I was lying in bed trying to sleep when this came to me. It's a simpler variation of the other skill system I presented, with more flexibility built in. Ultimately I think it's way superior. But without further ado:

Assume there's a rating. Maybe it goes from 1 to 8 in most cases. Or whatever, the main thing is that between every rating there has to be a significant step in skill.

Anyway, any task is assigned a difficulty, also between similar numbers. If the character has a rating below the difficulty, it's a failure, if it's above then it's a success. If it's the same, there's a 50-50 chance of success, roll 1T6 and have success on 4-6.

If you have rating above the difficulty you can trade that for extra quality, quicker execution, nicer style or whatever. 1 point makes it above average, 2 points is excellent, 3 points amazingly good.

To take an example. Bob the Ranger wants to jump that infernal chasm. Difficulty is only 3 and Bobs rating at Jumping Chasms is at 7, which is way more than required. Cool! thinks Bob. I'll do this without any running start whatsoever (2 points cost maybe) and with armour on (1 point). That still leaves the rating at 4, which is above the difficulty. Bob is over the chasm no problem.

In example 2, Bob thinks it would be cool to impress his buddies, so he's actually gonna take off his armour and then do a backward somersault over the cliff. The GM judges that would be 4 points to do that. 4 points off his 7 would leave him with 3 and a 50-50 chance of succeeding. If Bob would want to do it with armour on too, that would be 2 and a SURE death.

Another time Fifo the Thief wants to open a lock. He's got lockpicking skills all over the place, and the difficulty of the lock (4) is below his rating (6), so he spends a point to do it faster. If he would want to do it even faster he could spend 2 points, but only a 50-50 chance to succeed.

If there is failure, I suggest this either be paid for by reducing everything else by 2 points or simply accept as a failure if this isn't possible. Thus Fifo ends up doing it in normal time, whereas Bob simply drops into the chasm in case of failure. Of course you could simply reduce things by a point at a time in the Fifo case. That would be more lenient but it sounds like one would try to maximize out things all the time if that were the case.

Notice how the equivalence between say "difficulty of making a beautiful vase is 5 and to make a normal vase is 3" and "the difficulty of making a vase is 3 and you an upgrade it from normal to better by reducing your skill level"

The fun thing, of course, is that the GM might be rolling the difficulty differently for every player.

Look at the long jump situation. Bob wants to jump in the olympics. The GM sets a difficulty for making a valid jump. Maybe he rolls a D4-2 or something. Bob wants to optimize his jump, so naturally he goes for the 50-50 chance. If the GM rolls a 2, Bob can spend 7 points on making the jump longer and have 50-50 chance of making it that long. If the GM had rolled a 4, the maximum points would have been 5 (maybe because it got slippery or whatever). Or the GM rolls a 1 and let's Bob potentially max out with a 50-50 chance of making a 8 rating.

If we look at this example, the chances for the different jumps are something like this:
(assuming Bob wants to max things out and the 2 point drop in efficiency during failure is in effect)
8 1/8
7 1/8
6 1/4
5 1/4
4 1/8
3 1/8

In case Bob doesn't max but go for the sure thing, chances are like this:
7 1/4
6 1/4
5 1/4
4 1/4
and only dependent on the GM roll. This roll (the circumstance roll) might of course be given to Bob's player in this case.

It might be interesting how this relates when two players are competing at different skill levels. Let's say rating 6 (A) and rating 7 (B).

With a single jump that would be something like this (assuming both try to max)

A wins 25%
tie 16%
B wins 59%

Or with safe bets

A wins 19%
tie 19%
B wins 62%

In any case, simulating it with a D4 like this for resisted rolls would make sense:
A rolls higher or equal to (A rating-B rating)+3 on a D4. That gives A a 25% chance of winning over B. Which kind of makes sense in this case. Either way (resolving each jump separately or as an opposed roll with a winner and a loser) would work if there are only two contestants.

