The Forge Archives

Oh, and if it wasn't clear in my last post. I think the idea is brilliant. Good work!

Ah, I thought of one more question. The first examples you gave seemed to imply that only one side of the contest (the player) rolled anything. Later, your more complex examples use opposed rolls. How do you decide when to use one or the other?  In the first ones you even extrapolated the damage done to the character from their own failure, rather than the success of their opponents.

Also, when you describe the expectation that the swordsman will be able to overcome the orcs, that kind of ignores the hitting/damage rules, right?

I noticed that in one of the examples posted, they succeeded at a roll, but said that a 4 on opposition wasn't enough to kill their opponent.

Thanks!

Hey Seanhess, don't know if I'll be able to provide definitive answers to your questions - I'm sure altaem will come back and give you something more useful, as the rules largely exist in his head. However, from a player's perspective, it seems that PIE runs very flexibly. Where the GM has a good idea of how characters will behave (such as in an unequal fight) I think there's a tendency to only use the one roll, because only an extreme result will have any unexpected consequences. On the other hand, in a more equally matched (or more significant) competition it can be more entertaining to use an opposed roll because it allow for greater detail of behhaviour on both sides.

Compare

Self 4, Equip 5, Opp 2
You take a shot at your (roughly equally matched) opponent, but don't manage to hit him. The fight continues.

with the above roll and
Self 2, Equip 4, Opp 5 from the opponent
You take a shot at your opponent, but miss (Total 11, Opp 2). As you move back toward cover (Self 4) your opponent stands still in the open (Self 2) and fires. Though he doesn't hit you (Total 11) his bullet strikes shrapnel from the pillar you are ducking behind which cuts your face and blinds you temporarily.

You now have a player who is lightly wounded but in cover, an opponent standing still in the open, two working guns, and another, rather more fascinating, round of combat on the way. Similar extrapolation can be made with longer lasting actions (see previous posts for explanations of this) if the GM uses a little imagination.

As I said, as a player I can't swear to the fact that this is how Altaem plays it, but it seems that way from my persepctive, and though I say it myself, I think this works alright anyway!

I'm assuming a chat game is an online-session, in which case, sorry to disappoint you but we don't run them! Otherwise I have no doubt you would be welcome to lurk.

Quote from: themalorymanI'm sure altaem will come back and give you something more useful, as the rules largely exist in his head. However, from a player's perspective, it seems that PIE runs very flexibly..

PIE doesn't really have a set of rules.  More a bunch of guidelines.  These are subject to manipulation by both GM and players as the situation warrants.
themaloryman is spot on in his explanation and examples.  The only thing I'll clarify at this time is that the 2-5 range on the die is optional interpretation, so in the gunfire example only the total magnitude had to be used.  themaloryman's interpretation is far more fun and colourful, and would definitely stood in play.  From a mechanical point of view the two disadvantages are roughly on par.  (Standing in the open vs blinded by shrapnel)

Quote from: seanhessI really, really, want to start trying PIE out, but there are still too many foggy things

I'll do a more complete resolution of the swordsman defending the caravan.  I'll clearly show what the player and GM say, the rolls and any rules relevant to the situation.  It should be posted in the next 24 hrs.     

Quote from: David BergI provide a huge amount of spatial information.  My players ask me questions and we collaborate to flesh out a fairly thorough shared 3D rendering of the situation.

That is really impressive, I'm in awe by the amount of work you need to do as a GM to run a fight.  It sound really fun for the players, but there's no way I'd put in that much effort, nor would any GM I've been a player with. 
I see now why you're drawn to the PIE system, as it attempts to move the workload away from the GM without sacrificing game immersion or detail.

Quote from: David BergMost of the key character action in my game occurs along "We have a theory... We try THIS!  What happens?" lines

PIE shines in the well known, where players can resolve entire actions without consulting the GM.  I'm unsure if it would work even remotely with a game like Delve.  Surely the majority of actions would be Expectation Unknown.  If I roll a 14 with 6 on Environment, while examining a 3-eared rabbit, I'm at a complete loss to narrate the action.

Quote from: David BergI love this.  The idea of paying attention to how expectation evolves during a situation, and tailoring the mechanics' application based on that, sounds full of awesome potential.  The part that scares me is the "paying attention".  I'm tracking the imagined physical space and reading die results -- when does my brain get to work in "expectation level"?

I have no idea whether this would be easy from the get-go, hard at first but easy with practice, or just one more drain on my limited mental resources forever.  So, what's your experience with this?

(Or did you just come up with the above, and haven't employed it in play yet?)

PIE has always had this, even for the first two campaigns, before "player interpretation" was introduced.  I've always employed this, but it's always existed solely in my head, almost on a sub-conscious or assumed level.  This is the first time I've attempted to document it, but I assure you it works, and it works well.

I'll do my best to include some "expectation fluctuation" in the swordsman vs orcs example.

I must say I'm astonished with the speed at which this discussion has suddenly leaped forward.
Getting back to "Descriptor" before they're lost...

