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.

The player rolls for the hero; there is no need for the orc to be rolled for.  Any roll of “Below Average” or better will dispatch the orc cleanly.  “Poor Action” would result in the orc being slain but he hero taking a wounding hit in the process.  “Dismal Performance” the orc wounds the hero and puts up a fight for another round of combat.

Dice Use:
In it’s current version, PIE uses three D6 each of a different colour, representing Self, Equipment and Opposition.  The total value is used to determine the magnitude of success or failure for any action, while the colours provide insight into the interpretation. 

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.

Expectation: In isolation the swordsman’s skill can handle two of the orcs, and his fine chain mail can be counted on to resist a third.  Given enough time to play cat and mouse; slaying all three orcs is a given, with the swordsman lightly wounded or exhausted or both.  But there’s no time.  Other caravan members require urgent assistance and more orcs are emerging from the woods.     

The player declares an aggressive attack on the orcs, seizing any opening to dispatch the orcs as quickly as possible.
The roll is 13 (Remarkable Action) self 1, swordplay 6, accuracy 6.

Possible Player interpretations:
Case 1 (simplest – no real role-play): The two 6’s are consumed in killing one orc outright.  The 1 is paid for by taking a minor wound in the process.

Case 2 (inventive): The swordsman feints a blow at the left orc’s head.  As the orc recoils from the attack the swordsman strikes downwards smashing the orc’s axe free of his hands (6 for swordsmanship).  Carrying the momentum into a complete spin the swordsman rises from a low crouch to decapitate the center orc (6 for damage).  Striding with complete confidence the swordsman advances on the last armed orc, safe in the knowledge the disarmed orc will take a critical few seconds to retrieve their axe.  However the orc does not retrieve the axe, but instead pulls a dagger from their belt while rushing the swordsman from behind (1 for situational awareness).

Case 3 (brutal): The swordsman raises his sword above his head and releases a battle cry that shakes the hills.  As the orcs recoil in momentary fear, the swordsman leaps into battle hacking the center orc into a bloody mess (both 6’s consumed).  He pauses grinning at the orcs, expecting them to flee.  Instead they are enraged at the brutal murder of their friend and hurl themselves simultaneously at the swordsman in a frenzy of berserk rage (1 for intimidation).

Variations on the roll:
Self: 6, swordplay 1, accuracy 6:
The swordsman plunges his sword deep into the first orc (6 for damage), but is unable to pull it free (1 for swordplay).  Unwilling to lose momentum he leaps onto the second orc pummelling it’s face with a gauntleted fist, before grappling with it on the ground and using it’s body to prevent attack from the third orc (6 for situational awareness).

Self 6, swordplay 6, damage 1:
The swordsman steps boldly into the center of the orcs.  With glee they attack completely surrounding him. The swordsman sidesteps and parries with ever increasing speed and grace (defence 6, swordsmanship 6) as the orc’s attacks become ever more vicious and desperate.  30 seconds latter (damage 1) the orcs stand gasping for breath with the swordsman in their center, serine and confident.  That the swordsman will win this encounter is no longer in doubt, but valuable time and perhaps even lives have been lost.

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?

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.

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

The concept of Focus:
I left this out of the initial description but it’s an important component of the rules.  As a player declares an action they may nominate a single to re-roll if they don’t like the result.  This reflects what the character is focusing on for the action.

As damage is base more on the Opposition dice than the magnitude; an aggressive (or default) attack will re-roll the opposition die.
In a gun fight it can be more prudent to focus on good use of cover (Self die) as a 1 indicates stepping into the open giving the enemy a single free shot.

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 “Goblin! Hand over that sack you carry and I will spare your miserable life”.
GM/Goblin:  “I think not young man. If you look inside yourself you shall find mercy and let me pass.”
Swordsman: “Worthless Creature!”  I draw my sword and attack. I’ll try for a clean blow so it doesn’t suffer.  That’s mercy enough.  I’ve rolled self: 3, equip: 2, opp: 6, that’s 11; Above Average.
I pierce the goblins heart killing it instantly.  The corpse falls to the ground and I clean my sword on its robes.  Now let’s have a look inside that sack.
GM/Goblin: At least that’s how it played out in your mind.  At the last possible moment the goblin’s staff deflects your sword and raps sharply against your helmet.  No damage is inflicted to either party.
Swordsman: “oh, a wise guy huh!”  I attack again paying close attention to swords play and footwork, there’s no way this bastards getting the jump on me again.  I roll self 5, equip 5, opp 4, for 14; a remarkable action.  Opposition of 4 won’t kill it, so I advance swinging my sword in a methodical killing pattern.  No one blows doing much damage, but that goblin’s bleeding all over.
GM/Goblin: And yet as each strike nears your target the goblin’s staff deflects each and every attack.  At the end of the exchange the goblin pulls the staff apart revealing a gleaming sword hidden within.  He says “Leave now human, and consider yourself to have learnt an important lesson in mercy.”

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.

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!

Altaem,

Thanks for the example!  Let me just make sure I understand something:

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

Do I have all that right?

For now, I'll assume that I do, and move on to the part of this that interests me most: your narration technique.

It seems that the player's responsibility is to (a) narrate his action's outcome ("I pierce the goblin's heart, killing it instantly"), and then (b) consider this narration to be in limbo ("did that actually just happen or didn't it?") pending GM approval.

The GM's responsibility is to then either validate the player's narration (whether by overt affirmation or simply moving on without challenge) or contradict it ("At least that’s how it played out in your mind . . .").