The resisted roll idea could probably be extended by saying that if the difficuly varies with a Dn then the opposed roll is (A rating-B rating)+(n/2+1) on a Dn. Of course there are certain wins in this case also. If A's rating outshines B's for example, he/she might choose to win with extra style. It rolls together pretty neatly.

What do you think? You can ignore the opposed (static) roll mechanic. It's not necessary I think and might complicate things. So ignore it if you think it muddles things. The system boils down to a difficulty and a rating and automatic success or failure if the rating and difficulty doesn't match. And if you are better you can choose to take advantages. In fact, hmm you should be able to make concessions too, right?

In that case it's the (by now) well established system of making concessions taking advantages thrown into a near karma resolution system (with the predetermined random difficulty mechanic, which I guess is kind of unusual)

Anyway, let's hear comments on it. Especially if you see any weak points.

It seems to be pretty simple, even for a karma system, and it seems to eliminate much possability for risk. Why arm wrestle in the first place if you know that you will loose? And don't you think that it would be difficult to eliminate min/max ing in character creation? What could this system be used for? Combat seems to be ruled out. Please give greater debth on what it's uses are.

Pyron wrote: It seems to be pretty simple, even for a karma system, and it seems to eliminate much possability for risk. Why arm wrestle in the first place if you know that you will loose?

And don't you think that it would be difficult to eliminate
min/max ing in character creation?

What could this system be used for?

Before I came to the forge, I used the armwrestling scenerio to prove your exact point. In Star Wars D20 (my only system at the time) a wookie gets a +2 strength modifier, while a human gets a +0. I mathematically calculated the exact % of the time in wich a human would win. I think it was 40% or something. Wookies are big freagin bearthings that throw cars, so this really was one of the things that got me into making indipendant RPGs. My problem I expressed was from a metagame standpoint. By which I mean that: Why would a player ever engage in competition with some one that they couldn't beat? It just seems to dissallow for thousands of situations that go on in good literature. Would the ring have been cut from the hand of Sauron if they were using your system. You could easily argue that it would have plot use, but what player would attempt to try it? What would Risk be like without randomness. They are two seperate things, but I am now looking into it from a simulationist's standpoint. I can only beat my friend at Halo 25% of the time (I only loose because he owns the game and me not. Otherwise I couldn't ever loose). We don't have equal skill. He has beaten the freaking game on legendary. I can't even beat the first level on mediam!

I can only see little purpose in a karma system other than to shift the focus from the game mechanics to narrativism or something like that. I don't think that basic karma systems can actually justify themselves in simulationismn very often, and even so must use another mechanic to do so. Let me give you an example:

An adventuring party approaches a canyon. (Party modeled after mine) The ranger looks off into the distance... He judges the difficulty and believes that with his leather armour on, he can jump it. He doesn't. The party fighter looks stunned and looks down as his former friend falls to his death. He then looks at the player's character sheet and judges that he doesn't have a chance. A dragon comes to attack them, and they know that even though the dragon is a bigger threat (not as a mechanic) than any canyon could be, they draw their weapons.

The problems are in the facts that success can be easily judged. There is no daring. There is only death. There is no hope that you can draw that hold out blaster to shoot the guard as he flatfootedly enters the cell. There is no X-wing armed with proton torpedos that turns off the targetting computer because he wishes to use the force. There's just a bunch of people that have to overcome the fact that a 5 is less than a 7.

Pale Fire wrote: The system boils down to a difficulty and a rating and automatic success or failure if the rating and difficulty doesn't match. And if you are better you can choose to take advantages. In fact, hmm you should be able to make concessions too, right?

In that case it's the (by now) well established system of making concessions taking advantages thrown into a near karma resolution system (with the predetermined random difficulty mechanic, which I guess is kind of unusual)

Pyron wrote: By which I mean that: Why would a player ever engage in competition with some one that they couldn't beat? It just seems to dissallow for thousands of situations that go on in good literature. Would the ring have been cut from the hand of Sauron if they were using your system.

