PIE: Player Interpretation of Expectation

[Altaem]

Speed is more to do with game immersion.  Adding colour will improve on any RPG session.  Assessing a mechanical system out of character, such as rolling dice, consulting lookup tables, even the GM pausing to read game notes; All these things cause gaps in the immersion.  Too many gaps and you're forced to draw maps to resolve combats, and combat actions degenerate into "I shoot the bad guy".

So speed is partly to keep the game moving, so lots can be covered in a single session.
Mainly speed allows players to stay in character the whole time.

In PIE an occasional roll will turn out unexpectedly and slow the game down.  But its the interpretation of these rolls that allow for character development and flesh out the game world with things never imagined by the GM.  I cherish those moments as they often become the highlights of a game session.

[Altaem]

I took this as an unmet design goal and something I should try to help with.

Thank you for trying to help.  It's quite possible that I'd already developed an ideal solution, but had not yet played enough sessions to realize this.  Remember this is a play testing forum and the the rules may undergo many subtle changes between sessions.

I still find player give their briefest descriptions while in combat.  I take this to be a failure on my part, as I have not clearly defined the boundaries they are able to work within.

[Shadow_80]

Speed is more to do with game immersion.  Adding colour will improve on any RPG session.  Assessing a mechanical system out of character, such as rolling dice, consulting lookup tables, even the GM pausing to read game notes; All these things cause gaps in the immersion.  Too many gaps and you're forced to draw maps to resolve combats, and combat actions degenerate into "I shoot the bad guy".

this is essentially what appeals to me about this system; in other systems once you know the system well enough you can run the session while maintaining a high level of player immersion in the story, but i have found it to be very hard work; as a GM i come out at the other end felling like i have run a marathon.  This system allows you to use minimal notes (eg bad guys are weedy, reasonable success (read average roll or better) required to take one out), and palms some of the narrative off to the players, taking some of the burden from the GM.

While all of this may not suit all GM's, i think that for players who are not into the real technical side (character builds, stat min/maxing etc) it is an excellent system, and a very easy way to introduce new players to RPing.

[Altaem]

PIE Gunfight
This is a fictitious example for the purpose of clarifying the rules and focusing on precise roles of player and GM.  This is to say it hasn't yet happened in a game session, though I may use it in the near future.

GM – "You enter the pub; it's gloomy inside, lit sporadically with cheap electric bulbs.  There's quite a crowd tonight with a noisy drinking game to the right and poker being played near the stairwell on the left.  Gabriel is the first to enter and notices the mercenary leaning against the bar, drink in hand.  The man looks oddly familiar, though you can't place where you've seen him before.  Your eyes make contact for a moment, before his face turns into an expression of shock.  The glass shatters on the floor as he reaches for his pistol."  Action Gabriel?  The rest of you are still outside and may do nothing this round.
Player – "I strafe to the left while drawing my pistol and firing a 3 round burst at the mercenary."  I'm focusing on Self and moving quickly into cover.
GM – Good choice!  "The mercenary also strafes to his left while firing a quick burst, but he's focusing on opposition, going for the head shot."  It's an opposed roll.  Despite the poor light, and rapid movement; it's practically point blank, only 3-4 meters.  "Above Average" is the base hit value.
Player – I've rolled 12 with 6 for Environment, I'm choosing not to re-roll my 4 for Self.
GM – It's very close, but you're the faster.
Player – Ok, so that's one bullet into the mercenary.  "I crash into a lone businessman knocking him to the ground causing his beer to splash all over him.  I overturn his table using it to shield myself from all incoming gunfire."
GM – "Just in time too!  Three rounds thud into the table. The wood splinters not an inch from your nose.  There's a brief moment of silence as the businessman's papers float to the ground."

Using Environment of "6" for total attack immunity is a slight bending of the rules.  In light of the mercenary aiming for a head shot it's a very believable instinctive move.  The inclusion of the businessman adds colour and a possible future implication of the action.  This encourages the GM to allow the action without editing.  Without the businessman the GM would likely have a single round hit the character before the table is fully into position.  Note that the businessman is the creation of the player, while the papers are added by the GM, and may even form a future plot device.

