PIE: Player Interpretation of Expectation

[Altaem]

PIE represents an ongoing evolution in my RPG rules design.  Despite the fact that the rules are little more than chaotic notes, they have been successfully used to run two (rather lengthy) campaigns.  Such is the popularity with my players, that one player has flatly refused to role-play with any other system.  A third campaign is currently two sessions in, and will be posted under Actual Play in the near future.

Goals:
1.   Have a fast and simple system; usable in a range a common role-playing scenarios without the players having to learn the rules beforehand.
2.   Able to resolve combat at approximately the same rate it would take in real life or a movie.
3.   Empower players with the ability to interpret their own actions, success and failure, with the GM acting as a guide and ensuring consistent results.

The Basic Principles:
The core of PIE is in the understanding of expectations.  These are presented to the players by the GM in varying degrees of detail depending on the situation.  Dice are rolled to assist the player in interpreting the expectation. 

A (very) Simple Example:
The hero engages a lowly orc in a sword fight.  Expectation is that the hero will quickly dispatch the orc without difficulty, and will probably not even be injured in the process.<Dice Use:<Roll         Magnitude      
16 or more      Exceptional Action
13-15         Remarkable Action
11-12         Above Average
9-10         Below Average
6-8         Poor Action
5 or less      Dismal Performance

On a localised level 6s and 1s on individual D6 provide small critical successes or failures useful for shaping the magnitude into an entertaining description of an action.  In general the 2-5 range has no special significance, merely contributing to the magnitude.  There are exceptions to this such as in combat where the Opposition dice determines hit location of a successful attack. 

Each of the individual dice can be interpreted in many ways, even within the context of the same action.  Ideally there should be no overlap, but in practice there are many grey areas.

Example roles for individual dice:
Self:   confidence, charisma, presence, situational awareness, use of cover, defence, initiative.
Equipment:    knowledge, environmental factors, skill in using equipment, equipment performance itself.
Opposition:   NPC reactions, targeting and timing of attacks, mastering own fears.

Many interpretations of the same action:
A vast horde of orcs attack a merchant caravan.  In the opening moments a player character, a veteran 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.<Possible Player interpretations:<Variations on the roll:

[DWeird]

Woo. Me like.

Not sure if this is really the appropriate forum for this, but in case it's not, I'm sure a more experienced forumgoer will come 'bout and point it to the right place.

I love how awesomely minimal it is. Instead of guesswork (including questions before/during actual sessions) for what the player's are expecting from the game, trying to pre-design it for specific groups, the "guys, what do you want from this?" question is asked straight in the game, by the game. 's pretty damned cool.

Not sure how far you can take this, though. It seems like the game is based on one guy (a 'GM', whether or not that's a set or rotating position, or whether it's one person at all) providing a player with stuff to go with, and then the latter does.

What about clashes between players, how are these handled? I mean both the obvious case of player character versus player character (both of them go "I'll dispatch of him effortlessly", roll 13-15, and then both die? Die results are compared inbetween them for dodges/hits? Or what?), and the less obvious, but possibly more prevalent clashes of player interpretations... What if a guy wants to go "all the orcs die!", another "we kill most of them, but I manage to catch a few for interrogation" and another "I call the chieftain to a duel and slay him, and the rest now obey either due to fear or respect of ritual". Assuming this happens, and it's bound to, I guess the players would discuss inbetween themselves. However, unless they're really, really good friends (or some dominating and others passive), that's as likely to complicate the issue as it is to solve it.

So yeah. In short: how do you deal with clashing expectations?

[Altaem]

I was originally going to post it under First Thoughts.  But I've used versions of these rules to successfully run two campaigns.  The rules clearly state that moves this concept into play testing.

In reality the system is not quite so minimalistic.  I just wanted to focus on the bare bones and key principles for the initial post.  It gave me a chance to focus on the things that make it moderately unique.  In reality the players are given character sheets although this is nothing more than a guide. 

The first campaign was loosely based on White Wolves Vampire and used a simplified Vampire character sheet.  The second was set in Games Workshops Necromunder Underhive and used a similar character sheet of my own design.  The current campaign is in the Fallout setting and players have nothing more than a skill list with appropriate modifiers.

The importance of the character sheet lies not in the absolute values, but in the comparisons.   Who is the fastest character in the party?  the strongest? the best shot?  How do these values compare to opponents?