An adventuring party approaches a canyon. (Party modeled after mine) The ranger looks off into the distance... He judges the difficulty and believes that with his leather armour on, he can jump it.

The problems are in the facts that success can be easily judged. There is no daring. There is only death. There is no hope that you can draw that hold out blaster to shoot the guard as he flatfootedly enters the cell.

There is no X-wing armed with proton torpedos that turns off the targetting computer because he wishes to use the force. There's just a bunch of people that have to overcome the fact that a 5 is less than a 7.

Hey folks,

Politeness please. There is no room for phrases like "Wake up" directed to one another at the Forge.

Discuss the ideas, not one another's persons.

Best,
Ron

Various Comments:

1)I liked your previous posts better. Your right in that some things are random, and some things are not. However, in most games randomness is actually a way to squeeze a whole bunch of factors into one roll.

A persons jumping distance is probably a bellcurve around some average distance. For a running long jump I may go from, say 4-6 feet, depending on how good my takeoff is, ect.


Consider I'm, say making a vase. The quality of the product depends on my skill, the quality of the materials, my artistic vision,
what colors I choose, how good the firing oven is, ect.
Most games roll all these factors into one random roll, so you get a larger range than is intuitivly possible. This seems to be the cause of your concern, to me.

About your system:

1)One it requires players to have a good assesment of the difficulty of a task before the attempt it. This can be difficult for a GM to convey. It kinda seems like that covert impasse thing again.

2)I don't see why anyone would take the 50-50 chance unless they had no choice or really didn't care about the outcome. If you don't care, why roll? Just pick what's more interesting.

3)A karmic comparison of the GM's roll and players skill is the same
as a karmic comparison of the players roll+skill and the GM's static difficulty number, but seems disempowering to the players.
Also, the GM's roll seems to reintroduce the randomness you despise...I'm confused here.

I'd like to see what other people say before I argue again, but I'd just like to say:

Han had a chance of shooting vader in ESB. Just a very very small one. I still think that karma is not a bad mechanic. I just think that it should run using a little randomness. I wouldn't argue with a system that used skills as a range instead of a single number, and the number used whithin that range for the given situation was based upon the curcumnstances. I'm not trying to insult you, Pale Fire, but I am trying to convey my opinion that, without refining your mechanic, or at least telling me what it would be used for, it won't work well in an RPG.

And I strongly destest any theory that says that our actions resolutions have no bearing on randomness.

And I'm not trying to say that you're system is bad. I simply think that it doesn't work for a simulationist like me.

I just wanted to mention that randomness has absolutely no bearing pro or con on simulationism. To put it in Forge Jargon. Drama, Fortune, and Karma are GNS independent.

Having a non random resolution is in no way less simulationist than having a random resolution. In any simulationist model you have a series of simplifying assumptions. Without them you have no model...you have reality itself.

A common feature of most scientific and economic models is to frame the situation in such a way that various factors that are difficult or impossible to know or measure are assumed to be held constant or ignored entirely (the "all else being equal" caveat we see so much).

What most RPGs do is they take all of those unknown factors, come up with a range of possible effects on the outcome (usually in a very non rigorous and non scientific...aka...pulled out of their ass way) and encapsulate those factors as being the "randomness" of the roll.

In a more rigorous simulation we would not be satisfied with such ambiguities and attempt to measure these factors and include them into our calculations. This is where the multiple pages of modifiers come from. As an aside: Most of the time, however, you'll notice that as these games (often with house rules) add more and more modifiers they DON'T reduce the random range of the mechanic. Technically this is a mistake. If there are 30 unknown factors that are encapsulated in a random d10 roll, than defining 10 of those factors should have some measureable impact on decreaseing the range of the possible random result.