Quote from: David BergI want to talk about this, but first I need to know whether you're using "long action" and "short action" to refer to the amount of in-game time they account for ("I dam the river" vs "I slip my hand into my pocket")

Yes, as already clarified by themalroyman, this was my intended meaning.  A "short action" is something that takes very little "in-game" or character time.  It's completely independent of the amount of detail used to describe it or the apparent complexity of the action.  An Olympic dive takes only a few seconds, but would require lots of detail to describe the dive.

Quote from: David BergI feel like I'm being dense here.  Sorry.

We're merely suffering from the imprecise nature of the English language to describe RPG.  themaloryman has the advantage of being both a player of PIE, and a close friend.

Quote from: David BergThe more integrated version of this would be to define situational properties for reference in the interface, as in, "this is a Romantic situation, so you can't use Creepy" or "this is a Difficult situation so you must use Creepy", etc.  Probably not necessary, just an interesting thought.

Interest yes, but too much like work for my liking.  If players are seriously trying to use "Creepy" in a romantic situation they probably can't handle any of the free-form PIE interpretations.

Quote from: David BergYou might get some mileage from focusing on a set of Descriptors, rather than each one in isolation.  Do I build my character with a bunch of similar Descriptors, the better to form a consistent feel?  Do I build my character with a bunch of completely opposed Descriptors, to make sure my color contributions are varied and customizable to the moment?  Are my character's Descriptors similar to your character's Descriptors?  Do all our Descriptors add up to perfectly embody our game's genre, or are they misfits that stretch the edges of it?  Do I ever lose old Descriptors and gain new ones?  How much control do I have over them?  (Maybe the other players assign me some.  Maybe I pick randomly from a pile during my action.)

This is all really good stuff, heres my current thinking;

Each character gets a set of 6 "Descriptors" which they choose with complete freedom at character generation.  At the end of each session a Player may replace one Descriptor with a new one.  usually they choose which to replace, but the GM may ban a Descriptor they judge to be abused.

Descriptors replace the focus rules as I described in a previous post.  This may be revised with play testing.
A single Descriptor may not be used for two consecutive actions, although players may distort action length to bypass this.

I'm playing with allowing 2 Descriptors to be used on a singe complex action.  This would be at the price of doubling the consequences of any negative result of the action.

PIE should definitely not have a comprehensive list of Descriptors.

My Swordsman's Descriptors:
Master Swordsman
Knights Code of Honor
Defender of the Weak
Mercenary Opportunist
Entertaining when Drunk
Rampant Womanizer
 

Quote from: David BergPossibly separate from Descriptors, but on-topic:
My current character sheets include lists of "things you do when pleased", "things you do when displeased", and "things you do for no reason".  Stuff like picking teeth, scratching scalp, and humming can provide that perfect dose of extra color when called for.

I love this, but regard it as a player/GM tool independent of the RPG system rules.

Quote from: Altaem on October 30, 2008, 05:07:11 AM
I must say I'm astonished with the speed at which this discussion has suddenly leaped forward.
Getting back to "Descriptor" before they're lost...

Yeah, there's a lot of subtopics in this thread.  Don't feel obliged to keep up the response speed!  I'm about to be gone for several days, but I'll check back in next week.  Pauses of a few days are actually pretty frequent in Forge threads.

Quote from: Altaem on October 30, 2008, 05:07:11 AM
I love this, but regard it as a player/GM tool independent of the RPG system rules.

Hey man, sometimes a player/GM tool might be more vital for making a game fun than "RPG system rules"!  If you were gonna write this up as a book, I'd damn sure hope that whatever key player/GM tools you use would be in there!

Quote from: themaloryman on October 30, 2008, 01:18:23 AM
You now have a player who is lightly wounded but in cover, an opponent standing still in the open, two working guns, and another, rather more fascinating, round of combat on the way. Similar extrapolation can be made with longer lasting actions (see previous posts for explanations of this) if the GM uses a little imagination.

That was a great example, thanks

Quote from: Altaem on October 30, 2008, 04:10:55 AM
I'll do a more complete resolution of the swordsman defending the caravan.  I'll clearly show what the player and GM say, the rolls and any rules relevant to the situation.  It should be posted in the next 24 hrs.    

That would be great. Maybe I will post some examples of things I can imagine, and see how far I can get with some real rolls. Thanks!

Ok, here's something that's been puzzling me.

Assume we have Terrus, the Elementalist (pretend the system rules dictate he can pretty much do anything with Earth and Stone). He enters a clearing, and who does he see? His arch-enemy Atem, the air-mage.

GM: Atem is looking confident, grim as ever, and he doesn't even flinch when you walk into the clearing. You know that he is quick, and hard to nail down.

Player: For my action, I want to open a rift in the earth, and bury him under a giant mound of stone! (the assumption here is that once buried, a wimpy air-mage is going to be stuck).

What does the GM do here? He's supposed to assign a difficulty, right? Unless I make it impossible, there is a chance he will take out his arch-enemy in one round, while I want to make sure it's a little more dramatic than that, and give it some more time. For example, the GM could think to himself: Let's see, taking out Atem won't be that easy when he's on his guard like that, I'll say it takes a Exceptional Action.

