The Forge Archives

Theoretical Play Example, Swordsman vs Orcs;

GM: "A vast horde of orcs attack the merchant caravan.  In the opening moments the swordsman quickly dispatches two orcs before being singled out by a trio of experienced orc warriors.  The orcs fight defensively, exchanging glances and grins in silent communication.  They know time is on their side, and are taking no risks."

Unspoken implications:  By having the player dispatch two orcs in the initial chaos without even an action being declared, we have established the swordsman's superiority over individual orcs.  However these three new orcs have singled out the warrior and have moved to contain his actions.  Orcs are not stupid, and these orcs expect to hold off the swordsman until help arrives to finish the job. 
We are perhaps 10-20 seconds into the ambush, and can assume many of the weaker members on both sides have already fallen.

Swordsman: "I don't have time for this!" I'm using "Defender of the Weak" on Opposition, I have to take out these orcs as fast as possible.
I've rolled 13, "Remarkable Action", 6s for Environment and Opposition thanks to the reroll, but a 1 for Self.
"I feint a blow at the left orc's head.  As the orc recoils from the attack I strike downwards smashing the orc's axe free of his hands.  Carrying the momentum into a complete spin I rise from a low crouch to decapitate the center orc.  Striding with complete confidence I advance on the last armed orc, safe in the knowledge the disarmed orc will take a critical few seconds to retrieve their axe.  However the orc does not retrieve the axe, but instead pulls a dagger from their belt while rushing me from behind."

PIE Rules:  In a fair fight the base success required is 10+ ("Above Average").  Typically a weapon does 3 damage per combat round, doubled if Opposition is a local critical and doubled again if yet another die is also a local critical.  Each band of success past the minimum adds the base damage again.  Total damage can be freely allocated to all opponents during interpretation in multiples of base damage.
This round the swordsman is entitled to 15 damage (3 x 2 x 2 + 3).
As a general guide 12+ damage removes an opponent from a fight.   

GM:  Very cool!  I'll rule that for your next action you'll take 2 damage ignoring armour for every band short of "Remarkable Action", regardless of the other results of your action.  *Quickly notes rule interpretation for future use*

Swordsman: Harsher than I'd hoped for, but you're the boss.
"I'm shocked to hear the orc charging from behind, but reflexes kick in and I sidestep the incoming attack."  I'm using "Master Swordsman" on Self to avoid the attacks of both orcs.
I've rolled 11, "Above Average" with a 5 for "Master Swordsman."
"I spin just fast enough to catch the knife orc a glancing blow.  With elaborate swords play I counter every threat."

GM:  That's a breach.  As you weave your defensive dance you notice one of the merchants under attack.  An orc clubs him to the ground and is going for a finishing blow.  You're the only one close enough to possibly save the merchant.

PIE Rules:  A local critical on Self may be used to negate all damage suffered in a round.  It's not intended to avoid suffering the consequences of a previous action.  Players are encouraged to bend PIE rules, introducing new scenarios.  The GM can declare a "breach" to let the player know they've gone too far.  To resolve the current breach the GM could have simply applied the knife damage as the Swordsman turned round.  However it was more fun to introduce an additional complication to the scenario. 

Swordsman: #&%&$!  I'm declaring a complex action.  I'm using "Defender of the Weak" on Self to cover the ground quickly, and "Mercenary Opportunist" on Opposition to dispatch the orc before it notices me.

GM:  That means turning your back on 2 orcs.  This is a risky action, a bad roll here could kill your character.  Are you sure you wish to go ahead?

Swordsman:  A true hero never gives up!
I've rolled 12 with only 3 for Defender of the Weak and 4 for "Mercenary Opportunist"...
*pauses*
I'm re-rolling the 3, oh #&#$#, it's now a 2.
I'll leave the 4 rather than risking making it any worse, at least it's "Above Average".
"I charge towards the club orc, realising as I do so that I'm moving too slowly.  I give a hearty incomprehensible war-cry to distract the orc.  He turns in surprise; his expression initially of shock, then of amusement as the orcs behind me land blows on my exposed back.  As I reach him I stumble to my knees.  He drops his guard thinking me defeated.  A foolish mistake, I thrust my sword upwards impaling the orc through the belly."