If we could define the majority of these unknown factors we could reduce the random range to near enough to zero that we could substitute a Karmic mechanic for it.

What PF has done here is simply assign a difficulty which assumes (all simulative models assume somewhere) that all possible factors are incorporated into the difficulty number. Thus, except at the margins, the success or failure of the roll is known with certainty.

There are many examples of where such a system is actually MORE realistic in a simulative sense...NOT...less.

One example...wild west fast draws. If Johnny the Kidd is known to be the fastest draw in the west...than he is quite simply the fastest draw in the west. He WILL outdraw you, period. There is no question of him having a skill of 9 while you have a skill of 7 so with a good roll you might beat him...you won't beat him...EVER...until some dramatic moment in the story where after having killed your brother you are filled with enough passion to face him down. At which point HE has no chance of beating you (similiar in concept to SAs in Riddle of Steel).

If your goal is to model Hollywood westerns...such a mechanic is a far BETTER simulation than the traditional opposed roll where every body has a shot (and is similiar to something I've been working on for my own western).

So in a nutshell. PFs system is neither inherently a better nor worse mechanic from a simulation perspective. It all depends on what you're simulating.

Well said, Ralph (Valamir).

It sounds to me like the crux of some of the objections to PF's system is not any lack of verisimilitude, but rather the (perceived) lack of suspense.

I believe this is an illusion that arises from staged examples that would rarely arise in real play. That's because the difficulty would rarely be known in advance -- either because the GM was randomizing it, as PF suggests, or because it simply hasn't been revealed. Han Solo, like the audience, doesn't know whether or not he can shoot Darth Vader, because he's never had a chance to attempt it before. It's a longshot chance, not because the odds are against his performing at his best, but because it's very likely that his best will not be adequate for the task. He has to try it to find out. at which point we all learn the answer.

Randomness in resolution can represent either or both of two different things: uncertainty about the immediate effects of unknown factors that are acting at that moment, or lack of complete knowledge of the situation. The latter is not really, technically, fortune but it is treated as equivalent, which might not always be appropriate. Consider three cases:

1. My character has a fast draw skill of 5. He draws against an opponent whose fast draw skill he doesn't know, but it turns out to be 6. He loses. That's karma.

2. My character has a fast draw skill of 5. He draws against an opponent whose fast draw speed, according to the system, is determined by a roll of d10. The roll is 6. My character loses. That's fortune.

3. My character has a fast draw skill of 5. He draws against an opponent whose fast draw skill he doesn't know, and the GM has not determined in advance. The GM rolls d10 to decide what the opponent's skill is, and it comes up 6. As a result, my character loses. Is this karma or fortune?

This is related to the age-old question: does my pick-locks roll determine how well I use the lock picks, or how tough the lock is? Many systems are just sloppy about this distinction. For example, a rule that prevents me from trying again on the same lock implies the latter, while allowing another character to try the same lock without taking my prior attempt into account implies the former.

The bottom line is that Pale Fire's proposed system is no more likely to reduce the drama of a situation to mere numbers than any other system, and that the use of a (mostly-) karma mechanism for resolution doesn't preclude the use of randomness to fill in unknowns in the situation prior to the moment of resolution.

So, having survived being shot by the opponent in the showdown, my character improves his quick-drawing skill and seeks out that opponent for another duel. Since I've now raised my quick draw to 7, is the outcome a foregone conclusion, devoid of suspense? Hardly. What's the other guy been doing while I've been practicing? And did his previous 6 represent his actual best ability, or was he holding back? Only one way to find out.

- Walt

Walt:I'd call #3 fortune, possibly with player disempowerment, as this is really no different than me trying to roll under my skill. But that's just me.

This in turn means that the GM pretty much can decide on any outcome. Why? Because the GM decides the difficulty and there
is no roll unless it's a 50-50 chance which the GM can avoid by setting the difficulty one step higher.

This doesn't have to have any effect on player empowerment or the ability of characters to "change the world".