One of my greatest discoveries was that NPCs don't require character sheets.  All you need in their power levels relative to the player characters.  For example; ork warrior - very dangerous up close to the mage, helpless against the swordsman.

As for clashes between players... I'll deal with that one tomorrow.

[David Berg]

I love the core idea of "set an expectation, then use die rolls to establish what happens relative to the expectation."  Your examples all sound fun too.  However, I can't tell who at the table is doing/saying what.  I would love to read an example with the literal words out of the GM's and player's mouths.

Is it unusual in your game for the GM's setting to deceive the players?  I would be curious about how expectations get formed, communicated, and factored into resolution for encountering, say, a 3-foot hunchbacked goblin who happens to be the universe's most deadly swordsman.

I'm just indulging my own curiosity here.  If you have a more specific agenda here, feel free to state it and ignore my questions.

Ps,
-David

[Altaem]

The concept of Focus:<Resolving direct conflict and fooling the players:
Example:
The party is traveling a narrow path through a forest and encounters an old hunched-back goblin stumbling along. A large sack is slung over one shoulder and he is supporting himself with a wooden staff.

Swordsman: I walk boldly up to the goblin and say
GM/Goblin: 
Swordsman: <<

There are two ways the GM can play this out:
GM rolls no Dice: any situation where the outcome is never in doubt.  A hero slaying a lowly orc, or a swordsman taking the greatest swords fighter in the universe.
GM 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.

[themaloryman]

I'm one of the players of this system (Gabriel over here http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=26840.0), so I guess I can probably give a player's response to some of the issues raised above. I guess my response on the other page should probably have gone here, but I'm new!

I think we've found that as long as Altaem remains fairly on the ball about his world, things run well. This system pretty well runs itself in some ways (see my other post) but it does require the GM to know his own world. I suppose that means that it does rest heavily on one person, and requires effort on the GM's part, but then, that's what a good GM does.

As to clashes between players, it would resolve much the same as in any other system: who has the highest persuasion/sword-skill/run/brawl? By how much? So based on that the expected outcome would be this. Then roll.

I'm not sure if I'm the player who 'refuses to play any other system', but if I'm not I can probably be added to the list!

[David Berg]

[Altaem]

The player forms his expectation, comparing his swordsman (badass) to a goblin (pathetic).

Incorrect!  It is the role and responsibility of the GM to provide the expectation.  As in; your path is blocked by a large and scared orc warrior, you can probably take him, but it wont be easy.  In the case of an elderly goblin the expectation is implied.
 

He figures the result will probably (barring an absolutely crazy roll) be somewhere between "I barely defeat the goblin, with effort" and "I effortlessly carve up the goblin in as cool a way as I wish."  He then rolls for guidance along this spectrum.  His Above Average roll helps him form a suitable outcome: "I pierce the goblin's heart killing it instantly."

All correct!

The player's role is to narrate to outcome.  The GM has the authority to edit that narration as they see fit but will generally not do so.  Only in the case of player/character deception would a GM totally overrule a players narration of the action.

I'm also curious about how you view the dynamics I just mentioned -- "I never thought about that", or "I deliberately designed it that way", or "well, duh, isn't that assumed?" or something else.

To be honest, I couldn't dig up a real play example where I've deceived my players.  So thank you for broadening my views on the possibilities.  The closest I've ever had it situations where the players have encountered NPC opposition vastly more powerful than themselves, but refuse to acknowledge that.  Generally I find players are far happier narrating their success than their failure.

In practice the player narrates the outcome.  This version is then tweaked for maximum fun and coolness with suggestions by the GM and/or other players.

In some situations the player doesn't know how the action will resolve.  For example bartering for a firearm.  The player rolls and narrates an incomplete action.  As in: "I come across with complete confidence, but I've botched and mistaken a shotgun for an assault rifle.  Hope I wasn't screwed over too badly."
It's up to the GM to complete the action and narration.

[David Berg]

In practice the player narrates the outcome.  This version is then tweaked for maximum fun and coolness with suggestions by the GM and/or other players.

Plus, everyone has the three colored dice to refer to for inspiration when imagining "how it went down"!