GM: Double consequence for Duel Action wasn't kind, but thanks to your armour you take only 8 damage from the blows to your back.  The impaled orc is severely injured but still a threat for another round or so.  You're at -2 next round while you regain you feet, and of course another -2 now due to injury.
"The merchant's alive for the moment but you're surrounded by the three orcs, and they're moving in for the kill."

Swordsman:  A mistake on their part.  I can't reuse "Mercenary Opportunist", fortunately as a "Rampant Womanizer" I'm used to leaping into action from a horizontal position, particularly when unsuspecting husbands get home.

GM:  Scraping the bottom of the barrel isn't it?  What exactly remains for your "Knightly Code of Honour"?  Still under clause 13.6b: "Anything that makes the GM laugh works" I'll allow it.

Swordsman:  "Hey! I'm a good and noble person, just not very honest!" I'm focusing on opposition.  "I'll chop those orc's legs out from underneath them!"
Wrong focus!  I've rolled 13, 6s on opposition and environment, but a 1 for Self.  With modifiers that's still 11 "Above Average" if I abandon getting to my feet.
"I slash out at the axe orc's legs bringing him crashing down.  He screams in pain but that doesn't stop him swinging his axe at me.  I roll aside, easily avoiding the blow.  Realising I'm next to a wagon, I continue my roll disappearing under it.  In my haste to rise on the far side I've misjudged the wagon's width.  I've painfully jarred by left shoulder, I won't be using that arm for a bit."

GM: "The knife orc climbs rapidly over the wagon, inspired by your cry of pain and intending on finishing you off."

Swordsman:  "Ha they've separated!"  Individually they're no match for me so I'll focus on "Master Swordsman" to finish them a quickly as possible.
I've rolled only 9, that's a 7 "Poor Action" allowing for injuries.  Fortunately 5 on opposition is a local critical.
"It's a clumsy combat; obviously we're both out of breath.  I inflict some serious damage, but am wounded yet again in the process."     

GM:  Only 1 more damage, but your ninth so you're now at -3.  Fortunately it should be a simple matter to finish 3 wounded orcs, Lets have one more roll to finish this.

Swordsman:  ok, I'll use "Mercenary Opportunist" to finish to job.
I've rolled 13 with 6 for 'Mercenary Opportunist" thanks to the re-roll.  Even with my wound modifiers, that allows me to kill the 3 orcs without farther injury.
"Now where's that Mage? I really need some healing!"

Tried "Descriptors" in play for the first time tonight, and I'm pleased to say they worked really well. 

I had only one player, as that's all could make it.  With party disharmony and secret actions being declared by email, that was hardly a problem.
Deathglider is a rather two-dimensional RPG player, he loves treasure hunting and continually upgrading his character.  Although the Descriptors follow in this theme they still make a huge difference in rounding out the character.
I allowed 6 Descriptors to be chosen, but only 5 are allocated at this time.

Quote from: AltaemJohnson: A clever and intuitive fellow with alarming high talents at stealth and theft.  Possesses a dark brutal streak and a lightning strike.  Has a love of knives, lots of knives.

Descriptors: Lucky, Focussed, Restless, Apathy, Colloquial.

During the session "Lucky" was used at every opportunity, and "Apathy" saw surprising high use as well.  Neither "Restless" nor "Colloquial" came into play, but being an action packed treasure hunt that's hardly unexpected.  It was a tense, high adrenaline session which saw Johnson injured for the first time, as well as no one, but three actions with the possibility of instant death.

Of particular note is the expanded local critical range, this caused a dramatic increase in the forced narration of both good and bad actions.

Awesome... That reveals a lot about the system you're using and clears up several questions.