Allowing players to "roll for it" isn't empowering their characters. Its giving them the chance to screw up where such isn't necessary.

Its the old "don't make the players roll for crossing the street" thing.
Why not? Because obviously characters are competant enough to cross the street without needing to roll. Even the most roll heavy games basically acknowledge karma resolution at this level.

You don't have players roll to cross the street. You don't have players roll to see if they choke on their dinner...but yet you do have players roll to defeat a bad guy...even when that bad guy doesn't offer any greater challenge to the character than walking or eating.

By forceing players to roll in "stressful" situations you're not empowering them...you're risking whiffs that make them look stupid.

Conversely allowing them to roll with a small chance of success for something outrageously difficult isn't empowering them either. The GM has ultimate control of the difficulty...he can set it high enough to make success highly unlikely. At this point its just the pure luck of the die...minute chance for success vs. whatever penelty is assigned for failure. Relying on luck isn't empowerment.

Empowerment comes only from the GM allowing the player decisions to impact the world. Whether the players get to roll dice or not, ultimately its entirely up to the GM to decide. In many games, rolling dice is the ultimate illusion...you think the rolls mean something, but in reality the GM is still pulling the strings. Similiarly a system like PF described could be equally depowering.

On the other hand, a system of concessions where the GM allows players to up their ability for purposes of success by voluntarily taking certain prices (especially if those prices are chosen by the players) can be highly empowering.

Its all in how the GM handles it.

Note: I've never been a huge fan of Karma resolution in the past, but I've come to see its validity as an option. Like any mechanic its all in how you use it.

Valamir wrote: ...Its the old "don't make the players roll for crossing the street" thing....

Why not? Because obviously characters are competent enough to cross the street without needing to roll.

You don't have players roll to cross the street. You don't have players roll to see if they choke on their dinner...

Valamir wrote: Empowerment comes only from the GM allowing the player decisions to impact the world. Whether the players get to roll dice or not, ultimately it's entirely up to the GM to decide. In many games, rolling dice is the ultimate illusion...you think the rolls mean something, but in reality the GM is still pulling the strings. Similarly a system like [Pale Fire] described could be equally disempowering.

On the other hand, a system of concessions where the GM allows players to up their ability for purposes of success by voluntarily taking certain prices (especially if those prices are chosen by the players) can be highly empowering.

I'm not anti-karma.
I'm not anti-karma.
I'm not anti-karma...

I'm against the application of karma to justify realism, when it's not. To use all of these arguments to justify the statement: "It can be used correctly if it's applied to the right things," you must tell me what you are planning to apply this system to. Let me go back to LOtR.

Sauron did NOT have to worry about any legendary heroes. Elrond was busy. Isulder's dad was dead. Sauron was, as the leader of the greatest military force of Middle Earth and the greatest warrior of Middle Earth, wearing the One Ring, swinging a gigantic mace, and toppling armies. He was enclosed in full armor, probably magical, was a near-omnipotent spirit, and looking good while he did this. He had gone throughout the masses of hundreds of elves and humans unhurt and was ready to make the final blow to a prone opponent. What kind of concessions in hell's very name could Isulder have made to cut the ring with an entirelley shattered blade? You tell me.

Please tell me how your system accounts for this. If your system is not adept to deal with these types of situations you should either tell me what situations it IS adept to deal with or explain to me how you account for the impossible. What would happen if they try to make the philosopher's stone? It isn't impossible. "I have seen the stone."

Now on the issue of empowerment. Player empowerment is about the concept of player control. It is within my opinion that if this is so that empowerment is entirelley based upon illusionismn. I have never seen anything that rivals a player's joy at succeeding in a desperate situation. One forwards power to the GM in a karma system. It's a simple inequaltity statement. If players have limited control over the inequality statement, or think that they have control, more situations will arise. They will be less conservative about their tactics and I think that more fun will occur. If you wish to simulate impossible situations, then I would go with your systems. I probably wouldn't use it without a twist mechanic (yes, even beyond the one you have already established). Please give more detail.