From your statements about play reliably satisfying all participants, I'll infer that however the GM makes his judgment (validate / contradict) is in line with the play priorities of the players.  In your example, it seems that the GM validates or contradicts based on his judgment of "what would happen", based on the relevant factors (all of which are known to him, but only some of which are known to the players).  If the players dig this, then I assume they want "what would happen" to reliably happen, and they trust the GM is actually doing that.

I can envision other explanations, though, so I'll stop speculating and just ask if I'm describing your play accurately or not.  If not, please correct me.

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.

Ps,
-David

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

David wrote: 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."

David wrote: 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.

Altaem wrote: 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.

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

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

*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!

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...

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

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

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

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

Steps for Resolving Actions:
1. GM - Establishes the situational expectation
2. Player - Declares their action with just enough colour to indicate their focus and imply their expected outcome.
3.  GM - Clarifies the player’s expectation if required.  (Usually skip)
4.  Player - Rolls the dice, reporting the total magnitude and any 1s or 6s rolled.
5. GM – Indicates success/failure based on magnitude, a nod will often suffice.
6. Player – Narrates action making allowance for the magnitude of their roll and incorporating every 1 and 6.
7. GM/Everyone – Edit narration as required, usually a very minor process.

Just to be clear; The 1s and 6s are 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.

While it’s very easy to narrate success, players often hesitate on their failures resulting in the player missing out on their opportunity to narrate the outcome as they’re bombarded by suggestions.

David wrote: …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…

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

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

Sh wrote: "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

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:

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

Altaem wrote:

David wrote: …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…

That was the original idea.  It was scrapped after just one session.  We found processing all the numbers took to long.

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.

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

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".

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

David wrote: 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)

David wrote: can the encounter shift from one mode to another midway through…?

David wrote: 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.

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

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.

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.

Altaem wrote:

David wrote: …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.

Altaem wrote:
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

Altaem wrote:
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.

Altaem wrote:
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.

Altaem wrote:
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 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.

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!

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

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?

Oh, and if it wasn't clear in my last post. I think the idea is brilliant. Good work!

Ah, I thought of one more question. The first examples you gave seemed to imply that only one side of the contest (the player) rolled anything. Later, your more complex examples use opposed rolls. How do you decide when to use one or the other?  In the first ones you even extrapolated the damage done to the character from their own failure, rather than the success of their opponents.

Also, when you describe the expectation that the swordsman will be able to overcome the orcs, that kind of ignores the hitting/damage rules, right?

I noticed that in one of the examples posted, they succeeded at a roll, but said that a 4 on opposition wasn't enough to kill their opponent.

Thanks!

Hey Seanhess, don't know if I'll be able to provide definitive answers to your questions - I'm sure altaem will come back and give you something more useful, as the rules largely exist in his head. However, from a player's perspective, it seems that PIE runs very flexibly. Where the GM has a good idea of how characters will behave (such as in an unequal fight) I think there's a tendency to only use the one roll, because only an extreme result will have any unexpected consequences. On the other hand, in a more equally matched (or more significant) competition it can be more entertaining to use an opposed roll because it allow for greater detail of behhaviour on both sides.

Compare

Self 4, Equip 5, Opp 2
You take a shot at your (roughly equally matched) opponent, but don't manage to hit him. The fight continues.

with the above roll and
Self 2, Equip 4, Opp 5 from the opponent
You take a shot at your opponent, but miss (Total 11, Opp 2). As you move back toward cover (Self 4) your opponent stands still in the open (Self 2) and fires. Though he doesn't hit you (Total 11) his bullet strikes shrapnel from the pillar you are ducking behind which cuts your face and blinds you temporarily.

You now have a player who is lightly wounded but in cover, an opponent standing still in the open, two working guns, and another, rather more fascinating, round of combat on the way. Similar extrapolation can be made with longer lasting actions (see previous posts for explanations of this) if the GM uses a little imagination.

As I said, as a player I can't swear to the fact that this is how Altaem plays it, but it seems that way from my persepctive, and though I say it myself, I think this works alright anyway! :)

I'm assuming a chat game is an online-session, in which case, sorry to disappoint you but we don't run them! Otherwise I have no doubt you would be welcome to lurk.

thema wrote: I'm sure altaem will come back and give you something more useful, as the rules largely exist in his head. However, from a player's perspective, it seems that PIE runs very flexibly..

s wrote: I really, really, want to start trying PIE out, but there are still too many foggy things

David wrote: 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.

David wrote: Most of the key character action in my game occurs along "We have a theory... We try THIS!  What happens?" lines

David wrote: 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?)

I must say I'm astonished with the speed at which this discussion has suddenly leaped forward.
Getting back to "Descriptor" before they're lost...

David wrote: 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")

David wrote: I feel like I'm being dense here.  Sorry.

David wrote: 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.

David wrote: 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.)

David wrote: 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.

Altaem wrote:
I must say I'm astonished with the speed at which this discussion has suddenly leaped forward.
Getting back to "Descriptor" before they're lost...

Altaem wrote:
I love this, but regard it as a player/GM tool independent of the RPG system rules.

themaloryman wrote:
You now have a player who is lightly wounded but in cover, an opponent standing still in the open, two working guns, and another, rather more fascinating, round of combat on the way. Similar extrapolation can be made with longer lasting actions (see previous posts for explanations of this) if the GM uses a little imagination.

Altaem wrote:
I'll do a more complete resolution of the swordsman defending the caravan.  I'll clearly show what the player and GM say, the rolls and any rules relevant to the situation.  It should be posted in the next 24 hrs.    

