PIE: Player Interpretation of Expectation

[seanhess]

I think anyone who wants to get down to describing the nitty-gritty of every action as they're doing it, rather than after the fact based on the dice, as Altaem said, hasn't got the idea behind PIE.

I don't think I understood PIE until we tried a sample combat yesterday. I had been thinking that people would declare actions more explicitly before rolling, but it turns out it works best if you just agree on the general action, like "fight," then wait for the roll to decide your actions.

[themaloryman]

[soundmasterj]

This whole interaction was played out by the GM (Altaem) for me, making rolls and recording the actions for me as I went.

This is the only thing I am kinda worried about concerning PIE. Altaem seems like a very dominant GM (in all the best senses of the word), and he seems to have the ability to make players agree with him (ie., he succesfully establishes SIS through his authority, guided in every way possible by dice). However, do players always agree about both expectation and interpretation? Did anybody but Altaems group try it, or did Altaems group try it without Altaem?

[Altaem]

it turns out it works best if you just agree on the general action, like "fight," then wait for the roll to decide your actions.

That's not a bad starting point.  I prefer "fight aggressively", "fight defensively" or "fight with desperation to protect an innocent".  It gives you a stronger position to interpret the roll from.

Altaem seems like a very dominant GM (in all the best senses of the word), and he seems to have the ability to make players agree with him

15 years ago that would have been a very true statement.  These days I'm trying to shift the balance of power into the players hands.
I'd be interested to hear from my players on this one.

However, do players always agree about both expectation and interpretation?

It's not my style to provide a complete picture.  I provide those details I think are important and my players are free to edit scenes as required.  Naturally this sometimes results in misconception in the Expectation.  This generally doesn't cause a problem.  Maybe once in every 10-15 hours of play a player will feel the need to undo an action claiming the information provided was incorrect.

I've never been anything but GM in PIE, however as mentioned very early in this discussion; Shadow_80 ran a single session for themaloryman and deathglider.

[soundmasterj]

[themaloryman]

[soundmasterj]

Thing is, it obviously works in your group. It obviously works with Altaems (obviously very dominant:) ) GM-style. I was just pointing out where, in my opinion, other problems might experience trouble.

[themaloryman]

Well, sure, and they'd be fine to change the rules as necessary. We just haven't found it to be a big deal. And even changing the rules wouldn't be that big a deal. Negotiation between group members should provide a solution that works for everyone involved, I would have thought.

[David Berg]

J,
I had the same reaction you did, worried about "magical GMness".  A few pages ago in this thread, I posited this, which Altaem agreed with:

(a) the GM has final say, and the players know there's no point in arguing the GM's calls, but (b) no one minds because they trust the GM to arbitrate "fairly and realistically", which is what they want, and (c) the explicit Expectation statements keep everyone on close enough to the same page to head off huge differences of opinion.

I think that's pretty much the whole story.  To help other groups enjoy similar success, I'd suggest emphasizing "fairly and realistically" to the GM and providing some clear examples.

I GM a game with a similar mandate.  Usually I trust my own judgment, but sometimes I suspect that one of my players is more on top of the physics of the situation at hand.  So I'll ask.  "Dan, is the current of a river stronger or weaker where the river narrows?"  He'll tell me, and I'll use that.

[Altaem]

River water is faster where the river narrows.  It's also fastest on the outside of any bend.

On a different mathematical note.  I've throughly read those discussions on opposed rolls.  Thanks for soundmasterj for pointing me in that direction.
PIE is free to jump between unopposed rolls and opposed rolls.  As well as adding colour, opposed rolls add additional chaos.  That is a weaker competitor has more chance with opposed rolls than unopposed rolls.
I don't see that being a problem, PIE can deal with more colour = more chaos.
I haven't bothered to check the mathematics of it, I just know from all our play testing this works.

[soundmasterj]

[themaloryman]

i]either reroll that dice or elect to transfer some of the total from another dice onto the area you focussed on.
 
For instance:

I kill the guard on the left and then fire a quick snap at the guard on the right in hopes of getting them both before either can shoot back. My focus is to kill them both as fast as possible so no one shoots me back.

Roll: Self 4; Environ 5; Opposition 4

Not good enough. To even have a chance of pulling that off, even with your high skill in pistol, you need a 6 in opposition.

Hmm, well then I transfer two points from my Self Roll into Opposition. Now my roll is:

Roll: Self 2; Environ 5; Opposition 6

or elect to transfer some of the total from another dice onto the area you focussed on.
 
For instance:

I kill the guard on the left and then fire a quick snap at the guard on the right in hopes of getting them both before either can shoot back. My focus is to kill them both as fast as possible so no one shoots me back.

Roll: Self 4; Environ 5; Opposition 4

Not good enough. To even have a chance of pulling that off, even with your high skill in pistol, you need a 6 in opposition.

Hmm, well then I transfer two points from my Self Roll into Opposition. Now my roll is:

Roll: Self 2; Environ 5; Opposition 6

[John Blaz]

Not sure if this has been asked yet, but is there a download available of your rules-to-date? I would really like to try this system out.

[Altaem]

Sorry, this forum is all we have.  Seeing as we're no longer role playing that's unlikely to change in the near future.