First I'd like to apologize to Pyron for that last comment. It was out of line.

Ok, you all raise a various number of issues and that's great.

First up, James talks about the randomness factors in long jump and so on. I agree there do IS variation. However, if you look at the last part I have a rather long example on how to simulate it by the GM rolling different difficulty for every jump.

What the system does is give the GM 100% ability to fix external factors. If he doesn't feel like that then he can roll as much as he thinks the variation is. In other words the GM can set the randomness of the situation which is a powerful tool.

The same is applicable to the vase example.

James also raise the question about assessing difficulty of a task before it's attempted.

Since the GM has a number already, there are a number of ways for the GM to handle it depending on what he/she thinks the character knows (which can be determined the same way, through this karma mechanics), what is favourable to the story and personal style.

The GM might give the number outright, or simply give an approximate number. In any case, since the difference between each rating is rather large, the players should usually have rather precise knowledge of the difficulty, unless it's hard to assess. Jumping a chasm for example should probably have the difficulty outright stated, whereas an NPCs skill might be totally unknown.

Another question of James's is "why would anyone take the 50-50 chance unless they had no choice or really didn't care about the outcome?"

I'm not sure I understand this question. Obviously anyone thinking a task is important tries to stack the odds in his/her favour. The 50-50 rule isn't something I made up because I thought it was a good idea. It just inevitably HAS to be there because this karma resolution is supposed to work for opposed tests. Now if A and B have equal skill, naturally the there has to be a 50-50 chance for either win.

If your skill is lower than required even stacking odds in your favour can't get you higher than a 50-50 chance. That's when you end up there. I don't really see the problem.

Finally James brings up the fact that the GM can roll the difficulty, which makes look a little similar to having a static difficulty assigned by the GM which the player rolls against.

But in fact, they are very different. In the latter case, GM only sets part of the circumstances and leaves the rest to the dice. Usually, like Ralph points out, the dice stays the same which means despite the GM's best efforts to fix more of the situational conditions, the randomness stays the same.

And this is exactly what leads to the contradiction between soliloquy and mechanical play in many systems. Basically soliloquy let's the GM totally decide on the circumstances and then ENTER THE GAME SYSTEM and the GM is just as much at mercy to the roll as the players are.

If the GM is empowered to set the difficulty a-priori either randomized or simply set, the game grants the GM a lot of power to shape the story which ultimately helps in maintaining the illusion. It's not that I don't like randomness, it's that I don't like randomness to override reasonable results just for randomness sake.

Pyron wrote: Han had a chance of shooting vader in ESB. Just a very very small one.

Damion wrote:

This in turn means that the GM pretty much can decide on any outcome. Why? Because the GM decides the difficulty and there
is no roll unless it's a 50-50 chance which the GM can avoid by setting the difficulty one step higher.

This actually worries me. The point of a charachter having skills is so they can affect the game, if you can't, why bother having skills at all?

It seems like your trying to give players the Illusion that they can affect the world, when they really can't, which seems weird to me.

Fang wrote:
That's where I think the mistake comes in previous thinking. You pick a lock; what if you take your time? What if you use lots of specialized equipment? What if you would resort to even a crowbar if necessary? No lock would stop you; success is assured. You'd be doing it 'competently.'

Fang wrote: A lot of design thought will go into each game that makes these 'dials' available. I tend towards the 'players making the direction' in the game, I think Christoffer goes the other way.

Pyron wrote: To use all of these arguments to justify the statement: "It can be used correctly if it's applied to the right things," you must tell me what you are planning to apply this system to.

Sauron did NOT have to worry about any legendary heroes. Elrond was busy. Isulder's dad was dead.

Please tell me how your system accounts for this.