Rules:
Based on skill, range, movement and lighting both combatants require "Above Average" (11+) to hit with one bullet.  For every success band above this they'll score one additional hit (13+, 16+).  Due to the deadliness of bullets, base hit values are very rarely easier than "Below Average".
Highest magnitude fires and resolves all their bullets first.
Standard pistols do 3 damage per bullet.
If the lower magnitude takes 6+ damage, their shots are assumed to miss regardless of their own magnitude value.
A roll of "6" on opposition causes your first bullet to do 2x damage, and additional "6" on either of the other die upgrades this to 4x damage.
A "1" on opposition never causes damage.
Additional bullets all do base damage.
A "6" on Self while moving into/utilising cover negates all damage.
A "1" on Self leaves you remaining in the open for the start of next round. (+2 bonus of magnitude for all opponents)

Environment has no concrete meaning but is available for free interpretation.

Every full 3 damage suffered result in -1 on all future magnitudes.
At -4 magnitude you can no longer oppose actions.
At -6 you're unconscious.
At -8 dead.

Nasty I know, even a single bullet can knock you completely out of a fight.

[David Berg]

Given your play goals, I see two solutions to slow, boring combats.  One is to speed through them.  The other is to pack them with vivid detail.  As a GM, I often want to do the former, because it's less work for me, and there's often some investigation going on that everyone's eager to get back to.  At other times, though, when I introduce a combat situation that has interesting color and strategic options at a climactic moment in the course of the PCs' mission, such combats wind up being huge highlights of a campaign.

I think much of the excitement that combats can generate derives "Will we fail?" and "Will we die?"  If the PCs never die and never fail, fighting is probably one of the less interesting things for them to do, and milking combats efficiently for whatever color they can provide before moving on seems sensible.  On the other hand, if failure happens in your games, and death at least seems like it could happen (maybe someone's inches away at some point), then there might be motivation to make a fight something more.  I'm seeing that motivation in your gunfight example.

Let me throw out a hypothetical situation:

Three player characters walk into a room where three armed humanoids are preparing to carve up a chained child.  The humanoids are of an unfamiliar race no one's encountered before.  They are gaunt and hunched, with pale eyes that may have a slight glow.  The PCs wish to save the child and kill the badguys.  The GM has in mind that these will be tough opponents.

So, how many rolls is that?  Well, I can see multiple ways for this to go:

Mode 1:
GM just says, "You're evenly matched," before any specific intents are announced.  The players then announce broad intentions like, "I'm going to focus on External for the whole fight, protecting the child," "I'm going gung ho to hack this Opposition to bits!" and "Self!  I'm trying not to get killed!"  The GM figures the cleanest way to resolve this is to have the enemies' actions be directly opposed -- one charges, one defends, one goes for the kid.  GM requires "Above Avg", rolls are made.  With rerolls, everyone succeeds, and they narrate how they kill the badguys and save the child.  We're done in 3 minutes.

Mode 2:
GM lets his description speak for itself.  Are these enemies haggard weaklings, or possessed of magical might?  The players want to feel the situation out before committing.  One says, "I take a swing," another says, "I dart over near the child", the last says, "I hurl a rock at one."  They're curious -- are these things afraid of taking damage?  Will they attack?  Where's their focus more -- on us or the child?  The GM has his ideas for these enemies motives, and he has them respond accordingly.  The first round of rolls provides context for the next, and that sets up the next, etc.  In the end, the combat takes half an hour, but is filled with vivid details.  The badguys' eyes glow when they do certain moves, there are a couple near misses on eviscerating the child, PCs have to swap positions when one of them gets hurt, there's all sorts of shouting as the enemies try to intimidate and the PCs try to coordinate.

Mode 3:
As per #1, but instead of interpreting "Above Avg" as victory, the GM interprets it as progress.  The first player begins narrating, "I chop it's head off," when the GM interrupts, "or at least you would have if it wasn't so fast to dodge.  You cut its neck and stagger it, but it's still standing."  (I take this possibility form Shadow80's example of defusing the bomb.)  A second round of rolls is required.  The combat winds up taking 10 minutes, with an amount of color in between #1 and #2.

