News:

Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.

Main Menu

PIE: Player Interpretation of Expectation

Started by Altaem, October 07, 2008, 01:34:01 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

seanhess

QuoteI 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

Exactly. As a player, I normally describe my actions in terms of priorities. For instance, this little interaction I had via email:

I set up in the street in order to make the kill concealed in a pile of rubbish. I'll take the shot, then ditch the gun and run like hell.

My priorities are:

1)       Don't die.
2)       Don't get captured.
3)       Make the kill

If at any point it looks like these priorities are going to be lost, I'll bug out straight away and run, taking the rife with me if possible.

This whole interaction was played out by the GM (Altaem) for me, making rolls and recording the actions for me as I went. I think the entire set up, shot, and (reasonably dramatic) escape was accomplished in about three rolls, details fleshed out by dice.

soundmasterj

QuoteThis 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?
Jona

Altaem

Quoteit 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.

QuoteAltaem 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.

QuoteHowever, 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.
"Damn! I should have turned invisible." - Stephen Moore aka Altaem
"...there are more watermelon-sized potholes nowadays than ever." - another Stephen Moore
"Passion Fruit: Alchemy of the Egg" - yet another Stephen Moore

soundmasterj

Simply put; Invoking the lumply principle: rules make us agree. PIE makes us agree in between setting stakes and halfway through narrating outcome. However, setting stakes and expectations is GM fiat (right?) and outcome narration is probably player-controlled, supported by dice, but subject to GM fiat in terms of reach and follow-up, right?
Well, that´s not inherently bad, I´d guess IF there are problems, it´d be there: a player thinks his character should have a better expected result, another player or the GM thinks the narrator of the outcome is reaching too far (hey, it only said yo could kill Lord Evil, not take his magic ring and free the princess afterwards, too!). While I know of no rules making this unambigously/fair/not subject to anyones fiat/whatever, guidelines could be nice (like, could democratic group consensus overwrite GM fiat of expectations? When to end outcome narration - may it include setting the next scene, how far may it go? etc).
Jona

themaloryman

I guess you could have rules for ensuring group cohesion, but we've never needed them. We're all pretty relaxed and I think (dare I say it) mature about it, and people don't take things personally. That's even been the case with some of the very cut-throat PVP stuff that's been going on in this campaign, and though we might undermine each other's characters, we're not fighting about it. Certainly we'll normally let a few little things slide to ensure everyone has fun. I'm sure if there ever were a major disagreement, we would do what we do with minor ones, and talk them out. I suppose if you have a particularly fractious group of players you might need to take steps to ensure agreement, but personally I tend to think it just means a few people need to grow up! :)

Regarding Altaem's GM style, I guess it's true that we hand him a lot of responsibility, and he'll take on what he needs to, though as he mentioned, he's done a lot to try to hand it back to us recently, which has been fun too. But the crux of the issue is that we trust him. We trust his grip on statistics (which is far better than any of ours) and his knowledge of the world he GMs, and therefore his ability to set reasonable expectations. We trust him to listen to our objections and take them into consideration. Mostly we just trust him to GM in a way that will mean we all have fun, and to do his best to ensure that the experience is a satisfying balance between realism, drama and comedy. If you can't trust your GM with that stuff, why play with them at all? For us that's enough, because we have those friendships. Others might need rules, I guess. The example of the email play I submitted wasn't meant to be a reflection of GM style, but of the specific 'prioritised actions' I was talking about. It worked for us, because of who we are and our circumstances. We might have done it differently had it played differently, but as it happens it played out nicely.

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.
Jona

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:

Quote from: David Berg on November 06, 2008, 01:27:20 PM
(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.
here's my blog, discussing Delve, my game in development

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.
"Damn! I should have turned invisible." - Stephen Moore aka Altaem
"...there are more watermelon-sized potholes nowadays than ever." - another Stephen Moore
"Passion Fruit: Alchemy of the Egg" - yet another Stephen Moore

soundmasterj

What I think is quite nice is how you could easily change to a roll 3, keep highest die, the higher the better - mechanic or a number of other ways of evaluating the dice if you didn´t like the mathematics you got right now and it wouldn´t change what is cool about PIE.
Jona

themaloryman

I was reflecting on the 'focus' element of PIE, and a thought came to me. At the moment I feel like the ability to declare a focus for your action is a little bit neutered. It's there certainly, in the ability to reroll if you want to, but it's a little so-so. An alternative would be that, once you declare a focus, you can 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

I hit the left-most guard in the upper-torso and he tumbles back. As he falls I quickly shift right and fire another shot. I'm assuming that the roll as a whole is not good enough for two kills, so he flinches away, spoiling his attempt to draw on me. Unfortunately, I've sacrificed my position to do it, and left myself wide open to the guy in the middle charging me with his knife.

Forcing narration of the lowered stat makes this a sacrifice you would think twice before making. You might also want to put an upper limit on how many points you can shift, and certainly shifted points would not give you XP, I wouldn't think.

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.
"Damn! I should have turned invisible." - Stephen Moore aka Altaem
"...there are more watermelon-sized potholes nowadays than ever." - another Stephen Moore
"Passion Fruit: Alchemy of the Egg" - yet another Stephen Moore