This seems like an excellent system for imparting color & detail to the imagined events.  I bet your group makes plenty of rolls even when the outcome isn't really in doubt, right?  Resolution for you is less about probabalistically determining success/failure, and more about forging an engaging and vivid imaginary event.  Your group seems to have a consensus on this, making each resolution an opportunity for true collaboration.  Further, the GM makes collaboration easy & safe with a high degree of transparency ("here's what you the player can actually expect from the true situation", in contrast to "here's your character's sensory impression and nothing else").

Blah blah blah, that's basically my way of saying that I can see the appeal!  I like collaboration, I like color.

I wonder what would happen if you tried to import this same style of resolution into other RPGs.  I'd think it wouldn't be too hard to turn the fictional emphases of a given game into an equivalent of Self / Equipment / Opposition.  Like, "What are the most interesting things to do in Cyberpunk?  What are components of those actions?  Let's worry about Slick / Creepy / Tragic during resolution!  My roll of 5, 4, 6 is a Remarkable success as I kill the clerk.  I deftly spin behind him, turning him away from the alarm as he sees movement on the edge of his vision (slick).  As my shadow falls upon him, my wire wraps around his neck in complete silence; he doesn't have time to scream (creepy).  As his struggles cease, a single drop of his blood falls onto his desk.  I see it land on the photo of his wife and three young children (tragic)."

Ps,
-David

[Altaem]

I bet your group makes plenty of rolls even when the outcome isn't really in doubt, right?

Do they ever!  This is also encouraged by my experience mechanic, as players receive XP every time they roll multiple 6s or 1s.

My roll of [slick] 5,[creepy] 4,[tragic] 6 is a Remarkable success as I kill the clerk...

Only 1s and 6s have a rules impact on the narration.  So the action only had to include the tragic element.  The rest was very cool though.  I wish that more actions could be covered in such vivid detail by my players and by myself as GM.

Due to it's simplicity I find PIE works for any RPG.  A little thought allows it to be substituted for any systems core rules.  Just use the original rules as a basis for establishing the expectations.

I've found to system to be magic in the following situations;
Brawls, sword fights, magic, supernatural powers, relations with NPCs, persuasion, negotiation, tactical combat (10+ NPCs per side).

I'm currently struggling with rules for sniping and fully automatic gunfire.  I find the instant death aspect required more concrete rules, particularly if its a player character's life in question. Unfortunately concrete rules limit the free form interpretation, and dramatically reduce the magic of role-play.

[Shadow_80]

*sneaks slyly into Altaem's topic*

in the thread themalloryman mentioned, he said he was playing a d20 Warhammer 40k adventure...and that he is leaning towards never playing another system than PIE...

I was that GM...

we lasted about halfway through the first combat before both he and Deathglider brought up this system, showed me how it works, and we adapted the characters' existing sheets across (roughly) to make use of this system for the rest of that session.

As a GM, i found it made a huge difference.  I have had a fair bit of experience with the D20 system, and been a player in many of Altaem's campaigns as he has slowly adapted various versions of this system to come up with its current form...and i loved it.  It was easy to use, made the combats far more narrative and fun rather than tedious and convoluted.  While i have had a lot of success with the d20 system (mostl;y because i know it so well), i have had to work really hard to maintain suspense, engagement and energy amidst hundreds of rolls, pauses to check and double check skill sheets and the like.  This system took much of the burden of that away by requiring the players to me involved..they needed to ask questions and pay attention to the events and the surroundings in order to have their interpretation of their dice rolls make sense.

Now that i have sat in for a guest appearance at one of Altaem's campaigns with the system being used by the author, and have seen it properly (i only knew enough to fudge part of the system) i can see myself making use of it almost exclusively...(which is propably good because i doubt themalloryman and deathglider would ever play any of my games otherwise!).  I may need a few more written notes than Altaem, but it is pretty easy to pick up and run with.

two thumbs up!

[David Berg]

Altaem, if you're interested in offering your system to others, this might be a good place for Shadow_80 to tell you what parts he had trouble picking up, and what barriers he encountered...

Only 1s and 6s have a rules impact on the narration.

I take that to mean that:
1) describing the basic facts of a rolled action's outcome is mandatory (duh)
2) describing particularly successful (6) or unsuccessful (1) aspects of a rolled action is also mandatory
3) describing other aspects of a rolled action is optional

Right?