How do you answer whether mode 1, 2, or 3 happens?
- does the GM have a mode in mind pre-encounter?
     - is it based on drama in the story?
     - is it based on likelihood of success/failure?
- is the mode chosen as the encounter begins, based on the mood at the table at that particular moment?
     - is it the GM's job to read the players and guess?
     - is there a way for the players to communicate their desires to the GM?
     - is there a metagame discussion to achieve consensus?
- can the encounter shift from one mode to another midway through, to adapt to the mood at the table? (again, same 3 communication sub-questions apply)

Ps,
-David

[David Berg]

much of the excitement that combats can generate derives "Will we fail?"

typo -- should say "derives from"

[David Berg]

Picking up an earlier topic, before I forget... I can see two ways to do the 3 variables per resolution roll:

Variables as components of success/failure
This is what you're doing, and I think it makes perfect sense to have one die cover each side in a conflict ("Self" and "Opposition").  I dislike "Equipment", as my equipment could be rolled into Self, and my adversary's equipment could be rolled into Opposition.  "External" is on point, I think, though I might change the name to "Environmental", to encourage players to interact and contribute to the imagined sense of place (one of my favorite types of color).

Variables as color on top of success/failure
The sum of the three dice determines success/failure.  Each individual die has a second, separate meaning, regarding some dimension of color that doesn't have any inherent connection to success/failure.  This is where I was going with "creepy" and "tragic".  Instead of providing inspiration for how (functionally) something happened, this would provide inspiration for how (aesthetically) something happened.

If you go with the latter, you might open up options for a higher level of inspired contribution during combat (e.g., each player writes 3 variables on their character sheet, reflecting the types of color they're most interested in; or the group confers and picks 3 to share).  Or not.  Just an idea.  Hybrids might also be worth pondering.

[Altaem]

Thank you David, that was a post well worth waiting for.

...As a GM, I often want to [speed through slow boring combats], because it's less work for me...

I find this a fascinating comment; in my experience as a player, one trick of a flustered GM is to throw the players into a slow combat to give them time to think.  I'd never regard running a combat as work.

I think much of the excitement that combats can generate derives "Will we fail?" and "Will we die?"

I'm yet to kill a player in any PIE campaign.  But failure is relatively common and death is definitely an option.  I'm a believer in having firm consequences for any action.  This session you break into the home of the most powerful man in the city, next session his goons break your kneecaps...   

How do you answer whether mode 1, 2, or 3 happens?
- does the GM have a mode in mind pre-encounter?
     - is it based on drama in the story?
     - is it based on likelihood of success/failure?
- is the mode chosen as the encounter begins, based on the mood at the table at that particular moment?
     - is it the GM's job to read the players and guess?
     - is there a way for the players to communicate their desires to the GM?
     - is there a metagame discussion to achieve consensus?
- can the encounter shift from one mode to another midway through, to adapt to the mood at the table? (again, same 3 communication sub-questions apply)

Short Answer:
Yes to all the above, they're all valid.

Long Answer:
Umm... I need to think about this!
Ideally it should be based on drama and likelihood of success/failure.  Indirectly this is the case, but this is not the root cause. 
Let's go back to the core of PIE, the Expectation. 
The GM supplies the Expectation. 
A player's "round" consists of; declare action, roll, and interpret.  Players will rarely state intent, but instead jump straight to resolution.  The size of this jump, or round length, is based on what action they can expect to succeed in.
If the players are in total control of the situation; a single roll, or roll per player can suffice.
If a player has a strong advantage; each roll may dispatch 1-3 opponents based on magnitude.
If the balance of power hangs in the balance; each round may represent 1-3 blows landing or other shifts in the balance.
If a player is at a disadvantage; a round may attempt to block a single attack.
In particular situations with opposed rolls with neither party likely to succeed quickly, a round may represent 30-60 seconds game time.  e.g. Gunfighters trading long range fire from good cover. 
If the advantage is unknown; treat it as hanging in the balance and expect GM editing of actions until the Expectation becomes clear.

Note that it's quite possible for different party members to be using different length rounds.
e.g.  A party of 3 adventurers is ambushed by 3 orcs.  In the opening moments the 2 warriors need to roll "Above Average" to dispatch their attackers.  Meanwhile the frantically defending mage must roll either "Remarkable Success" or resolve 3 rounds; whichever comes first.  Any roll of "Below Average" by any party member results in taking a wounding hit.

can the encounter shift from one mode to another midway through...?

Not only can it shift, but it should be shifting constantly, moving with the Expectation as each action changes the situation.

Ok that handles the mechanical solution.  Now let's take a look from a dramatic point of view.  In literature a relaxed setting is explored with long paragraphs full of flowing description.  An action scene is packed with short sharp sentences.  In the same way actions can be long when the players are in control, but shorten as control is lost.  Actually that just restated the mechanical solution.

