PIE: Player Interpretation of Expectation

[seanhess]

Ok, here's my first shot at a sample combat with PIE. I'm acting as both the GM and the player, but I'm using live rolls, so we'll see how far I get.   I'm also trying to provide explanations of the steps.

Please correct any mistakes. Thanks!

----

GM: You burst into the room and find the man in the dark cloak (your nemesis). He has the woman you saw him kidnap, and he has his knife to her throat. He looks ready to slice her if you make one bad move.  His two goonies stand in the way, clubs in hand.

With this description, I'm setting up the situational expectation. The player knows the goonies aren't that tough, they know the woman is in danger, and that the cloaked man is a real threat.

Player: I throw my knife into the cloaked man's hand, causing him to drop the knife.

The player isn't particularly awesome at knife throwing. He's a swordsman.

GM: That's going to be pretty tough, but you can do it with a remarkable action

The GM is establishing an expectation for the action?? This is intuitively how I see it working

Player: I rolled Self=5, Opposition=1, Environment=3, the total is below average. Ok, "I pull out the dagger and throw it faster than the blinking of an eye. I totally miss, and the knife sticks into the wall"

The Player doesn't think of anything for the opposition=1

GM: The cloaked man laughs at your pitiful attempt, takes your knife, and drags the girl toward the exit. The two goonies move in, surrounding you. This will make the next turn more dangerous

How do you interpret a 1 in opposition? Do the bad guys do really well, or do you somehow do less than nothing?

Player: I'm going to take care of these goonies fast! I want to kill them and chase after them right away.

GM: You'll need another remarkable action to do it before they get out the door.

Player: Alright, here goes: self=6, opposition=4, environment=1. Not quite enough. Ok, I hold them off fine, and kill one of them, but the man gets out the back door (from the magnitude failure). In fact, I manage to get between between them and the back door (self 6). I hear the door click behind me... The back door is locked, too  (environment 1).

---

Alright, that's it for now. Thanks!

[Altaem]

It's good to see you having a go.  There's no mistakes I can see, just a few things I'd do differently.
I'm assuming your player is new to PIE and requires GM prompting at this time.

GM: That's going to be pretty tough, but you can do it with a remarkable action

GM: With your skill? Luck better be on your side.  Remember to use Descriptor X on Environment, you don't want to risk hitting the woman!

How do you interpret a 1 in opposition? Do the bad guys do really well, or do you somehow do less than nothing?

You've covered it quite well, complete lack of damage to the opponents, and loss of initiative by the hero.

GM: You'll need another remarkable action to do it before they get out the door.

GM: You're pressed for time, so you better use Descriptor Y on Opposition to maximize your damage.  May I suggest you instead simply barge past the goons?  You'll probably succeed (GM speak for 9+), and can use Descriptor Z on Self to move quickly.

I hear the door click behind me... The back door is locked, too  (environment 1).

This is an interesting narration of the 1 for environment.  It's rare for a player to cut of their own retreat, sounds more like a GM interpretation when the player hesitates. Still, it's perfectly valid, so the GM should just go with it.

[seanhess]

Cool, thanks

This is an interesting narration of the 1 for environment.  It's rare for a player to cut of their own retreat, sounds more like a GM interpretation when the player hesitates. Still, it's perfectly valid, so the GM should just go with it.

Yeah, well, it turned out to be harder to switch roles in my head than I thought Ok, cool. I think I understand it well enough to try a real playtest. I'll let you know when I do.

[soundmasterj]

This might be an empty technicality, but - I don´t get it. I´d think it works like this:

Expected performance against lone goblin: easy win.
Expected performance against goblin lord: costly win.

Why´d you need "modifiers" on top of that? You even said players could more or less "expect" them (cf. name of game).

If we agree on fudging sucking, that´s cool, I think your mechanic is too nice to get spoiled by this cruel practice.

[Altaem]

I don't know if I agree or disagree with you...
I've been worried about this one for a while now, I think it was seanhess who first expressed confusion over unopposed and opposed rolls.

[quote = soundmasterj]Expected performance against lone goblin: easy win.
Expected performance against goblin lord: costly win.[/quote]
Possibly that's all there is to it?
maybe opposed rolls and modifiers are all redundant?

Goblin slaying isn't the best example, its too simplistic a case.
What about gun fights?  My experience here is that fixed difficulties to hit are required, and opposed rolls used to resolve return fire.
Have you got any alternative ideas how the gunfight from page 2 could have been run?

[soundmasterj]

Hey, sorry, I´m in a hurry, but I will check back later today.

I think you aren´t putting as much faith into your system as Ido. I think: It´s all there! It´s working perfectly!

Kick out opposed rolls and modifiers based on the game-world realities. Think up some other nice rules.

