Thoughtful comments on chases in RPG's

Do you mean "chases that I plan out in detail beforehand," or "chases that happen spontaneously during the flow of the game?" Two different beasts - the latter being far harder. I haven't seen a game system that does the latter well, but if you want something you can adapt into your chosen system, you need abstraction more than a specific system, right? The other key question is whether distance travelled (and therefore number-crunching) or drama is more important to the resolution.

For drama, I find the old three-point trick helps. Unless otherwise obvious, assume there are three key obstacles to escape or capture (the system needs to work whether players are the hunters or hunted). Resolve those based on relevant skills, stats and characteristics rolls. Anything more becomes tedious (and hard to keep improvising), anything less could be unsatisfying. As dice rolls and deadlines add drama, drop in some incidental rolls affecting things other than escape/capture and rush players' decisions by defaulting to an average-poor result that round if they dither. If you don't want to pre-plan or get bogged down in mechanics, I suspect it's just what most systems would boil down to. - Pete Wright


"Well, it's what a system which is not afraid of abstractions would boil it down to. Involving movement speed and other direct mechanics is way too literal and undramatic an approach, and yet it's what most systems tend to stick to. Abstraction works much better, even in a generally simulationist setting" - Jesper Anderson

"Tend to agree about over-use of mechanics being too undramatic. Still, if things like movement speed stats exist, players often want them to factor in somehow - or to have a believable reason why they don't. That's then more to do with the way the game is presented than its mechanics. Systems that rely heavily on abstraction can ignore such stats easily. In others, if the players are in a faster car/ship, or run faster, or whatever, they'll want that to matter. If they've spent points or worked hard for that advantage, any approach that then ignores those efforts isn't an abstraction - it's just cheating the players. That's why most systems try to work with their established stats". - Pete Wright:

"Which is why I like systems where such advantages are not pure numbers, but instead actually advantages, whether they be called perks, edges, aspects or whatever. That makes them much easier to make use of in all manner of in-game situations. Spending points to buy movement speed but not buying balance skill, and then getting in a chase situation on slippery ice leads to a situation where no-one will be satisfied. Instead spending points on "Fleet-footed" actually makes the more abstract description easier to apply in a "realistic" manner, as it is clear it is a matter of both speed and balance." -  Jesper Anderson

Whilst abstraction often simplifies problems, that doesn't mean the abstraction is always the ideal solution. It's just the seed of one, to which others can generally still fit their mechanics to better suit their own preferences. - Pete Wright