The project of designing RPG rules that allow GMs to mimic the techniques and structure of fictional sources (movies, TV, genre fiction) is complicated by differences in mode between sources.

A prime example: the degree to which the hero of a genre or procedural piece is faced with setbacks or reversals. Success and failure are central to RPG mechanics; whether the hero fails or succeeds, and what the consequences of failure or spoils of success might be, constitute the vast bulk of all rules sets.

How common should failure be? How punishing its consequences? These questions are central to any rules design. If you’re basing rules on a fictional model, you must identify its setback level.

Some perfectly entertaining procedurals never allow the hero to fail, or even to face serious pressure as he completes his mission. This is the power identification end of the scale; we watch these stories to fantasize that we are as unflappable and effective as the hero. Nick Charles in the Thin Man series operates at this setback level. In the second entry in the classic film series with William Powell and Myrna Loy, Nick never once fails, or even breaks a sweat. He always has the upper hand. Superman used to be this sort of hero, too, back in the day.

At the opposite end of the scale is the tragic mode, where the heroes are doomed, whether by the hostile nature of the universe, their tragic flaws, or their need for redemption through destruction. Examples include the nihilist spaghetti westerns of Sergio Corbucci, particularly The Great Silence, or Hong Kong heroic bloodshed flicks.

Most sources fall in between these two extremes. However, they almost invariably operate with more forgiving setback levels than even supposedly narrative based or “cinematic” RPG rules sets. Is this divergence a necessary component of the roleplaying form, or a failure of emulation?