Ok, here's something that's been puzzling me.

Assume we have Terrus, the Elementalist (pretend the system rules dictate he can pretty much do anything with Earth and Stone). He enters a clearing, and who does he see? His arch-enemy Atem, the air-mage.

GM: Atem is looking confident, grim as ever, and he doesn't even flinch when you walk into the clearing. You know that he is quick, and hard to nail down.

Player: For my action, I want to open a rift in the earth, and bury him under a giant mound of stone! (the assumption here is that once buried, a wimpy air-mage is going to be stuck).

What does the GM do here? He's supposed to assign a difficulty, right? Unless I make it impossible, there is a chance he will take out his arch-enemy in one round, while I want to make sure it's a little more dramatic than that, and give it some more time. For example, the GM could think to himself: Let's see, taking out Atem won't be that easy when he's on his guard like that, I'll say it takes a Exceptional Action.

Player: rolls, gets an exceptional action (no 1s) and narrates how he kicks his butt, much to the GMs chagrin.

So, what do you do when the player states something in his action you absolutely don't think should happen (that turn, at least)? It kind of seems like the GM could back himself into a corner if he wasn't careful.

First PIE campaign, scene one:

The party is a group of 3 perfectly ordinary people.  They're walking home at night and hear a scream.  A woman is being raped in a narrow side ally. Naturally as players they rush to her assistance and find themselves in a fight with 3 tough gang members.
The purpose of the scene is to teach the players how frail the characters are.  The Expectation is that they'll be beaten to a pulp, and despite their noble efforts the crime will continue.
In resolution however the players rolled almost every action at "Above Average" or better, with a truly staggering number of "Exceptional Actions".
Result: they beat up the gang members, save the woman, are barely injured themselves, and feel like heroes.

It happens... as GM I just roll with the punches.

s wrote: What does the GM do here? He's supposed to assign a difficulty, right? Unless I make it impossible

Ok... let me see if I understand. You don't think about the magnitude they need to succeed at their action, but instead wait to see what they roll, and then give the nod or shake of the head? 

My question centers around players saying what their action is, and making sure they don't take it too far with the interpretation.

In your example, did you mention the expectation to the players?

After explaining the expectation, let's say the first player who ran into the alley said that his action was to "jump into the middle of the three, beat them to unconsciousness, and save the woman"

What would happen if he rolled an exceptional action -- does he do all that stuff in one roll? 

What if he only rolls a remarkable action? (still a good roll, but definitely not enough to do all that at once)

Thanks!

Hey again Seanhess, in repsonse to your elemental example:

I played through Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy a couple of times in the last few years. Your boss fight generally goes as expected - you run in circles, fight hard, grab your health and shield upgrades, use the Force, Luke, as much as possible, and eventually scrape through with a victory. The last time I played I got up to the final boss (Tavion?), sat through the cut scene, and decided to attempt to leap directly at her and land a good solid blow to get me off to a good start. I mentally prepared to key-stroke/mouse move combination, executed the force-driven long jump at her, and when I got within range, whacked away at my left mouse button. It just so happened, through blind luck, that my first strike drove my lightsabre right through her head, and she dropped on the spot, one jump, one slice, game over.

It wasn't drawn out and dramatic, it will never happen that way again, and it was freaking cool! Sometimes the dice (or CPU) go your way. Those moments make the best stories. So your example, narrated well, will be a story that never dies, should Terrus roll three 6s and bury Atem under a mountain of earth without a murmur. Maybe you would narrate it that as they faced off, Terrus moved the earth with such silent skill that Atem never saw it coming. As a GM (something I do rarely, and not really that well!) I'd probably try to infuse this with humour. One of those, 'Oh, well that was unexpected... so moving on...' moments.

As a player, when I've played with GMs who assign 'Impossible' difficulty levels I just get frustrated. There's story to be told, but there are also dice to be respected. Fishnet-Ninjas shows an unwillingness to let the world be the world.

And if you roll three 6s, and don't get the most amazing freaking results, right then and there, it's the most frustrating and futile feeling in the world. It's a roll that only comes up one time in 200 (or 216, actually) so you want it to be rewarded.

Also, those tiny odds mean that if the GM takes a risk, the chance of it coming back to bite them are tolerably slim.

Yeah, you're right. The chance of getting a 16+ on three dice is 5%.  Since I can bump their probability down that far if I need to, that's acceptable for any scenario I can imagine.

I'm totally ok with people short-circuiting my final scene, I just want to make sure there are some limits on what they can attempt with their action. The idea is the same though, right? If they try to do more in one action, just make it harder to do?

Exactly. And come to think of it, I retract some of my previous statement. I do think it's reasonable for a GM to refuse to allow actions, or to make them impossible, if they really are genuinely impossible. So for my character in this PIE game (Gabriel - see here http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=26840.0) to fly is really impossible within the bounds of the game. If I persist in declaring the action it's fair for the GM to declare that I fall, regardless of what I roll. So I suppose 'impossible' goals have their place, as long as anything that is even remotely possible is allowable for the right 'price'.

That's a lot of quotation marks...

Theoretical Play Example, Swordsman vs Orcs;

GM: “A vast horde of orcs attack the merchant caravan.  In the opening moments the 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.”

Unspoken implications:  By having the player dispatch two orcs in the initial chaos without even an action being declared, we have established the swordsman’s superiority over individual orcs.  However these three new orcs have singled out the warrior and have moved to contain his actions.  Orcs are not stupid, and these orcs expect to hold off the swordsman until help arrives to finish the job. 
We are perhaps 10-20 seconds into the ambush, and can assume many of the weaker members on both sides have already fallen.