What about changing action length based on risk and speed?
I admit I'm moving into brain storming here.
Short actions:
lower risk, lower reward, less affected by magnitude, less efficient in game time.
Long actions:
higher risk, higher reward, greatly affected by magnitude, more efficient in game time.

Three player characters walk into a room where three armed humanoids are preparing to carve up a chained child.  The humanoids are of an unfamiliar race no one's encountered before.  They are gaunt and hunched, with pale eyes that may have a slight glow.  The PCs wish to save the child and kill the badguys.  The GM has in mind that these will be tough opponents.

unfamiliar race = Expectation unknown
wish to save the child = speed is of the essence
For the players this is a conflict of requirements, which should result in a fun role-play.

I'll assume I'm playing my swordsman from previous examples.  I could be cautious, drawing my sword and engaging one of the creatures.  I'd focus on self, weighing up the creatures defences; if the opportunity presents itself I'd disarm it.  A short action, but a reasonable one, very little call for GM editing here.

With the child's life at stake I throw caution to the wind.  Without even pausing to draw a weapon I charge across the room body slamming the creature closest to the child.  I'm focusing on self, maximising my charge speed.  This is a short action, but a very fast one.  However with unknown opposition, the risk is very high and the action is subject to potentially high levels of GM editing.  I'll just pray I roll high!

[Altaem]

Variables as components of success/failure
Variables as color on top of success/failure
Hybrids might also be worth pondering

There's gold here, I can feel it.  Now to work out how to refine it.
Play testing has shown time and again the value of the Variables as components.  There use and indeed their forced inclusion have resulted in some in the best role-playing moments I've experienced.
However I am not nearly so sure I've captured the ultimate 3 Variables, or if indeed an ultimate set of 3 Variables exist.  Broadly speaking, the set of Self, Opposition, Environment, cover any situation I can think of.  But they're a little sterile lacking a certain flavour.

What if players had a list of appropriate Descriptors for their characters?  These would replace the original focus mechanic.  Essentially the Descriptor replaces one Variable before the die roll and allows that one die to be re-rolled on the condition that the Descriptor is added to the interpretation.  In addition the critical range could be expanded with 1-2 critical failure, 5-6 critical success.  The GM could reward good interpretation with a bonus of 1-2 on the magnitude, making the Descriptor a little like a semi-generic skill bonus.

Take a character with Descriptor: Creepy. 
Jumping a long line into a nightclub and daring the bouncers to touch you?  Switch Self for Creepy.
Letting the cops take you in quietly, before beating their heads in with their own batons? Switch Opposition for Creepy.
Sneaking past 2 kid's bedrooms to assassinate a man and leave his wife asleep next to the corpse?  Switch Environment for Creepy.

I'll stop here, before I pollute this idea.

[Shadow_80]

having now read the last post thoroughly and deleted the response i had begun...

i like the general feel of the idea, the traits generated in character generation would then become a little more meaningful (currently all they seem to be is ammunition for arguing with the GM interpretation of the magnitiude) if they were to provide the desciptor lists.

...again i have deleted a large chunk of this post, because i am tending to ramble and write "what if"s that don't really add anything significant to the concept... like Altaem i don't want to pollute the idea with my bias.

Overall, i would like to see this in action in some form before i pass any further judgement.

[David Berg]

There's a lot of stuff here I like.  I don't wanna divert anything, but I'm gonna indulge myself in a few comparisons to my own play, and cross my fingers and hope that they're relevant.

...As a GM, I often want to [speed through slow boring combats], because it's less work for me...

I find this a fascinating comment; in my experience as a player, one trick of a flustered GM is to throw the players into a slow combat to give them time to think.  I'd never regard running a combat as work.

The way I run combats works well in some ways, and poorly in others.  In any fight where the outcome's in doubt (in my game, 99% of them), I go through combat time in tiny intervals (a round covers ~6 seconds).  I 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.  There are two main payoffs for the players:

1) vivid detail that's fun for its own sake, making the experience more real and memorable
2) lots of springboards for strategizing -- you improve your chance to defeat the badguy if you can back him onto lower ground, maneuver behind him, turn him so his back's to your comrade, trip him into the pit of lava, lure him under the loose boulder, etc. -- my players love it when they come up with such ideas, pursue them, and get a chance to pull them off

Now, getting on the same page about so many details often takes a frustrating amount of play time.  Sometimes players are eager to do something, and declare action without having fully processed all the relevant factors, later complaining "I wouldn't have done that if I'd known that other thing!"  So speed is a problem.

