"Grok the editor" Topic

My draft: How detailed (granular) do we want skill test results or casualties to be? This will depend on players' intent and desires. If the goal is a fun fast game then the KISS rule applies" "Keep it simple, sir!" A failed skill roll means that didn't work, try again next turn. On the other hand, if the desire is a good story, the sort of shared experience role playing games produce, then players will care whether a fallen rider broke a leg or was merely humiliated; whether a missed shot was a near-miss or hit a nearby friend. The same consideration applies to casualties. For a fast game, any hit simply removes the target from play. But the story may want to know where he was hit and how badly. IF forces are small, one to two dozen fighters per side, and if a campaign is underway in which reputation matters after the fight, then roll the second follow-up dice to see how bad a failure or a hit really is. This will slow down play but not necessarily reduce satisfaction with the play.


GROK after I asked for a review of clarity and conciseness:

Here is a tighter version that keeps the same design choice and the same examples.

How granular should results be?

That depends on what the table wants from the evening.

If the aim is a fast game, keep it simple. A failed skill roll means the attempt failed; try again next turn. A hit removes the target from play.

If the aim is a shared story—the kind of after-action talk a campaign produces—then players will care whether the fallen rider broke a leg or only ate dirt, whether the miss was close or struck a friend. The same holds for wounds: not merely that a man is down, but wounded where and how badly.

When forces are small (a dozen or two fighters a side) and reputation will matter after the fight, roll the follow-up die. Play slows. Satisfaction need not.

A few notes on the original: the KISS line was doing two jobs at once and the quotation marks fought each other; "IF" in capitals and "follow-up dice" were the only other snags. The examples (broken leg vs. humiliation; near-miss vs. friendly fire) were already the strongest part of the paragraph, so they stayed.

If you want the two campaign voices on this point, they split the way you would expect:

The war chief: A man who falls and rises with only his pride hurt is not the same man as one who will not ride for a moon. The story should know which.

The ranger captain: In a running fight you count who is still in the saddle. Save the surgeon's report for the campfire—if anyone is still talking.