I'll have more questions shortly, but first, I'm not sure what effect the descriptors had. Did you just require them to pick one any time they focused on one of the dice, and then narrate it accordingly?

Complex Actions: Does he get to reroll two dice here? What negative consequences does this have, just making it harder?

Also, what does "local critical" mean? The player used it when he rolled a 5, which I thought had no mechanical significance (by default anyway).

QuoteComplex Actions: Does he get to reroll two dice here? What negative consequences does this have, just making it harder?

...the player used 2 focusses, so that allowed the double re-roll

QuoteAlso, what does "local critical" mean? The player used it when he rolled a 5, which I thought had no mechanical significance (by default anyway).

the revised rule for descriptors, because of the limitations as to when/how they need to be used, was that as well as allowing a reroll, the critical success is 5-6 (instead of 6) and fail is 1-2 instead of 1.

I've been looking through the older questions, checking for any confusing points that have been forgotten about. 

Quote from: AltaemFirst 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: seanhessIn your example, did you mention the expectation to the players?

Sorry, poor example.  Calling the initial campaign PIE is misleading.  It's where it all began.  At that stage of development the Expectation always existed purely in the GMs head.  Players declared actions of any length, based on what they were confident to succeed in.  As GM I interpreted the amount of their success based on their dice roll.  Player interpretation has only recently been introduced, in the Third or Fallout campaign.

Quote from: seanhessOk... 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.

As GM I constantly think about the magnitudes players need to succeed in an action.  If I've made the "Situational Expectation" clear then players generally have a pretty good idea of their individual "Action Expectations".  The nod is just to confirm a positive resolution to their action and their freedom to narrate the outcome.  If they failed I'll usually state it outright, giving them the choice to narrate their failures, or simply hand-balling it to me.

Taking a look back at my original post and using different wording:

Roll Magnitude       Outcome      
16 or more           better than expected, many large bonuses
13-15                  as expected with large bonus
11-12                  as expected with small bonus
9-10                    as expected with small problem
6-8                      as expected, with large problem
5 or less              worse than expected, many large problems

I'm writing a PIE glossary to explain all the terms we've been using.  It'll save you having to ask what "Complex Actions" are.  There's quite a few of them though, expect it to be posted by the end of the week.

Hey look...it's me!!!

I enjoy 2D characters as much as the next guy and this last adventure was quite fun. I almost failed some life or death actions and ended up being wounded for it, luckily I rolled well on opposition when that happened and didnt get shot, something else 'bad' happened to me.

The descriptors were good fun. I don't remember using 'Lucky' as often as Altaem said I did. He was probably just thinking of all the times I COULD have used it. However I based this descriptor on my characters luck...which surprisingly mirrors my own. I'm sure I roll more than one triple 6 in every 216 rolls.

The descriptors also had another purpose. They allowed me to analyze what my character was like, then form a goal and mission which gives reason to WHY he is like that, which at the end of the day, gives much more to the story line.

Hey, this looks nice. I love having dice tell me in what direction narration should be going. However, this looks strange: if you are going against 500 orcs (expected performance: die quickly) or 1 crippled orc grandma (expected performance: maybe laugh after chopping head off), the chances of getting wounded are exactly the same, right?
Well, I don´t mind that, I think it´s just fine (I kill orc grandma, I get grief which hurts just as bad as getting hit on head by 500 orcs), but is it intentional? I mean, your chance of beating the 500 orcs is basically nada, the chance of betting the grandma is basically 100%, I get that, but wounds?

Also, I have the intuition that you have to more clearly flesh out stakes and how they are adressed here.
The only thing I REALLY don´t like is this:

QuoteGM rolls but hides the result: this is used in situations where the characters face a threat of approximately equal skill to themselves.  The GM may apply a modifier up to 3 in either direction to the hidden roll.  Whichever side scores the highest magnitude is free to narrate the result however they like.

No no no no no.
No.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

This reads like you have no trust in your system. I say, you absolutely NEED to design the system in a way that whatever you roll, it is a good result.