My game attempts to factor in just about every variable that might decide life or death in a fight.  My players love the fact that if one of them stole right shin armor off a corpse, there is a realistic (i.e. small but not trivial) chance that that'll save his life.  Of course, they don't want to be burdened with a bunch of rolls that calculate whether that happens in a given round, so I do all the mechanical stuff (allowing them to stay immersed).  That + communicating environmental details = a lot of work for the GM.  Getting it right takes some care and thus some time, which compounds the speed problem.

All in all, the results introduced into the fiction are excellent, but the process of getting them there is mediocre.

One of the things that's exciting me now in this thread is the idea that there's a way to communicate on the fly about the level of process required at any given instant.  My players and I already do this informally (once you've backed an enemy into a confined space, there's fewer questions to be asked & answered re: spatial logistics), but I can imagine vastly improving our efficiency.

This thread is also making me seriously question how much "what would happen" fidelity is worth when directly opposed to rate of creative contribution.

Most of the key character action in my game occurs along "We have a theory... We try THIS!  What happens?" lines, so there isn't a ton of room for players narrating results.  In combat, though, once an enemy's capabilities are known, maybe that'd be a good thing to have them do while I'm consulting charts.

I'm yet to kill a player in any PIE campaign.  But failure is relatively common and death is definitely an option.  I'm a believer in having firm consequences for any action

I share your taste on all these.  I participated in a very long discussion here that covered consequences of PC actions in open-ended play.  I'm not sure if any concise insights were achieve, but if you're curious, you can check it out here.

Ideally it should be based on drama and likelihood of success/failure.  Indirectly this is the case, but this is not the root cause. 
Let's go back to the core of PIE, the Expectation. 
The GM supplies the Expectation. 
A player's "round" consists of; declare action, roll, and interpret.  Players will rarely state intent, but instead jump straight to resolution.  The size of this jump, or round length, is based on what action they can expect to succeed in.
If the players are in total control of the situation; a single roll, or roll per player can suffice.
If a player has a strong advantage; each roll may dispatch 1-3 opponents based on magnitude.
If the balance of power hangs in the balance; each round may represent 1-3 blows landing or other shifts in the balance.
If a player is at a disadvantage; a round may attempt to block a single attack.
In particular situations with opposed rolls with neither party likely to succeed quickly, a round may represent 30-60 seconds game time.  e.g. Gunfighters trading long range fire from good cover. 
If the advantage is unknown; treat it as hanging in the balance and expect GM editing of actions until the Expectation becomes clear.

I 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?)

Ok that handles the mechanical solution.  Now let's take a look from a dramatic point of view.  In literature a relaxed setting is explored with long paragraphs full of flowing description.  An action scene is packed with short sharp sentences.  In the same way actions can be long when the players are in control, but shorten as control is lost.  Actually that just restated the mechanical solution.

What about changing action length based on risk and speed?
I admit I'm moving into brain storming here.
Short actions:
lower risk, lower reward, less affected by magnitude, less efficient in game time.
Long actions:
higher risk, higher reward, greatly affected by magnitude, more efficient in game time.

I 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") or the amount of real time they take ("I lazily brush my hand over my vest, smoothly flicking away a stray hair, until my pinky reaches the pocket.  With a gentle tug, I open it, and slide my hand in against the outside fabric, not touching my body" vs "I slip my hand into my pocket").

From where you went with "risk & speed" and your examples, I thought you meant the former... but the latter sounds more akin to the literary trends you mentioned.

Your example with the swordsman charging in sounds cool & functional, I'm just fuzzy on how to generalize from that to very different situations.

I feel like I'm being dense here.  Sorry.

What if players had a list of appropriate Descriptors for their characters?  These would replace the original focus mechanic.  Essentially the Descriptor replaces one Variable before the die roll and allows that one die to be re-rolled on the condition that the Descriptor is added to the interpretation.  In addition the critical range could be expanded with 1-2 critical failure, 5-6 critical success.  The GM could reward good interpretation with a bonus of 1-2 on the magnitude, making the Descriptor a little like a semi-generic skill bonus.

I think the key on keeping the color fresh would be a strong and varied interface between situations and descriptors. 

The 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.

