONTENTS

On skills and successes

Problems to solve:

• When to call for a roll and when not to, whilst always acknowledging each character's individual capabilities
• Encouraging players not to worry about all those dice that aren't 6s

JUMP TO CONTENTS

When to roll - plot-critical points

Taking away unnecessary rolls without taking anything away from the characters
If it's not plot critical then I shouldn't be calling for a roll but I still want to acknowledge that a master with 9 dice will do a lot better than a novice with 2 dice. The characters have their abilities and I don't want the players to feel like they're all playing the same boring person with no defining skills and niche capabilities.
Determine the effective level of successes from a modified skill total

• Start with the number dice the character has - e.g. translating a language on an old document: Science 3 and Wits 2 = 5
• Apply any bonuses and penalties direct to this number - e.g. the document has pieces torn out, so a -1 penalty = 4 (normally a 1 dice penalty but here just a straight -1)
• Look that up on the table below

SKILL TOTAL	RESULT
1-4	Limited success, equivalent to one 6 being rolled
5-8	Success, equivalent to two 6s being rolled
9+	Critical success, equivalent to three 6s being rolled

JUMP TO CONTENTS

When to roll - player choice?

Rolling as a player choice - they control the risk-reward?
Working from the principle that giving the players more choice is always going to be a good thing, as by definition it gets them more involved in the game and their characters, I'm also considering a separate idea where players get a basic success from just having their skill but gamble for greater success by choosing to roll.
Gamble your basic success if you want to try for better
Players can have a simple pass for just having the right skill but if they want to get extra bonuses they can choose to roll. They might get more than one success, which gets them something better, but they risk rolling no successes and making things worse - their choice:

• They have the force to get the door open but do they want to gamble getting more successes to open the door faster or more quietly?
• They have the manipulation to learn the target of a captured spy but do they want to gamble getting more successes that will trick the spy into revealing who hired the spy and how much they were paid?

JUMP TO CONTENTS

Strength of successes

Making sure that characters see even one 6 as a success

SUCCESSES	STRENGTH OF SUCCESS
One 6	Limited success: you succeed - no added complication but no extra benefit, you just suceed Yes this takes away the 'extra flavour' but players aren't seeing the flavour as good, so I'll trust to a better use of Darkness Points to add in that flavour
Two 6s	Success - you succeed and maybe gain a small extra benefit
Three or more 6s	Critical success - you succeed and more Personal house rule: the player takes over and describes their character's brilliance

JUMP TO CONTENTS

On Darkness Points

Problems to solve:

• Players cannot be afraid of giving the GM Darkness Points
• Moreover, the players must see some fun in the GM spending the Darkness Points to make things even more interesting

JUMP TO CONTENTS

Spending Darkness Points

Whereas I like the options in the Core Rules I find the list can be a trap when I'm not clever enough
When using the Core Riles list I tend to see just that list's options and look no further. To help me, I'm going to generalise the options and then try and build a list of examples that fall under each level of effect, encouraging me to improvise in the moment around what's actually happening.
General levels of effect by Darkness Points spent:

1. An inconveience
2. An extra challenge
3. Major event or plot change

JUMP TO CONTENTS

General ideas for better DP spends

Spread the action to a PC not currently involved, e.g.:

• The key weapon or item that defeats the enemy or challenge is knocked out of the skilled character's hands but it falls near another character - they'll not be as good with it but they're the only one that can quickly get to the object now (1DP, the players can hopefully resolve this by just taking actions)
• In a fight scene the combat characters are fully engaged but the journalists and techs are in the back with the NPC being protected; vulcan bullets from a missed attack come through into the back room and set the curtains on fire - the journalists and tech now need to save the NPC from the fire (2DP, a variant on innocent in danger)

Spend Darkness Points, don't hoard them
Get the players to trust that DP spends will not be that bad by actively showing them; if you create a good back and forth with the players you'll always generate more.
Swing points of chance as if the Dark instigated them
Where there's a random chance of something happening or it would be a total coincidence for the thing to happen at this moment then use Darkness Points as a reason that it does happen or to explain the coincidence: "of course it happened then" or "of course they turned up now", the Darkness is watching.
Give the character a chance to avoid danger
Where something is about to directly happen to a character because of the DP spend, always give the character a chance to resist or dodge the effect - praying to the Icons only gives a chance of success so in balance a DP spend only gives a chance of a problem.
JUMP TO CONTENTS