Swordsman: “I don’t have time for this!” I’m using “Defender of the Weak” on Opposition, I have to take out these orcs as fast as possible.
I’ve rolled 13, “Remarkable Action”, 6s for Environment and Opposition thanks to the reroll, but a 1 for Self.
“I feint a blow at the left orc’s head.  As the orc recoils from the attack I strike downwards smashing the orc’s axe free of his hands.  Carrying the momentum into a complete spin I rise from a low crouch to decapitate the center orc.  Striding with complete confidence I advance on the last armed orc, safe in the knowledge the disarmed orc will take a critical few seconds to retrieve their axe.  However the orc does not retrieve the axe, but instead pulls a dagger from their belt while rushing me from behind.”

PIE Rules:  In a fair fight the base success required is 10+ (“Above Average”).  Typically a weapon does 3 damage per combat round, doubled if Opposition is a local critical and doubled again if yet another die is also a local critical.  Each band of success past the minimum adds the base damage again.  Total damage can be freely allocated to all opponents during interpretation in multiples of base damage.
This round the swordsman is entitled to 15 damage (3 x 2 x 2 + 3).
As a general guide 12+ damage removes an opponent from a fight. 

GM:  Very cool!  I’ll rule that for your next action you’ll take 2 damage ignoring armour for every band short of “Remarkable Action”, regardless of the other results of your action.  *Quickly notes rule interpretation for future use*

Swordsman: Harsher than I’d hoped for, but you’re the boss.
“I’m shocked to hear the orc charging from behind, but reflexes kick in and I sidestep the incoming attack.”  I’m using “Master Swordsman” on Self to avoid the attacks of both orcs.
I’ve rolled 11, “Above Average” with a 5 for “Master Swordsman.”
“I spin just fast enough to catch the knife orc a glancing blow.  With elaborate swords play I counter every threat.”

GM:  That’s a breach.  As you weave your defensive dance you notice one of the merchants under attack.  An orc clubs him to the ground and is going for a finishing blow.  You’re the only one close enough to possibly save the merchant.

PIE Rules:  A local critical on Self may be used to negate all damage suffered in a round.  It’s not intended to avoid suffering the consequences of a previous action.  Players are encouraged to bend PIE rules, introducing new scenarios.  The GM can declare a “breach” to let the player know they’ve gone too far.  To resolve the current breach the GM could have simply applied the knife damage as the Swordsman turned round.  However it was more fun to introduce an additional complication to the scenario. 

Swordsman: #&%&$!  I’m declaring a complex action.  I’m using “Defender of the Weak” on Self to cover the ground quickly, and “Mercenary Opportunist” on Opposition to dispatch the orc before it notices me.

GM:  That means turning your back on 2 orcs.  This is a risky action, a bad roll here could kill your character.  Are you sure you wish to go ahead?

Swordsman:  A true hero never gives up!
I’ve rolled 12 with only 3 for Defender of the Weak and 4 for “Mercenary Opportunist”…
*pauses*
I’m re-rolling the 3, oh #&#$#, it’s now a 2.
I’ll leave the 4 rather than risking making it any worse, at least it’s “Above Average”.
"I charge towards the club orc, realising as I do so that I’m moving too slowly.  I give a hearty incomprehensible war-cry to distract the orc.  He turns in surprise; his expression initially of shock, then of amusement as the orcs behind me land blows on my exposed back.  As I reach him I stumble to my knees.  He drops his guard thinking me defeated.  A foolish mistake, I thrust my sword upwards impaling the orc through the belly."

GM: Double consequence for Duel Action wasn’t kind, but thanks to your armour you take only 8 damage from the blows to your back.  The impaled orc is severely injured but still a threat for another round or so.  You’re at -2 next round while you regain you feet, and of course another -2 now due to injury.
“The merchant’s alive for the moment but you’re surrounded by the three orcs, and they’re moving in for the kill.”

Swordsman:  A mistake on their part.  I can’t reuse “Mercenary Opportunist”, fortunately as a “Rampant Womanizer” I’m used to leaping into action from a horizontal position, particularly when unsuspecting husbands get home.

GM:  Scraping the bottom of the barrel isn’t it?  What exactly remains for your “Knightly Code of Honour”?  Still under clause 13.6b: “Anything that makes the GM laugh works” I’ll allow it.

Swordsman:  “Hey! I’m a good and noble person, just not very honest!” I’m focusing on opposition.  “I’ll chop those orc’s legs out from underneath them!”
Wrong focus!  I’ve rolled 13, 6s on opposition and environment, but a 1 for Self.  With modifiers that’s still 11 “Above Average” if I abandon getting to my feet.
"I slash out at the axe orc’s legs bringing him crashing down.  He screams in pain but that doesn’t stop him swinging his axe at me.  I roll aside, easily avoiding the blow.  Realising I’m next to a wagon, I continue my roll disappearing under it.  In my haste to rise on the far side I’ve misjudged the wagon’s width.  I’ve painfully jarred by left shoulder, I won’t be using that arm for a bit."

GM: "The knife orc climbs rapidly over the wagon, inspired by your cry of pain and intending on finishing you off."

Swordsman:  “Ha they’ve separated!”  Individually they’re no match for me so I’ll focus on “Master Swordsman” to finish them a quickly as possible.
I’ve rolled only 9, that’s a 7 “Poor Action” allowing for injuries.  Fortunately 5 on opposition is a local critical.
“It’s a clumsy combat; obviously we’re both out of breath.  I inflict some serious damage, but am wounded yet again in the process.”   