Here´s how I would handle gunfights: Conflict Resolution. Don´t have party 1 roll for shooting; now, party 2 shoots back, party 2 dodges; instead, do it like this: Gunfight, we vs. they other guys, expected results: costly victory. I roll, I get an "expected" result, so I get to narrate how I get wounded, but I win. I narrate: I draw my guns, jump behind my crate, the other guys´ bullets barely missing me. I get up behind my cover, three shots from the hip, two bad guys down, I duck behind cover again, bullets guzzing inches above my hairline. I get up again, but their shooting hadn´t stopped yet, I get hit in the arm, but I shrug it off and put the last man down.
But let´s say we want to zoom in onto this gunfight. So, we say, in addition to the above, there was another guy and my "expected" result was "shoot henchmen dead, get wounded slightly". So now I roll again against the boss. Epxected result: I wound him, but have to run afterwards. I roll... etc.

Or: what I want to do is assasinate someone (Hitler). Expected result: he gets wounded, but I get discovered. I roll, I get "better than expected", I narrate how he´s dead, but I´m still discovered.

Basically, zoom in on conflicts players care about and split them into sub-conflicts.

(I´d maybe give additional dice and have players take best 3 out of 4 for bonus dice or worst 3 out of 4 for penalty dice, but these should be metamechanical in nature, not based on anything already covered by your nifty expectation mechanic; ie., nothing in the physical reality of the situation should reflect on anything but the expected results. Otherwise, well, redundancy.)

I´ll read up on your gunfight example later this day, but I´m pretty sure your rules cover it adequately.

[seanhess]

Possibly that's all there is to it?
maybe opposed rolls and modifiers are all redundant?

Exactly, and I agree with soundmasterj. The mechanic is all there -- it's all you need. I keep thinking I need opposed rolls for some stuff, but that's only when I'm thinking about actions in a more traditional way.  You can zoom in on a "combat round" as much as you want, but the combat round is resolved in one big roll. I felt from the beginning that the opposed roles were a departure from your original idea.

Hmm... here's another issue my traditional brain is yelling at me about. What about multiple players acting in the same combat?  No... here, it works fine -- each person can either act in addition to avoiding death, or just avoid death... either way, they're involved.

Interesting. It really is a matter of trust, and for some reason giving up old ideas scares me, causing me to fall back on tired old mechanics. It's more a matter of re-wiring your brain (which is why many people here probably never had an issue)

[soundmasterj]

Ok, I´ve read up on your gunfight and I don´t see any problem.

Here are two cool things your rules allow for:

Shoot-out at noon.
We decide to zoom out. Expectation: I win, but I get wounded. We roll 3d6: 11. I narrate how I draw first, I hit him, but falling, he manages to fire one last shoot, hitting me in the leg.

We decide to zoom in. I say, I try drawing faster! Expectation: I do, but only slightly. We roll 3d6. Result: 11. I narrate how I reach for my gun as soon as I see him blink. My gun´s out, I aim, but he is ready, too. I say, I try shooting him dead before he manages to shoot me! Expectation: I shoot him dead, but he´s got one shot. We roll: 3d6. 11. I narrate me firing from the hip, my trusted gun whispering to me of death and glory, his body shooking. But he shot, too. You say, let´s see how you take the bullet. Expectation: I get wounded, but survive. We roll 3d6. 11. I narrate how the bullet enter my leg, how I let out a grunt, how, bowing down onto my wounded leg, I see him lying dead.

Nifty! Rather than modifiers, what you need is, in my opinion, rules allowing players to decide when to zoom out, when to zoom in - or clearly formulated ideas on how to get players (including GM, of course) to agree on the zooming level. It´s pretty genre-dependant, I´d guess.

Next thing is: What bugs me about "opposed rolls" in this case is that I wouldn´t understand your rules as concerning character performance, but general scene resolution. Example: shoot-out at noon. Expectation: I get shot down because Cowboy Jim is just the fastest guy around. We roll. I get a 14! Yay! I narrate how at exactly the right time, the last sunbeam gets reflected by the sleeping sherrifs badge, blinding Cowboy Jim. That´s when I shoot him dead. So, I exceeded expectations not because I did better than expected, but due to circumstance. So, your rules provide for perfect directors´ stance (what I like).

That´s how I read your dice.

I´m not sure how to do conflict between (non-GM) players, though.

Two questions:
- A definitive answer on how "local criticality" and how MECHANICAL penalties and rewards work, please. No examples, 3 straight sentences of bare mechanical rules.
- Does anybody know the statistics of opposed vs. unopposed rolls? I´d think opposed rolls are less random (tighter bell curve) due to more dice being involved, I´m not sure though.

[David Berg]

Altaem,

I think the point of my response got lost.  I probably tried to cram too much into one post.

My main point about the Descriptors was not about how they might determine outcomes, but about their primary purpose, and which ones would best serve that purpose.  My understanding is that the purpose is to inspire contribution of enjoyable detail to task resolution.  That is, detail that everyone else playing thinks is cool.

My experience has been that everyone else playing gets bored if the detail contributed is repetitive and predictable.  Beyond that, "badass" detail loses its cool factor quickly, and "internal motivation" detail is only interesting if there's a very specific, rare, perfect harmony between a character trait and a situation.

