Can you unpack why you went with "No, and" for 1-4? I was surprised it wasn't "No, but" for 3-4 and then "No, and" for 1-2. "No, and" for the whole range of 1-4 feels a bit harsh to me.
Please don't take this as an attack on the design. I love the whole package. It's a genuine question coming from the standpoint of wondering why not use the "No, but" layer at all and going straight to "No, and"?
It definitely influences the tone. If you have a D4 for an ability, it's unusable until you can get an improvement. An interesting thing to work around when "No but" would've been safer/more like other games in the genre. I warmed up to the all-or-nothing approach, haven't decided to change it -- of course we can just go easy on the "and" if we feel it's too punitive.
Completely unrelated, but while I'm commenting: It looks like there's a typo in the physical edition, regarding "resource slot" and "asset slot" being separate terms that are the same thing.
Thanks for the feedback!
It’s really just a resolution system with >4 being the target number, with the Outcome table reinforcing the idea that results of Actions must result in something happening. So, it’s just telling you if the Action is as you intended or not, with the ability to get a “critical” type result with 10+.
If you wanted to represent a compliment of in-between results, you also might consider adding a “Yes, but..” result as a result option on the table. For this game, I wanted to only keep a single threshold in mind, and let the context of the Action and Effort to add the nuance.
Also note that the use of Effort can add some “and..” results to “No, and..” or could add some “but..” results to “Yes..” results (in the form of Conditions). Using Effort is also how it’s possible for a D4 Attributes to achieve a “Yes..” result, albeit at the cost of a Condition.
It's also worth mentioning that the Outcomes table in 2e has a fuller range of baked in variable results, and uses exploding dice by default, so any roll with a single die (d4-d12) can result in:
- No, and..
- No, but..
- Yes, but..
- Yes..
- Yes, and..
And Pushing the Roll (replaces term for Effort) tacks on Conditions for more "ands" and "buts".
Ohhh I hadn't internalized that you could use Effort to achieve a "Yes..." result for a Condition. Thanks for reminding me about that.
I'll look forward to checking out the 2nd edition when that drops. Is there any opportunity to get involved helping with proofreading it if it's still in development?