GM:  Only 1 more damage, but your ninth so you’re now at -3.  Fortunately it should be a simple matter to finish 3 wounded orcs, Lets have one more roll to finish this.

Swordsman:  ok, I’ll use “Mercenary Opportunist” to finish to job.
I’ve rolled 13 with 6 for ‘Mercenary Opportunist” thanks to the re-roll.  Even with my wound modifiers, that allows me to kill the 3 orcs without farther injury.
“Now where’s that Mage? I really need some healing!”

Tried "Descriptors" in play for the first time tonight, and I'm pleased to say they worked really well. 

I had only one player, as that's all could make it.  With party disharmony and secret actions being declared by email, that was hardly a problem.
Deathglider is a rather two-dimensional RPG player, he loves treasure hunting and continually upgrading his character.  Although the Descriptors follow in this theme they still make a huge difference in rounding out the character.
I allowed 6 Descriptors to be chosen, but only 5 are allocated at this time.

wrote: Johnson: A clever and intuitive fellow with alarming high talents at stealth and theft.  Possesses a dark brutal streak and a lightning strike.  Has a love of knives, lots of knives.

Awesome... That reveals a lot about the system you're using and clears up several questions.

I'll have more questions shortly, but first, I'm not sure what effect the descriptors had. Did you just require them to pick one any time they focused on one of the dice, and then narrate it accordingly?

Complex Actions: Does he get to reroll two dice here? What negative consequences does this have, just making it harder?

Also, what does "local critical" mean? The player used it when he rolled a 5, which I thought had no mechanical significance (by default anyway).

Complex Actions: Does he get to reroll two dice here? What negative consequences does this have, just making it harder?

Also, what does "local critical" mean? The player used it when he rolled a 5, which I thought had no mechanical significance (by default anyway).

I’ve been looking through the older questions, checking for any confusing points that have been forgotten about. 

wrote: First PIE campaign, scene one:

The party is a group of 3 perfectly ordinary people.  They're walking home at night and hear a scream.  A woman is being raped in a narrow side ally. Naturally as players they rush to her assistance and find themselves in a fight with 3 tough gang members.
The purpose of the scene is to teach the players how frail the characters are.  The Expectation is that they'll be beaten to a pulp, and despite their noble efforts the crime will continue.
In resolution however the players rolled almost every action at "Above Average" or better, with a truly staggering number of "Exceptional Actions".
Result: they beat up the gang members, save the woman, are barely injured themselves, and feel like heroes.

It happens... as GM I just roll with the punches.

s wrote: In your example, did you mention the expectation to the players?

s wrote: Ok... let me see if I understand. You don't think about the magnitude they need to succeed at their action, but instead wait to see what they roll, and then give the nod or shake of the head?
My question centers around players saying what their action is, and making sure they don't take it too far with the interpretation.

Hey look...it's me!!!

I enjoy 2D characters as much as the next guy and this last adventure was quite fun. I almost failed some life or death actions and ended up being wounded for it, luckily I rolled well on opposition when that happened and didnt get shot, something else 'bad' happened to me.

The descriptors were good fun. I don't remember using 'Lucky' as often as Altaem said I did. He was probably just thinking of all the times I COULD have used it. However I based this descriptor on my characters luck...which surprisingly mirrors my own. I'm sure I roll more than one triple 6 in every 216 rolls.

The descriptors also had another purpose. They allowed me to analyze what my character was like, then form a goal and mission which gives reason to WHY he is like that, which at the end of the day, gives much more to the story line.

Hey, this looks nice. I love having dice tell me in what direction narration should be going. However, this looks strange: if you are going against 500 orcs (expected performance: die quickly) or 1 crippled orc grandma (expected performance: maybe laugh after chopping head off), the chances of getting wounded are exactly the same, right?
Well, I don´t mind that, I think it´s just fine (I kill orc grandma, I get grief which hurts just as bad as getting hit on head by 500 orcs), but is it intentional? I mean, your chance of beating the 500 orcs is basically nada, the chance of betting the grandma is basically 100%, I get that, but wounds?

Also, I have the intuition that you have to more clearly flesh out stakes and how they are adressed here.
The only thing I REALLY don´t like is this:

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.

Altaem,

Your example confuses me.

"6 on Environment = I roll under a wagon" was fantastic.  And "Rampant Womanizer = prone defense" is creative and hilarious.  But this:

Altaem wrote:
Swordsman: “I don’t have time for this!” I’m using “Defender of the Weak” on Opposition, I have to take out these orcs as fast as possible.
I’ve rolled 13, “Remarkable Action”, 6s for Environment and Opposition thanks to the reroll, but a 1 for Self.
“I feint a blow at the left orc’s head.  As the orc recoils from the attack I strike downwards smashing the orc’s axe free of his hands.  Carrying the momentum into a complete spin I rise from a low crouch to decapitate the center orc.  Striding with complete confidence I advance on the last armed orc, safe in the knowledge the disarmed orc will take a critical few seconds to retrieve their axe.  However the orc does not retrieve the axe, but instead pulls a dagger from their belt while rushing me from behind.”

Altaem wrote:
Master Swordsman, Knights Code of Honor, Defender of the Weak, Mercenary Opportunist, Entertaining when Drunk, Rampant Womanizer

Altaem wrote:
. . . he loves treasure hunting and continually upgrading his character.  Although the Descriptors follow in this theme . . .

Altaem wrote:
Descriptors: Lucky, Focussed, Restless, Apathy, Colloquial.