The less intergrated version would be just keeping in mind the approximate range and frequency of situations you plan to put your players through, and developing Descriptors that are cool in that context. 

You 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.)

My thought here would be to figure out what's the optimal dynamic of player behaviors this might achieve, and not worry about mechanics until I was clear on that.  I'd be asking myself whether the players seem to need more jumping off points, or more constraints, or more challenges, or more consistency in their contributions. 

My first thought for my own group would be "a few very different broad inspirational sources, plus optional specific refinements".  Example:
Descriptors on character sheet = Lucky, Frenzied, Guilty; Lucky list = perfect timing, perfect placement, mistaken identity; Frenzied list = shriek, do it till you can't anymore, scratch, blood, tears; Guilty list = personal flaw, innocent victim, past sins.

Possibly 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.

[themaloryman]

I think by 'long' and 'short' actions Altaem was referring to things like 'I open fire on the gang, trying to put as many down as possible while not getting shot myself'' as opposed to 'I fire one shot at the gang member then duck'. The former will be much more influenced by your roll - a low roll might even get you killed, a high one turn the tide of the fight - while the latter is a discreet action unlikely to result in your death, and equally unlikely to make any significant difference to the fight.

[themaloryman]

I'm not going to attempt any more indepth response to David's post because I'm on lunch break and it's nearly up! However, as a player I'm loving what I'm seeing here regarding using different dice for descriptors (creepy, classy, etc) as a way of shifting the game away from 'kill the bad-guys, get the money, do it again' and more into the territory of narrative. Regardless of the brilliance of the PIE systems, we still spend too much time in meta-game conversation, too much time shopping. Those things have their place, but I think the place should be smaller!

That said, I think the self and opposition (and to a lesser extent equipment) are extremely useful for driving play-narrative, as opposed to character narrative. And changing equipment to environmental is, I think, a really effective way to shift the emphasis from 'the gun in my hand' to 'the alley I'm standing in'. If there were a way to call together the course of the action and the tone of the events that would be brilliant.

Brainstorming (working with the colours we already have, so sorry if you're not familiar with this):
How about
White d6 for Self
Black d6 for Environment
Red d6 for Opposition
A d8 for Tone.

Since each character has a certain number of 'attributes' handed to them at the time of character creation, each of those could correspond to a number (say, 1 - 8!) and then optionally interpreted by the players according to what the d8 brings up.

So, an action I declared in our penultimate game and it's results, as best I can remember, with the hypothetical addition of the d8:

Hearing the automatic fire from behind me, I flick myself around, lifting my feet from the ground so that I will fall and land on my back facing the gunman. As I fall I raise my SMG to fire between my feet and try to kill the guy. I'm really keen not to shoot myself in the foot, so I focus on self.

Self: 4
Environment: 5
Opposition: 3
d8: Observant (which is one of my attributes, chosen because it's not as easy to fit to the situation as 'Quick' would be).

This could be interpreted as:
A total of 12, which would be enough to hit someone if I weren't flying through the air at the time. However, without shooting myself however, I do plunge 3 shots into the bush around him, causing him to duck, though he doesn't lose his cool. Also, I notice as he ducks that his weapon is a low-strength assault rifle, long range but with low stopping power.

Obviously that could either be edited by the GM, or allowed to stand as a 'reward' for adding the interpretation to the description.



All that, or we could have an agreed list of 'tones' (perhaps 'fortuitous, tragic, creepy, anti-climactic, up-the-ante, classy, revelatory, futile', just as the first eight that come to mind) that everyone works from. I think I prefer the idea of everyone's character being individualised though, and maybe even customised, since there's less freedom in character creation in this iteration of PIE than in other systems.

Enough now. I'm thoroughly out of lunch break!

[themaloryman]

Hmm, I seem to be about six steps behind David, on reconsideration...

[seanhess]

I may have missed this earlier, but you were talking about the different ways a character could respond to the fight with the two skilled orcs. You mentioned that he rolls two sixes and a one, then continued to describe how he "uses up" the sixes. In one case, it took both sixes to hack the orc to pieces, and in another, he used one to automatically kill and orc and disarm the other.

How did you determine the effect of the sixes?  Was it the success of the general roll that determined that he "defeated" the orc, or the sixes? I thought you had a damage system too (reading from the bullets post), but that was never mentioned in that post.

I really, really, want to start trying PIE out, but there are still too many foggy things. Could I lurk on a chat game sometime?