I am curious: how often, and in what circumstances, does (2) get skipped?  Never?  When an action is relatively trivial and folks are eager to keep moving?  Often?  This relates to the following bit:

I wish that more actions could be covered in such vivid detail by my players and by myself as GM.

Well, if everyone's on the same page about wanting even more detail than you already achieve, you could do what I did, and treat every die result as an indicator for that die's variable* along the "unsuccessful -> very successful" continuum.  Narrating those results could be (a) required by the rules, (b) generally social encouraged unless someone really doesn't feel like it, or (c) simply mentioned as a potential creative springboard if anyone wants one.

*"variable" = Self / Equipment / Opposition; I didn't know what else to call 'em

Speaking of Self / Equipment / Opposition, I wonder how you came to choose these, and whether they serve as optimal springboards for vivid expression.  Does interpreting these creatively require a lot of coaching on your part, or do folks seem to get it naturally?  Have you ever used other labels or categories for the 3 dice?  My initial reaction:

• Self - nicely flexible, but not the best creative prompt
• Equipment - specific, so quick and easy to work from, but might get a bit boring or stifling if you do many rolls with the same piece of equipment (e.g. sword-fighting)
• Opposition - my first thought would be to invert the roll as a measure of the competence of an enemy's resistance, which I like; otherwise, except for specific situations like your "overcome own fear of this opposition" example, I'm drawing a blank

Ps,
-David

[Shadow_80]

i have to admit i did little more than adapt the d20 system across by mentally mapping the modified probability curve of the 3d6 range of results roughly onto the random distribution of the d20 system when i ran my session; i knew roughly how Altaem had developed his systems over the past few years so that part was quite easy to do.  If i do any more GMing with this system, providing Altaem agrees, i will try and grab the rest of the details from him.

As for your comments, David

1) describing the basic facts of a rolled action's outcome is mandatory (duh)
2) describing particularly successful (6) or unsuccessful (1) aspects of a rolled action is also mandatory
3) describing other aspects of a rolled action is optional

1. yes... and generally there is an indication *before* the interpretation is given from the GM whether there is success or failure, even just a nod can be enough
2. yes, and i don't recall it *ever* being skipped in the whole session... we always found a way to explain/account for the result
3. yes, although they generally need to be related to the action that is stated before the dice roll is made

as for the statements regarding the amount of detail, i think that requiring greater narration would deny the biggest advantage this system has... it is very very fast to run.  The writeup of the session i sat in on of Altaem's campaign happened 4 days after the session, and yet i am reasonably confident that i more or less accounted for every "significant event" (read 1 or 6) on my character's part.  Because it is so simple and quick, there is more time for story development away from the dice rolls, and yet the players' own contribution can make the session itself more memorable.  At times there is a general comment about another result (eg on a "2" for equipment the GM might chip in with "your SMG is starting to heat up, you will have to be careful or it will jam soon") but i think in general we found there was enough scope for story in what we were already rolling.

the Self/Equipment/Opponent that you described is pretty accurate, you got the Opponent spot on from what i saw (although i recall Altaem mentioned something about it affecting hit locations in battle also), i personally would tend to stretch the "equipment" a little to include "environment" at times also to make it not so straightforward.

I wonder how you came to choose these, and whether they serve as optimal springboards for vivid expression.

...not to steal Altaem's thunder too much, but the "focus on" aspect that he mentioned (or was it themalloryman) means these three descriptors make more sense here from a playing perspective rather than a narrative perspective.  If you are fighting defensively, you focus on self, allowing you to reroll your "self" die ands avoid damage; if you are focussing on aggression, going for a kill shot you focus on the opponent die, to potentially increase the damage done. if you are trying to stop an ally bleeding to death in the middle of a gunfight and are ignoring the rest of the fight, again focus on the opponent (i say "other" here rather than "opponent")... a "1" on that die on a first aid check is not a pleasant prospect ^^.  If you are trying to disarm a bomb, the "equipment" die gets the focus, again the consequences of a "1" here are pretty dire!

The general impression i get from the effect of this "focus" die is that it allows a single roll to encompass a larger event than a number of rolls without the focus; one roll can be used to determin whether you disarm the bomb or not, rather than 4 or 5, because the statistics of the system mean it is not just a matter of 1 in 6 chance of dying on the one roll... you don't need a huge amount of detail in your preparation (eg a series of DC scores pre-allocated in d20 systems), just an idea of the relative difficulty modifier of the task, the character's own skill modifier, and the dice roll.  The "Equipment" Die can tell you the chances of a critical fail, with the reroll for focus, and the aggregate score of the 3 dice can tell you whether the stated goal (disarm the bomb) was achieved or whether there is still more to be done (another roll).