In response to SMJ, I think that the difference in expectation between your two scenarios (which are pretty extreme, and tolerably unlikely, but we'll go with them) would allow for reasonable expectation-shift. For instancce, a 1 (Critical Failure) on Self when fighting the Grandma would perhaps result in stubbing your toe as your deliver the killing blow, while even a 6 on Self fighting the 500 Orcs is only going to delay the inevitable - you're not dead yet, would be the best you could hope for.

I can't respond to your criticism of the part you quoted because I can't quite remember the context of the original statement, and I'm not sure from the quote and your response to it why this means there is no faith in the system... I'll leave that for Altaem to look to.

@ David

I like your interpretation better too, but that's because it suits my style of play - that is, narrative, strongly character oriented etc. I suspect that there would be some players around our table who would feel constricted if they were required to come up with such colourful examples all the time. I imagine that the 'colour' element (for us, at least) will be more an option than a rule, designed to entertain players like me, without restricting less character-oriented players like Deathglider. That said, there's no reason not to change how concrete the rule is to suit other groups. To start flinging acronyms around, D.I.Y. - P.I.E.!

@ Altaem

Love the look of this, though I want to work out more clearly exactly how it will work. Looking forward to playing this on Friday!

soundmasterj wrote:
Hey, this looks nice. I love having dice tell me in what direction narration should be going. However, this looks strange: if you are going against 500 orcs (expected performance: die quickly) or 1 crippled orc grandma (expected performance: maybe laugh after chopping head off), the chances of getting wounded are exactly the same, right?

soundmasterj wrote:
The only thing I REALLY don´t like is this:

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.

No no no no no.
No.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

This reads like you have no trust in your system. I say, you absolutely NEED to design the system in a way that whatever you roll, it is a good result.

David wrote: My other problem with your example is that I dislike your Descriptors:
...
"Defender of the Weak" and "Entertaining when Drunk" are too specific to be optimal on-hand color options.  I mean, you only have 6, any one you often can't use is a waste.  "Womanizer" is also specific and hard to tie in to a variety of actions.

David wrote: Your example confuses me.

Swordsman: “I don’t have time for this!” I’m using “Defender of the Weak” on Opposition, I have to take out these orcs as fast as possible.
I’ve rolled 13, “Remarkable Action”, 6s for Environment and Opposition thanks to the reroll, but a 1 for Self.
“I feint a blow at the left orc’s head.  As the orc recoils from the attack I strike downwards smashing the orc’s axe free of his hands.  Carrying the momentum into a complete spin I rise from a low crouch to decapitate the center orc.  Striding with complete confidence I advance on the last armed orc, safe in the knowledge the disarmed orc will take a critical few seconds to retrieve their axe.  However the orc does not retrieve the axe, but instead pulls a dagger from their belt while rushing me from behind.”

David wrote: It's not so much that I like my specific example more than yours (although I do)...
Do you think my take is too demanding for speedy play?

David wrote: Alas, my blade is momentarily stuck.

David wrote: I want to play right now to find an excuse for how Apathy helps me in combat!

David wrote: I imagine the agreement at the table goes something like: "A PC will never lose, fail, or die without it first being made quite clear to the player that they may be about to lose, fail or die."  Plus maybe a similar agreement about total, outright victory.  Am I close?

So do I understand it correctly like this: what exactly a single die shows only provides color/narration, no mechanical results?

Say, I roll 1 6 6. I easily win. I narrate how my character, Conan, gets a nasty cut across the chest because of the 1. I don´t, however, lose any kind of dice or anything because of that cut, right?

Say, I roll 1 3 3. I lose. I narrate how Conan earns himself that same nasty cut. I am punished mechanically for this.

Right? If so, I think it works just fine! Thanks for clearing that up. Nice mechanic.

The other thing, fudging dice: firstly, may I present you with the "slipperly slope" fallacy? It goes like this: if you fudge once, why not fudge all of the time!
Second thing is: it lessens my results as a player if I know that maybe, just maybe my success wasn´t due to what I rolled, but due to what you fudged.
Third thing is the most important. You don´t trust your rules if you allow fudging. Say your rules provide, whatever the dice tell you, a result that is satisfying. If I lose the conflict, that´s fine, because now Conan is about to be sacrificed at the Goblin God Morks temple and I, Conans player, am eager to narrate Conan breaking free in the last moment! If I lose this conflict, that´s fine, because now I didn´t manage to break free and now the Goblins threw me into the "magic eye of Mork" and I have to fight the fire demons therein! If I lose that conflict, that´s fine (also I might start wondering if your dice are cheating), because getting beat by the fire demons means I now have to fulfill one of the fire demons´ wishes: bring them a virgin woman as a gift! Etc.
You never need to fudge in those kinds of rules. That is because such rules would be well-designed. There are some dice results you might prefer over others, but none that you couldn´t accept. I would like Conan to win, but if he loses, the story still is a good story.

(Also, you might want to reconsider character death as requested solemly by dice. Character death should only happen if meaningfull and with player consent, I think, and there is place in your rules for that.)

Say you want to extend conflict between almost equal combatants so it gets more suspensefull. That´s why you want to fudge dice in the first place, right?
Don´t fudge, it´s cheating (you out of fun!). Do this instead: Equal combatans meet. Dice are to be thrown. Expectation: in the first clash, every party suffers slightly, but both are still up for another round. If the result is close to the expected result (about 5-13), next round sees both partys going for it again. Now, the expectations are slightly changed.
Repeat until satisfying conclusion is reached.
So, in conflict between equals, I´d just zoom in, catch more detail. Don´t narrate full battle, narrate one exchange of the blade with each roll of dice. Your rules already provide for that.