Altaem,

Your example confuses me.

"6 on Environment = I roll under a wagon" was fantastic.  And "Rampant Womanizer = prone defense" is creative and hilarious.  But this:

Quote from: Altaem on October 31, 2008, 02:58:27 PM
Swordsman: "I don't have time for this!" I'm using "Defender of the Weak" on Opposition, I have to take out these orcs as fast as possible.
I've rolled 13, "Remarkable Action", 6s for Environment and Opposition thanks to the reroll, but a 1 for Self.
"I feint a blow at the left orc's head.  As the orc recoils from the attack I strike downwards smashing the orc's axe free of his hands.  Carrying the momentum into a complete spin I rise from a low crouch to decapitate the center orc.  Striding with complete confidence I advance on the last armed orc, safe in the knowledge the disarmed orc will take a critical few seconds to retrieve their axe.  However the orc does not retrieve the axe, but instead pulls a dagger from their belt while rushing me from behind."

leaves me scratching my head looking for correlations.  I look at those dice, in terms of the color they suggest, and I think, Self 1 = I screwed up, Opposition 6 = they screwed up, Environment 6 = outside factors go my way.  Given the descriptor I chose, I refine "they screwed up" to "the way they screwed up has something to do with my 'Defender of the Weak'-ness."

I add that to the outcomes (13 = overall good for me, bad for them; 6 on Opp. = lethal amount of damage; 1 on Self = some significant bad thing for me) and come up with:

I let out a mighty yell, charge forward, and take a wild, off-balance swing that should miss by a mile.  However, the orcs have heard that I am at my mightiest when defending civilians in battle -- when they see the look in my eyes, those stories flash through their minds, and they clumsily fall back in terror.  One Orc gets his foot caught in the reins from a wagon and lurches right into my back-swing, disemboweling himself.  I'm surprised at first, but try to act like it was intentional as I stare down the next two.  Alas, my blade is momentarily stuck.

Instead, however, your narration included some fairly typical (in my experience) "here's how I'm badass!" ninja-jedi-swordsman moves.  The fact that I rolled a 1 seems to have been incorporated fairly, but somewhat arbitrarily ("there's a guy behind me with a knife now").

It's not so much that I like my specific example more than yours (although I do), it's that in your example I see the player interacting first and foremost with the outcomes and only secondarily with the color guidelines, and I would think this might produce boring color over time.  How many variations on "I deftly kick some ass" are really interesting?

Do you think my take is too demanding for speedy play?

My other problem with your example is that I dislike your Descriptors:

Quote from: Altaem on October 30, 2008, 05:07:11 AM
Master Swordsman, Knights Code of Honor, Defender of the Weak, Mercenary Opportunist, Entertaining when Drunk, Rampant Womanizer

"Defender of the Weak" and "Entertaining when Drunk" are too specific to be optimal on-hand color options.  I mean, you only have 6, any one you often can't use is a waste.  "Womanizer" is also specific and hard to tie in to a variety of actions.

Even if you spend tons of game time getting drunk and flirting, I don't know if adding the words "entertaining" and "rampant" will inspire better portrayals.

"Defender of the Weak" is also redundant with "Knight's Code of Honor".  I don't think honorable knights miss many opportunities to defend the weak.

"Master Swordsman" doesn't add much color beyond simple effectiveness.

Fortunately, I think you've already generated an excellent counter-example:

Quote from: Altaem on October 31, 2008, 03:24:37 PM
. . . he loves treasure hunting and continually upgrading his character.  Although the Descriptors follow in this theme . . .

I read this and was all prepared for 6 nuanced synonyms for "badass".  But then you gave us:

Quote from: Altaem on October 31, 2008, 03:24:37 PM
Descriptors: Lucky, Focussed, Restless, Apathy, Colloquial.

Those are fantastic!  All except Lucky could be either good or bad.  All are broad, and would demand creative application in new situations.  I want to play right now to find an excuse for how Apathy helps me in combat!  It's just the right level of challenge and stretch, without being ridiculous or forced.