Player: rolls, gets an exceptional action (no 1s) and narrates how he kicks his butt, much to the GMs chagrin.

So, what do you do when the player states something in his action you absolutely don't think should happen (that turn, at least)? It kind of seems like the GM could back himself into a corner if he wasn't careful.

First PIE campaign, scene one:

The party is a group of 3 perfectly ordinary people.  They're walking home at night and hear a scream.  A woman is being raped in a narrow side ally. Naturally as players they rush to her assistance and find themselves in a fight with 3 tough gang members.
The purpose of the scene is to teach the players how frail the characters are.  The Expectation is that they'll be beaten to a pulp, and despite their noble efforts the crime will continue.
In resolution however the players rolled almost every action at "Above Average" or better, with a truly staggering number of "Exceptional Actions".
Result: they beat up the gang members, save the woman, are barely injured themselves, and feel like heroes.

It happens... as GM I just roll with the punches.

Quote from: seanhessWhat does the GM do here? He's supposed to assign a difficulty, right? Unless I make it impossible

Close, but not quite, thats how many other RPGs would resolve it.
In PIE the GM sets the Expectation.
Between two opponents of roughly equal ability I always start with a opening round.  Based on the performance of the first round I impose a bonus or penalty to the following round.  This may be a small effect which carries for the remainder of the fight (such as a wounding modifier), or a more dramatic effect applying solely to the next action (blinded by shrapnel).
I've got no idea how to interpret the Expectation for your elemental conflict, but based on revolving that attack as an opening move I'd give the player +3-4 on the magnitude of just their next action.  This will usually cause a sliding slope, where there is no doubt as to the outcome.  Its the challenge for the character on the losing end to come up with actions that negate the bonuses.  Even if that forces them to flee.

The only time PIE uses a flat difficulty is in resolving actions in during gunfights.  This is because a bullet is unblockable, so the performance of you opponent make less difference.  I suppose the same applies to all ranged attack and some magic, I've simple not run campaigns where it's come up.

Ok... let me see if I understand. You don't think about the magnitude they need to succeed at their action, but instead wait to see what they roll, and then give the nod or shake of the head? 

My question centers around players saying what their action is, and making sure they don't take it too far with the interpretation.

In your example, did you mention the expectation to the players?

After explaining the expectation, let's say the first player who ran into the alley said that his action was to "jump into the middle of the three, beat them to unconsciousness, and save the woman"

What would happen if he rolled an exceptional action -- does he do all that stuff in one roll? 

What if he only rolls a remarkable action? (still a good roll, but definitely not enough to do all that at once)

Thanks!

Hey again Seanhess, in repsonse to your elemental example:

I played through Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy a couple of times in the last few years. Your boss fight generally goes as expected - you run in circles, fight hard, grab your health and shield upgrades, use the Force, Luke, as much as possible, and eventually scrape through with a victory. The last time I played I got up to the final boss (Tavion?), sat through the cut scene, and decided to attempt to leap directly at her and land a good solid blow to get me off to a good start. I mentally prepared to key-stroke/mouse move combination, executed the force-driven long jump at her, and when I got within range, whacked away at my left mouse button. It just so happened, through blind luck, that my first strike drove my lightsabre right through her head, and she dropped on the spot, one jump, one slice, game over.

It wasn't drawn out and dramatic, it will never happen that way again, and it was freaking cool! Sometimes the dice (or CPU) go your way. Those moments make the best stories. So your example, narrated well, will be a story that never dies, should Terrus roll three 6s and bury Atem under a mountain of earth without a murmur. Maybe you would narrate it that as they faced off, Terrus moved the earth with such silent skill that Atem never saw it coming. As a GM (something I do rarely, and not really that well!) I'd probably try to infuse this with humour. One of those, 'Oh, well that was unexpected... so moving on...' moments.

As a player, when I've played with GMs who assign 'Impossible' difficulty levels I just get frustrated. There's story to be told, but there are also dice to be respected. Fishnet-Ninjas shows an unwillingness to let the world be the world.

And if you roll three 6s, and don't get the most amazing freaking results, right then and there, it's the most frustrating and futile feeling in the world. It's a roll that only comes up one time in 200 (or 216, actually) so you want it to be rewarded.

Also, those tiny odds mean that if the GM takes a risk, the chance of it coming back to bite them are tolerably slim.

Yeah, you're right. The chance of getting a 16+ on three dice is 5%.  Since I can bump their probability down that far if I need to, that's acceptable for any scenario I can imagine.

I'm totally ok with people short-circuiting my final scene, I just want to make sure there are some limits on what they can attempt with their action. The idea is the same though, right? If they try to do more in one action, just make it harder to do?

Exactly. And come to think of it, I retract some of my previous statement. I do think it's reasonable for a GM to refuse to allow actions, or to make them impossible, if they really are genuinely impossible. So for my character in this PIE game (Gabriel - see here http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=26840.0) to fly is really impossible within the bounds of the game. If I persist in declaring the action it's fair for the GM to declare that I fall, regardless of what I roll. So I suppose 'impossible' goals have their place, as long as anything that is even remotely possible is allowable for the right 'price'.

That's a lot of quotation marks...