I think your descriptors were just fine, by the way.

To make myself clear about the first point (wrt Conan getting wounded, but losing no dice) : in no way did I try to sound sarcastically. I really like it if it happens as I described. Obviously, Conan or James Bond sometimes just doesn´t care about a wound, sometimes he does. That´s how fiction works and that´s what your rules capture.

sound wrote: The other thing, fudging dice: firstly, may I present you with the "slipperly slope" fallacy? It goes like this: if you fudge once, why not fudge all of the time!

sound wrote: (Also, you might want to reconsider character death as requested solemly by dice. Character death should only happen if meaningfull and with player consent, I think, and there is place in your rules for that.)

sound wrote: I think your descriptors were just fine, by the way.

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!

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.
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?

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Also, that is not how you spell appalling (see my post a couple above) and I'm a little ashamed!

I return later tonight (after our next session) to clarify what I can.
In the mean time It's fun watching you all bounce ideas and theories around.

soundmasterj wrote:

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.

David wrote: 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?

sound wrote: 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.

I've spoken to Altaem about this already, but in brief:

The trouble with exchanging modifiers for zoom-in and out ability is that the zooming in doesn't improve performance, it just decreases risk. By breaking a large action into a series of discreet actions, you make it far more likely that you will get an average result, and not accidently get yourself killed. Modifiers, on the other hand, allow you to boost your dice roll result, and therefore do better at things (obviously), particularly in a system such as this, where the probability curve is so steep, and so even relatively small modifiers, such as +3 or +4, can make a huge difference. Zooming in and out is good, but it exists inherently in PIE, and to my mind is more of an aid to immersive play than a tool for a player to perform better. I think both Zoom and Modifiers have their place here.

Something that strikes me as a useful, though so far not used, application for PIE, is the potential existence of 'Progressive Success Actions'. To borrow from a video game again (because they're familiar to me!) I remember a moment in Max Payne where I burst through a door, switched to bullet-time, leapt sideways through the air, and began killing badguys as I made my jump. I would shoot one until he died, then move to the next. Ideally I wanted to hit all of them, but of course, by the time I landed I'd only nailed maybe two out of five. It strikes me as analagous. You can declare a long term action (I take out the badguys, but my priority is to not die.) but instead of setting a descriptive success/fail result, the GM can tell you how long your action is successful for before it's interrupted by failure (You shot two before the others got their sh*t together and returned fire. You are now the target as you scramble for cover.). It seems a little blindingly obvious now that I put it that way, but it hadn't struck me as a way to use the system before.

No, zooming in also allows you to change the details (you might describe your character as going all in on the first attack, thereby making him more vulnerable on the next). Also, actually, it makes for more extreme results; if every subscene could result in extreme failure or success, chances are that more of these will happen. While on one hand, more dice makes for less randomness of numbers all together, on the other hand, more results makes for a wider spread of results. Just think about the growing number of local criticalities!

Also, I am not against modifiers, it´s just that I think it goes completely against the spirit of the game to make them reflect physical realities. As a metamechanical tool, they work just fine (also I´d rather go the way of bonus dice than +/- numbers).
Say we play out a scene where I want to fight the evil goblin lord. Expected result: goblin lord gets wounded, but me too, so I need to flee. What I do is I decide to zoom in. We have one roll for deciding if I kill the goblin lord, another for deciding if I flee succesfully. Say I have the righ to "prioritize" and say my motive is revenge; I absolutely want to see the goblin lord dead, without much care for my own health. I take one bonus die for the first conflict, ensuring he dies, but taking a malus die or the second conflict in exchange, thereby raising the risk of me getting captured by the goblin lords´ warriors.
That´s how I would use modifiers; as a way of further allowing the players to make sure their stories get their appropriate narrative bent.

Altaem,
I suggest we start a new thread to discuss "zooming".  I am I having trouble sifting through the info about it in this thread.  I have an example and some questions to pose, but I worry about clogging things up.

sound wrote: - 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 wrote:
Altaem,
I suggest we start a new thread to discuss "zooming".  I am I having trouble sifting through the info about it in this thread.  I have an example and some questions to pose, but I worry about clogging things up.

Not convinced "zooming" needs its own thread.  However it can hardly be a unique concept to PIE, does anyone know of other discussions on this topic?

…opposed rolls …

Altaem,
Okay, I'll try to ask my question quickly, then. 

Yes, TSoY zooms, but it doesn't have multiple timescales being resolved simultaneously.  You said that in PIE you have no problem with someone rolling a long action while someone else rolls a short action.  That's what I want to ask about.

Example:

2 characters fight two villains.  Player 1 wants to do a cool move with multiple actions in mid-air as he jumps across the room, while Player 2 only has the fight's final outcome in mind.

Player 1 wants his first roll to cover whether he can jump over the table while simultaneously pulling his gun out of his holster with one hand and loading in the clip with the other.

Player 2 just wants his first roll to resolve whether he kills Villain 2.

Does Player 2 get to roll, or does he have to wait on Player 1?

Let's say Player 1's 5th roll in the course of his arial maneuver would kill Villain 2.  And let's say that Player 2's first and only roll would also kill that same villain.  Presumably, whichever player gets to make their roll first will get to kill the villain, and whichever player rolls second will have to take into account that Villain 2 is dead, and either choose another action (like attacking Villain 1), or lose their action.

So, how do you navigate this?

While you still haven´t answered my question about local criticality

in Conflict Resolution, two Characters rolling against each other should set orthogonal stakes for CR to work. I tend to concur.