They're also diverse!  They paint a multi-faceted picture, and give me options of distinctly different flavors to choose from.

My favorite characters are often defined by their near-contradictions, and there's a nice tension among Focussed, Restless, and Apathy.  It makes me want to see what those all look like rolled together.

I might tweak some details ("Lucky" to "Coincidence Magnet", "Colloquial" to "Folksy", "Restless" to "Twitchy"), but overall I think this is exactly what you should be aiming for.

Finally, I'm interested in your response to SMJ about stakes.  Your example gave me a sort of "anything could happen based on momentary inspiration" feeling, where the actual outcome could change based on a whim; but I get the impression that your communication re: expectations effectively makes everyone at the table okay with that.  I don't think PIE pretends to be geared toward tacticians, and I like that about it.

I imagine the agreement at the table goes something like: "A PC will never lose, fail, or die without it first being made quite clear to the player that they may be about to lose, fail or die."  Plus maybe a similar agreement about total, outright victory.  Am I close?

Ps,
-David

In response to SMJ, I think that the difference in expectation between your two scenarios (which are pretty extreme, and tolerably unlikely, but we'll go with them) would allow for reasonable expectation-shift. For instancce, a 1 (Critical Failure) on Self when fighting the Grandma would perhaps result in stubbing your toe as your deliver the killing blow, while even a 6 on Self fighting the 500 Orcs is only going to delay the inevitable - you're not dead yet, would be the best you could hope for.

I can't respond to your criticism of the part you quoted because I can't quite remember the context of the original statement, and I'm not sure from the quote and your response to it why this means there is no faith in the system... I'll leave that for Altaem to look to.


@ David

I like your interpretation better too, but that's because it suits my style of play - that is, narrative, strongly character oriented etc. I suspect that there would be some players around our table who would feel constricted if they were required to come up with such colourful examples all the time. I imagine that the 'colour' element (for us, at least) will be more an option than a rule, designed to entertain players like me, without restricting less character-oriented players like Deathglider. That said, there's no reason not to change how concrete the rule is to suit other groups. To start flinging acronyms around, D.I.Y. - P.I.E.!

@ Altaem

Love the look of this, though I want to work out more clearly exactly how it will work. Looking forward to playing this on Friday!

Quote from: soundmasterj on November 04, 2008, 11:06:54 AM
Hey, this looks nice. I love having dice tell me in what direction narration should be going. However, this looks strange: if you are going against 500 orcs (expected performance: die quickly) or 1 crippled orc grandma (expected performance: maybe laugh after chopping head off), the chances of getting wounded are exactly the same, right?

Not remotely!  The chance of something going wrong are the same but the severity of that something are not remotely similar.
500 orcs is just silly, you don't need a system or dice to tell you you're dead.  Let's try 20 orcs instead.  If no more than 3-4 can reach you at a time a highly skilled hero may just win.

Use this table as a guideline

Roll Magnitude       Outcome     
16 or more           better than expected, 2-4 orcs slain
13-15                  holding ground, 1 orc slain
11-12                  hero wounded, 1 orc slain
9-10                    hero wounded
6-8                      hero severely wounded
5 or less              hero dead!

local critical successes will result in additional orcs being killed, or the hero not being wounded that round.
local critical failures indicate additional wounds to the hero, or less orcs killed.

There's no need for a table for the orc grandma, a magnitude of 6+ is plenty to kill her without penalty.  Other than for narration interpretation, local criticals have no real use.

Quote from: soundmasterj on November 04, 2008, 11:06:54 AM
The only thing I REALLY don´t like is this:

QuoteGM rolls but hides the result: this is used in situations where the characters face a threat of approximately equal skill to themselves.  The GM may apply a modifier up to 3 in either direction to the hidden roll.  Whichever side scores the highest magnitude is free to narrate the result however they like.