I don't claim to know how fast your group will get tired of "I do a ninja move with Master Sworsdman!" and "I'm motivated by my Honor Code to slay these scum!"  Maybe they never will, and you can just chalk that part up to my taste.  However, I think variety, concreteness, ability to apply in multiple situations, and at least a small dose of non-obvious, counter-intuitive challenge will serve any group well.  It'll help keep those detail contributions fresh and interesting for everyone.

Ps,
-David

[David Berg]

Just so I know, do you intend to scrap:

Self = PC defense
Opposition = PC offense
Environment = equipment

and go with:

Self = PC performance (relevant to O&D)
Opposition = enemy performance (relevant to O&D)
Environment = objects not on either combatant's person, or forces not in either combatant's control

or combine the two, or let the player pick, or something else?

[David Berg]

Altaem,

My understanding of the example you provided with the swordsman vs Orcs is that, in each instance where something went well or poorly for a PC, the mandates of the rules allowed a lot of room for interpretation.  In some games, this would turn into a back-and-forth effort to test the limits of how much advantage could be taken.  That can be fun, but more often it sucks.

Example: player rolls Self 1, Environment 6, Opposition 6
Player: 13 = this goes very well for me.  Opp6 = I decapitate the Orc in front of me.  Env6 = one of the wagons next to us is tipped over by a panicking horse and lands on the other two Orcs.  It doesn't hurt them, but it pins them.  Self1 = I didn't see the wagon either, and it bangs my left arm, giving me a nasty bruise.
GM: That's way too good for a 13!  Opp6 = you gut the Orc in front of you.  He's a goner, but he lunges toward you for one final attack.  Env6 = the Orcs dodge the falling wagon.  This momentarily distracts them, and you'll have a +1 to hit next round.  Self1 = you assumed you'd killed the first Orc, and are unprepared when he stabs you in the chest.  Take shitloads of damage.
Player: No way!  That sucks!  Mine was fine!
GM: No!  Yours sucked!  Mine is fine!

I get the impression that your play has avoided this.  I am guessing this is because (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.

Does that sound right, or is there another explanation?

If you've already stated other rules that narrow the wiggle room, I apologize for missing them.  This thread is long and all the info you've provided is spread out.

Thanks,
-David

[soundmasterj]

Self = PC performance (relevant to O&D)
Opposition = enemy performance (relevant to O&D)
Environment = objects not on either combatant's person, or forces not in either combatant's control

This. Don´t do it any other way. Do this.

Concerning your concerns, David, way I see it is: you set stakes (expectations) BEFORE you roll so there is no arguing afterwards. This is conflict resolution, there is no back and forth. Also, f I understand it correctly, you never get wounds from local criticalitiy (1 or 6), only from expectation. Individual dice only tell you WHERE the damage comes from, not how much it is; that´s expectations. Right? Please clarify, Altaem.

[themaloryman]

Well, this is getting complex very quickly...

I think something that might be worth pointing out is that in some ways (all respect to Altaem) PIE doesn't do anything so radically different to any other role-play system. All roleplays are about setting up expectation (I am attempting a difficult action, so I am going to need a good total result to pull this off) and then allowing the dice to dictate whether that expectation is met, failed or exceeded. What it does is it allows a lot of the complexities of concrete bonuses and penalties to be stripped out of things, because the probability curve is so tight. But the beauty of PIE is that you can Zoom In or Out as much or as little as you want (those are brilliant terms, BTW - respect to whoever thought them up!). You can complicate it if you want to get detail from a fight scene, or want to minimise risk. An apalling fail on a single action probably won't kill you. An apalling fail on a whole fight very seriously might. PIE is flexible, and that means it can be what you want.

I agree that fudging results is bad, but I'm not the GM in this instance, and I know the temptation to fudge when I have been. If you can fduge by a single number and therefore not ruin someone's game, it's not a bad idea all the time.

Anway, gotta shoot - work to do! - but I'll come back when I've thought a bit more.

[soundmasterj]

You are missing another important point: PIE not only helps with determining if, but also why (cf. local criticality, Self Opposition Enviroment). Even though I´m still waiting for Altaem to explain them to me

I brought the zooming terminology to this thread, but I´m pretty sure they are at least backtraceable to TSoY.

[themaloryman]

Mm, true. Was forgetting, which might seem impossible, but I played the system in a previous iteration when it didn't do that. To me the different 'whys' are a bonus to a system that was already very good. It just means allowing the dice to suggest a direction to the plotting not otherwise there. But I think the crux of my argument stands. This is about working out how probable a result is, and letting the dice roll determine how the actual result reflected the initial intent and expectation. All RPGs do that. This one just does it with colour. I mean, it takes a certain kind of brilliant lateral thinking to distill all this other stuff and get the simplicity that Altaem has come up with, but his system doesn't do anything totally new or mind-blowing. It just does it in a really, really fast, simple and flexible way.

I don't think this stuff is copyright though (albeit that I'll let Altaem confirm or deny that!) and I'm sure you're welcome to invent your own game elements. Altaem has a great mind for putting this stuff together, but now he's provided the genesis of the idea, he won't have an issue with other people using and changing his rules to suit their own contexts and paying circles.