Example spends: plot level - when play is less moment-to-moment

DP COST	EFFECT LEVEL AND EXAMPLES
1	An inconvenience occurs, for example: The Foundation science team arrives just as you're leaving; they'll figure out what you've done if you don't cover your tracks Pick a PC's personal problem - the PC is distracted by a relevant shiny, or anti-shiny, as appropriate
2	You face an extra challenge, for example: The Foundation science team arrives as you're finishing the job; they could catch you in the building unless you can sneak passed them Walking through a crowd, one of the party is mistaken for a famous person or criminal - suddenly you've a lot of people and attention to divert
3	Major event, for example: The Foundation science team arrives right there in the laboratory you're stealing from; you've been caught in the act, so get with the fast talking or fast acting right now As the PCs' ships starts to make chase a bomb the bad guys planted earlier goes off - the party now has to deal with venting atmosphere

JUMP TO CONTENTS

Example spends: tactical level - in the moment, both in combat or otherwise

DP COST	EFFECT LEVEL AND EXAMPLES
1	An inconvenience occurs, for example: Stray bullet fire sets some scenery on fire - the surprise might give a penalty to the next action or it becomes a hazard to avoid, or make use of, for the rest of the combat The floor in the ruined temple you're looting gives way - and the gemstone you're after slides out of your reach towards the hole Gun jam or empty clip Reroll or take the initiative
2	You face an extra challenge, for example: Stray bullet fire sets some scenery on fire - the NPC you're protecting is now in danger from this fire as well The floor in the ruined temple you're looting gives way - the PC needs to make a dexterity roll to not fall through In the middle of a conversation in a bazaar there's a sudden commotion (argument, fight, crash, explosion, fire, etc.) and the NPC gets a chance to run for it unhindered by the PCs - they have to chase the NPC down to continue the conversation
3	Major event, for example: Stray bullet fire sets some scenery on fire - it goes up so quickly that the fight you're in now seems trivial, as you and the bad guys might even have to work together to escape the flames The floor in the ruined temple you're looting gives way - completely gives way - and the party is now sliding down through the temple's lower levels, dexterity rolls to control the slide

JUMP TO CONTENTS

Ideas that came after the analysis

Magnitude of successes determined by skill level...?
One 6 means success but what if the magntude of that success was determined by the player's skill level, as in When to roll - plot-critical points above? Anyone who gets one success does succeed but the masters would still get to show off their skill level. Extra successes could then be spent on achieving something beyond the base success or in improving the magnitude of the success, e.g.:

• Items in the shuttle suddenly start leaping around as if possessed - the GM calls for a dexterity check to secure the items
• Masruq has 3 dexterity and gets 1 success
• Zarzur has 6 dexterity and gets 2 successes
• Murad has 9 dexterity and gets 1 success
• Masruq is a bit of a novice at juggling but surprises everyone by catching an item
• Zarzur secures a couple of items with ease - she could spend the second success on catching more items or doing it stylishly or on doing something different - she chooses the latter and manages to catch the moving items on video
• Murad is a master at this sort of thing and easily catches and secures several items in swift and short order - he doesn't get the extra success for the bonus action like Zarzur but completes the main task much more efficiently

...This adds an extra dimension for the players and GM to have to deal with and it's arguably difficult to draw the line between what counts as increasing the magnitude of the success and what's something else that could be achieved. It does also break the rule of 1 success is all you need, as one success from any one person should allow for the securing of all the items. The narrative style of the game would seem to allow the freedom to use a dramatic licence to mess with this rule for the benefit of the plot but is the complexity added worth it? Could this idea be simplified somehow?
JUMP TO CONTENTS

Note to reader: this purposefully long analysis article

Contents

• Elephant in the room
• Fail forward system
• Quick look at what the maths implies
• Possible solution to 'why did I fail with such a high skill?'
• On skills and successes
• When to roll - plot-critical points
• When to roll - player choice?
• Strength of successes
• On Darkness Points
• Spending Darkness Points
• General ideas for better DP spends
• Example spends: plot level - when play is less moment-to-moment
• Example spends: tactical level - in the moment, both in combat or otherwise
• Ideas that came after the analysis

Related

• Analysis: cultural diaspora
• Analysis: how history became lost
• Analysis: tech and wealth level