No no no no no.
No.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

This reads like you have no trust in your system. I say, you absolutely NEED to design the system in a way that whatever you roll, it is a good result.

This just baffles me.  I simply don't understand why you would react so negatively to such a mechanism.
This mechanism isn't actually used that often, as the majority of the time the player's roll is sufficient to generate an outcome.  Common situations where it may be used are in detecting of ambushes or traps.  The gunfight example I posted also used this system.
Even if it was used all the time I fail to see the problem.  Please clarify your issue with this.

Quote from: David BergMy other problem with your example is that I dislike your Descriptors:
...
"Defender of the Weak" and "Entertaining when Drunk" are too specific to be optimal on-hand color options.  I mean, you only have 6, any one you often can't use is a waste.  "Womanizer" is also specific and hard to tie in to a variety of actions.

I suspect that your only problem is that you dislike my descriptors.  Your other issues I think stem from this.  I will confess I gave that list of Descriptor no more than 20 seconds thought, though I fail to see how they're as bad a you say.
Take the rather boring "Master Swordsman", I imagine that the Swordsman is the kind of person who gets up at 6am every morning to practice sword drills while his companions are still asleep.  This kind of dedication could easily have side benefits and is not so different from Deathglider's "Focussed".

Quote from: David BergYour example confuses me.

Just the first action, or all of them?

QuoteSwordsman: "I don't have time for this!" I'm using "Defender of the Weak" on Opposition, I have to take out these orcs as fast as possible.
I've rolled 13, "Remarkable Action", 6s for Environment and Opposition thanks to the reroll, but a 1 for Self.
"I feint a blow at the left orc's head.  As the orc recoils from the attack I strike downwards smashing the orc's axe free of his hands.  Carrying the momentum into a complete spin I rise from a low crouch to decapitate the center orc.  Striding with complete confidence I advance on the last armed orc, safe in the knowledge the disarmed orc will take a critical few seconds to retrieve their axe.  However the orc does not retrieve the axe, but instead pulls a dagger from their belt while rushing me from behind."

This came directly from my first post.
At this time Environment was equally Equipment or Swordsmanship.
Self = defense
Opposition = chance to inflict real damage.
"Defender of the Weak" is being used for motivation, every moment the swordsman remains locked in combat with these orcs other lives are at risk.
Opposition 6 + Environment 6 is free license to do significant damage.

Quote from: David BergIt's not so much that I like my specific example more than yours (although I do)...
Do you think my take is too demanding for speedy play?

Your example is excellent.  I like yours better too, though not nearly as much as you do.  I'd like to stress that they are both equally valid.  Yours is slightly easier on the GM as there's no rules for "attack from behind" to resolve on the fly.

Quote from: David BergAlas, my blade is momentarily stuck.

That's going to reduce the amount of damage you can dish out next round, I'd impose a -3 damage penalty.  Could be the difference between life and death for a single orc.

Quote from: David BergI want to play right now to find an excuse for how Apathy helps me in combat!

An orc holds a captive child like a shield, knife at the kids throat.  Ignoring the chance of failure you raise your crossbow and take the killing shot.

Quote from: David BergI imagine the agreement at the table goes something like: "A PC will never lose, fail, or die without it first being made quite clear to the player that they may be about to lose, fail or die."  Plus maybe a similar agreement about total, outright victory.  Am I close?

It's never been stated that way, but I guess you're about right.

We did have one scene where the players ambushed some guards killing one and severely wounding another.  As they talked the survivors into surrendering it became clear that there were more opposition and the players were standing plainly in their gun sights.  Fortunately Gabriel talked them out of the situation alive, bargaining their lives for those of the hostage guards.  Had any player taken any offensive action there would doubtlessly have been a bloodbath, with the probable death of every player character.

So do I understand it correctly like this: what exactly a single die shows only provides color/narration, no mechanical results?

Say, I roll 1 6 6. I easily win. I narrate how my character, Conan, gets a nasty cut across the chest because of the 1. I don´t, however, lose any kind of dice or anything because of that cut, right?