2 characters fight two villains.  Player 1 wants to do a cool move with multiple actions in mid-air as he jumps across the room, while Player 2 only has the fight's final outcome in mind.

Well, how about: never set conflicting stakes. We try shooting each other. My goal is: shoot you dead. Your goal might be: shoot me dead; shoot someone else dead. Not: survive.

Alternatively, whoever rolls better HAS his outcome fulfilled. If mine is, shoot you dead, yours, shoot me dead, and I win, the only possible way of me fulfilling my outcome is me shooting you dead first, so there, I "win initiative".

Concerning crits., I dislike them having mechanical effects for the aforementioned reasons. I´d only let the single dice provide color.

Altaem, I can't imagine how you'd implement this.

Player 1 rolls, succeeds, and narrates: "I push off the ground, going horizontal as I clear the table.  Simultaneously, I snap a clip into place.  This takes less than 1 second."  Player 1 is now thinking, "Next action, I'll fire at Villain Man, and then, after that, I'm also gonna try to drop the gun into the closing garbage chute before I land.  3 actions in 2 seconds equals 'bullet time' coolness!"

Player 2 rolls, succeeds, and narrates: "I beat the hell out of Villain Man with my club.  He puts up a good fight, but I eventually wear him down through the sheer force of my blows."

Player 1 says, "Uh, well, as you're taking your first whack at him, I'm also shooting him..."

Does the GM say, "No you aren't.  You don't get to do anything that might contradict the already-narrated beating"?

Does the GM say, "Fire away, but even if you succeed, narrate it in a way that doesn't contradict the already-narrated beating"? (this gets weird if Player 1 rolls tons of damage that should kill Villain Man)

How about you have the players talk to each other? Like in, hey, I wanna kill V-Man, you gonna go save the princess erstwhile. You say, no I´m not gonna do some stupid princess saving I wanna kick ass man. I say, well, I guess that´s a conflict, I try killing V-Man before David does, dice dice dice!
We roll against each other, you win, now you roll against V-Man while I save the princess (who wonders why her savior seems to hate her). Or we roll against each other who kills him first and also against V-Man to see if he actually dies. I win against you and V-Man, you win against V-Man, but not against me. I narrate how I, fast like a really fast person, draw my gun and shoot V-Man dead. You narrate how you hit the dead body and curse.

Or I say, Ok you go kill V-Man if it´s so damn important to you, Ima get laid man, laterz. I go save princess, you go kill V-Man.

So how about talking? Could that work?

Ok, on a more serious note, I don´t think after player 1´s description, player 2 would narrate doing something as boring as slowly clubbing someone to death.

Also, jumping over the table and snapping a clip in place, I wouldn´t roll for that.

Third option after "have players talk, if it doesn´t work, roll dice" or just "when somebody succeds in x, he DOES x, no questions asked" which I still think is fine (well, action 2 for player 1 could as well be "Ok, so I´ll just shoot some mooks from my table-jump while you go a-clubbing.") would be: finest temporal resolution / highest zooming lvl. determines overall pace.

Maybe the simple answer is that if one player wants to do stuff in extreme closeup and another wants to do stuff in extreme broad-scale, and their actions intersect and affect each other, there simply isn't a way to give 'em both what they want.  So, yeah, talking, and compromise. 

Does the system provide any guidance on reaching such compromise?  Earlier, Altaem stated that one goal was "going through a fight in the amount of time it would take in the real world".  That could turn into a guideline, and basically say, "Don't roll to resolve a microsecond, and don't roll to resolve 10 minutes, unless everyone playing is into that.  Most rolls should resolve an amount of in-game time equal to the amount of real time the process of rolling dice and narrating takes."  (If any of y'all who plays PIE wants to record how long that is, great.)

Oddly enough I've never tried timing the declare intent - roll - narrate cycle.  I know it feels fast, but I guess my claims that combat resolves roughly in real time have no proven basis.

A quick test:
A gunfight starts with a near miss to a player character.
Player: I've already got my SMG out.  I fire on full auto at my attackers while running for cover.  I've using observant on Environment.
I've rolled 12, leaving the 4 for environment.
"I run swiftly, moving for a obvious cluster of rocks.  My firing is more a distraction than an attack, but I gives me the time I need to get myself completely out of sight."  Don't suppose I hit anything?

Player time: 30 seconds

GM: rolls for NPC response - Possibly!  "From what you can see there's two attackers.  Both are prone and caught in the open.  It's not clear if they've been hit.  In any case you've claimed the initiative."

GM time : another 15 seconds

ok so 45 seconds is maybe twice what this exchange would take in life.  It's still pretty fast.
The slowest points are always the local critical failures.  I don't see that as a problem.  Those awkward moments are one of PIE's highlights.

Also, jumping over the table and snapping a clip in place, I wouldn´t roll for that.

Altaem, I can't imagine how you'd implement this.

The apparent conflict is probably not that big a deal, I think. It's a really extreme example, and they have a way of breaking, or at least pushing the limits of, a system. But they rarely come up in actual play, in my experience. If you're hoping to engage and enemy hand-to-hand, but your friend pops him between the eyes first, well most players just pick another task. Or to flip it around, if the clubber obscures line-of-fire, most shooters would think of something else to do. I think as long as in-game actions are allowed to follow their natural time-sequence, there's normally a logical conclusion to arrive at.

And as Altaem mentioned, as a group we've never seen a discrepancy of this scale. 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 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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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).

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.

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.

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.

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:

David wrote:
(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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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