It is not my system, i have only had one session with it in its current form, so i am having a little difficulty putting this all in sensible form.. i hope you get the gist of the last paragraph.

The fact of the matter is that combat in this system (among other things) is resolved quickly, more or less as fast as it might happen in real life.  two guys get jumped by muggers in a back alley... in RL the fight takes all of 30 seconds before one side or the other is all down or sees the light and legs it; in the d20 system in particular this whole encounter might take from 10 mins to half an hour to play out, depending on the skills of the characters and the knowledge level of the GM and players.  in the PIE system the fight could last all of 2 minutes, and the players provided the explanation of exactly how it is that they managed to flatten the goons that were dumd enough to jump them.

gah... i think i have said enough for one night.  Hope this all makes sense to those of you who have managed to dig your way to the end.  Look forward to reading your responses.

[Altaem]

Steps for Resolving Actions:<never ignored, and must be included in the interpretation no matter how much the player may like to overlook them.  This has resulted in some amusing gameplay. 
 
e.g. Gabriel befriending caravan guards focusing on being popular (opposition).  The magnitude was good but included a 1 on self.  With no quick uptake by the player, group consensus was that Gabriel had been telling jokes and had accidentally fallen into a camp fire in his enthusiasm.  This had no negative effect on befriending the guards, but another roll had to be made to avoid burn injury.<

Quote from: David Berg

Speaking of Self / Equipment / Opposition, I wonder how you came to choose these, and whether they serve as optimal springboards for vivid expression.

They were the best I could come up with in the couple of hours before starting my current campaign.  The previous two campaigns used interpretation of expectation mainly by the GM, only my current campaign introduces the 3 colour dice and pushes the interpretation mostly onto the players.

I started by thinking about combat, as in my experience this is where RPGs slow to a crawl.  Having 3 inputs just felt like the right amount.  As I thought of each die I quickly did some lateral thinking as to how the die would apply to non combat tasks.  The unexpected bonus of the system was how brilliantly it handles negotiations and persuasion attempts.

Self: this one was clear.  Essentially how well am I performing relative to my own capabilities.

Opposition - my first thought would be to invert the roll as a measure of the competence of an enemy's resistance, which I like

Are these the best colours for all situations and RPG systems?  I don't know.
Looking back at Cyberpunk:
Self fits, but would probably be renamed Style or Slick
Opportunity also fits particularly with the high kill rate of cyberpunk weapons.
Equipment however does not fit.  Although cyberpunks are loaded with equipment, it's high tech and for the most part reliable.
That leaves one die free.  I'm afraid I'm not sold on creepy or tragic, as it's unclear how the magnitude of these would influence the success of an action.
Perhaps Empathy could be a good choice.  In combat low rolls represent sympathy with an opponent, high ones a disregard for humanity.  This could tie in nicely in a game about risking cyberpsychosis.
Of course now we've lost the environmental factors, maybe they could be included in opportunity?

If I were to run a Vampire game again I'd like one die for "The Beast" (Vampire Nature), separating strength of self from the undead advantage.  A mid-high attack score with a "1" for The Beast could have the player declaring their own involuntary frenzy.

"focus" die is that it allows a single roll to encompass a larger event than a number of rolls without the focus; one roll can be used to determin whether you disarm the bomb or not, rather than 4 or 5

On the flipside when the expectation is unclear or balanced a single roll could represent a single blow or even just an attempt a claiming an advantage.

[David Berg]

All sorts of cool stuff here.  Customizing the amount of fictional happening per die roll is a trick I love.  And I see how my Cyberpunk example was actually different from your method, as I divorced color from success.  I have lengthier comments to follow, but I just wanted to check something first:

I wish that more actions could be covered in such vivid detail by my players and by myself as GM.

I took this as an unmet design goal and something I should try to help with.  Then, from later comments, I got the sense that you already have achieved the exact desired balance between vivid detail and speed.  And then, this last comment:

	Logged

here's my blog, discussing Delve, my game in development