Say, I roll 1 3 3. I lose. I narrate how Conan earns himself that same nasty cut. I am punished mechanically for this.

Right? If so, I think it works just fine! Thanks for clearing that up. Nice mechanic.

The other thing, fudging dice: firstly, may I present you with the "slipperly slope" fallacy? It goes like this: if you fudge once, why not fudge all of the time!
Second thing is: it lessens my results as a player if I know that maybe, just maybe my success wasn´t due to what I rolled, but due to what you fudged.
Third thing is the most important. You don´t trust your rules if you allow fudging. Say your rules provide, whatever the dice tell you, a result that is satisfying. If I lose the conflict, that´s fine, because now Conan is about to be sacrificed at the Goblin God Morks temple and I, Conans player, am eager to narrate Conan breaking free in the last moment! If I lose this conflict, that´s fine, because now I didn´t manage to break free and now the Goblins threw me into the "magic eye of Mork" and I have to fight the fire demons therein! If I lose that conflict, that´s fine (also I might start wondering if your dice are cheating), because getting beat by the fire demons means I now have to fulfill one of the fire demons´ wishes: bring them a virgin woman as a gift! Etc.
You never need to fudge in those kinds of rules. That is because such rules would be well-designed. There are some dice results you might prefer over others, but none that you couldn´t accept. I would like Conan to win, but if he loses, the story still is a good story.

(Also, you might want to reconsider character death as requested solemly by dice. Character death should only happen if meaningfull and with player consent, I think, and there is place in your rules for that.)

Say you want to extend conflict between almost equal combatants so it gets more suspensefull. That´s why you want to fudge dice in the first place, right?
Don´t fudge, it´s cheating (you out of fun!). Do this instead: Equal combatans meet. Dice are to be thrown. Expectation: in the first clash, every party suffers slightly, but both are still up for another round. If the result is close to the expected result (about 5-13), next round sees both partys going for it again. Now, the expectations are slightly changed.
Repeat until satisfying conclusion is reached.
So, in conflict between equals, I´d just zoom in, catch more detail. Don´t narrate full battle, narrate one exchange of the blade with each roll of dice. Your rules already provide for that.

I think your descriptors were just fine, by the way.

To make myself clear about the first point (wrt Conan getting wounded, but losing no dice) : in no way did I try to sound sarcastically. I really like it if it happens as I described. Obviously, Conan or James Bond sometimes just doesn´t care about a wound, sometimes he does. That´s how fiction works and that´s what your rules capture.

Quote from: soundmasterjThe other thing, fudging dice: firstly, may I present you with the "slipperly slope" fallacy? It goes like this: if you fudge once, why not fudge all of the time!

PIE doesn't fudge dice ever.

This misunderstanding is based on a poor explanation on my part.  If a modifier is to be applied to the GM's roll, the GM must always select the modifier before the dice are rolled.  They're certainly not intended as a tool for the GM to manipulate the outcome to meet their own needs.  Although the players aren't told the modifier, they should be able to guess pretty accurately based on the Expectation. 

The opposition modifier is used in place of creatures needing stats.
While regular orcs and goblins don't warrant an opposed roll, it can add colour to battle their champions in greater detail.
Goblin champion -2, Goblin Boss -1, Orc Lord +1, Troll +3
I'd never generate these numbers ahead of time, preferring a clear mental idea for the relative strengths of creatures.

Quote from: soundmasterj(Also, you might want to reconsider character death as requested solemly by dice. Character death should only happen if meaningfull and with player consent, I think, and there is place in your rules for that.)

Let's not go there.  There's many discussions on character death, I see no reason to repeat them here.  Besides no PIE character has died yet.

Quote from: soundmasterjI think your descriptors were just fine, by the way.

Thank you.  I've been using the swordsman for all my examples for consistency and to hopefully simplify understanding.  He's not typical of a character I'd choose to play.  Not that I've had much experience, I'm almost always the GM.