Even though the discussion may feel rather circular, I think that it is still a challenge for any GM to make these choices. The way we have figured this out is by providing a better system for Story Design. The thing about game systems is that they provide rules for GMs to run the game and provide advice when there is story to be designed or "decided/created". So when they provide rules for those decisions or creations it may feel as if creative freedom is reduced. Our Story design system establishes a scope frontier, so GMs make sure the story will flow as they planned in the broader picture, while at the same time leaving the mechanism to provide the micro narrative (like combat results, success on overcoming an encounter and the like). GM designs only the stuff behind those challenges and makes sure they are linked to the characters enough so they don't derail and they are pushing towards the story. It is unlikely that mechanics will clash with the narrative this way, and instead they are the spice of each session, the unexpected for all (including the GM).
There's so much to discuss on this particular topic, and I think it would be worth writing a column where you can expand this part:
"...you can design toward the goal of having the narrative [...] trump any mechanics—or better yet, integrate such things into the mechanics, granting players the ability to engineer auto-successes at points where it seems appropriate [...] Any dice mechanics should involve a normal distribution, like a bell curve or certain kinds of dice pools, so that events are mostly predictable and extraordinary outcomes happen very rarely [...] The downside for this kind of game [is] predictable outcomes [...]".
That first part (making the mechanics control the narrative) is basically what you did in the Cypher System (via Effort, Skills, and Assets). It would have been interesting to make the dice mechanics more predictable with a non-linear result (a 2d10 pyramid curve instead of the d20, for example).
But I think the aesthetics also matter when it comes to the design process, don't they? I read once (I do not remember where) that you liked how the d20 rolls, and that it was part of the designing process when it came to Numenera.
And what about the "swinginess" of a linear result (single dice roll, like the d20 system)? Was that part of the consideration since it makes what happens in the Ninth World more... "unpredictable"?
Even though the discussion may feel rather circular, I think that it is still a challenge for any GM to make these choices. The way we have figured this out is by providing a better system for Story Design. The thing about game systems is that they provide rules for GMs to run the game and provide advice when there is story to be designed or "decided/created". So when they provide rules for those decisions or creations it may feel as if creative freedom is reduced. Our Story design system establishes a scope frontier, so GMs make sure the story will flow as they planned in the broader picture, while at the same time leaving the mechanism to provide the micro narrative (like combat results, success on overcoming an encounter and the like). GM designs only the stuff behind those challenges and makes sure they are linked to the characters enough so they don't derail and they are pushing towards the story. It is unlikely that mechanics will clash with the narrative this way, and instead they are the spice of each session, the unexpected for all (including the GM).
There's so much to discuss on this particular topic, and I think it would be worth writing a column where you can expand this part:
"...you can design toward the goal of having the narrative [...] trump any mechanics—or better yet, integrate such things into the mechanics, granting players the ability to engineer auto-successes at points where it seems appropriate [...] Any dice mechanics should involve a normal distribution, like a bell curve or certain kinds of dice pools, so that events are mostly predictable and extraordinary outcomes happen very rarely [...] The downside for this kind of game [is] predictable outcomes [...]".
That first part (making the mechanics control the narrative) is basically what you did in the Cypher System (via Effort, Skills, and Assets). It would have been interesting to make the dice mechanics more predictable with a non-linear result (a 2d10 pyramid curve instead of the d20, for example).
But I think the aesthetics also matter when it comes to the design process, don't they? I read once (I do not remember where) that you liked how the d20 rolls, and that it was part of the designing process when it came to Numenera.
And what about the "swinginess" of a linear result (single dice roll, like the d20 system)? Was that part of the consideration since it makes what happens in the Ninth World more... "unpredictable"?
Such a fascinating topic. Thanks, Monte!