Now on the issue of empowerment. Player empowerment is about the concept of player control. It is within my opinion that if this is so that empowerment is entirelley based upon illusionismn.

I have never seen anything that rivals a player's joy at succeeding in a desperate situation.

One forwards power to the GM in a karma system. It's a simple inequaltity statement. If players have limited control over the inequality statement, or think that they have control, more situations will arise.

He had gone throughout the masses of hundreds of elves and humans unhurt and was ready to make the final blow to a prone opponent. What kind of concessions in hell's very name could Isulder have made to cut the ring with an entirelley shattered blade? You tell me.

Hey Christoffer,

It's good to see that you're so far ahead of me on this one. I only see a coupla inconsistencies in what you've presented.

First you say:

Pale Fire wrote: If your skill is lower than required even stacking odds in your favour can't get you higher than a 50-50 chance.

Pale Fire wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: That's where I think the mistake comes in previous thinking. You pick a lock; what if you take your time? What if you use lots of specialized equipment? What if you would resort to even a crowbar if necessary? No lock would stop you; success is assured. You'd be doing it 'competently.'

This is what you mentioned in another thread and it's exactly this which I think makes the karma system feasible.

Difficulty to pick lock: 4 (or whatever)

I have 3, but what if I double the time spent on it? Maybe I get an extra point for that and a 50-50 chance (since I have rating 3+1 then), what if I use a book on lock-picking to help me too and add additional time? Maybe +2. That would be a sure success. Fine, I succeed.

Pale Fire wrote: If the GM is empowered to set the difficulty a-priori either randomized or simply set, the game grants the GM a lot of power to shape the story which ultimately helps in maintaining the illusion. It's not that I don't like randomness, it's that I don't like randomness to override reasonable results just for randomness sake.

...Besides, this was merely pointing out how the GM can exercise complete control over outcomes if he needs to without fudging the results. This is a great thing because I'm trying to create a functional Illusionism, and here is actually a tool to make it legal for the GM to fudge any roll while at the same time letting it be totally random if the GM chooses to.

Pale Fire wrote:

Fang wrote: A lot of design thought will go into each game that makes these 'dials' available. I tend towards the 'players making the direction' in the game, I think Christoffer goes the other way.

If [you] mean, [do] I encourage the GM to take control the game? No, definitely not. This machinery is there for two reasons (let me know if it's going against it)

• To allow soliloquy results consistently be the same as the mechanical results (this would arise from the GM being able to set the conditions so that after using soliloquy to resolve a situation the GM can actually reconstruct it into a mechanical situation which yields the same outcome. In fact the GM can use soliloquy results to create a mechanical profile of an NPC or a situation - "He beat you easily and you have a rating of 4 so he must have at least 5, probably 6 or 7")

• To help the players avoid character de-protagonization due to unlucky rolls.

Fang wrote:
Which says that you can 'stack the odds' more in your favor than 50-50. Since I'm following along with your system, can you clarify? Are any there situations (non-in-game or abstracted) where I cannot 'stack the odds' in my favor, one way or another? Is there a rule?

Fang wrote:
Which is is? Does "the GM [have] a lot of power to shape the story which ultimately helps in maintaining the illusion" or do you "definitely not" "encourage the GM to take control the game?" First you say you're "trying to create a functional Illusionism" then you turn around and say that you don't "encourage the GM to take control the game." That sounds contradictory to me.

You probably already know the answer and are just having difficulty expressing what you meant (happens to me all the time); I just need clarification.

Pale Fire wrote: It's NOT the GM deciding everything, including what the players do. That's what I would say is "the GM taking control over the game". On the other hand as you point out, illusionism is about the GM doing a lot of stuff behind the players' backs and some of the decisions the players do might not have a real impact. However, a sound illusionist GM maintains the illusion to the players that everything they do HAVE impact. That together with the illusion that the players are free to do whatever they want.

You put air vents in your dungeons?
And I suppose you made sure all the denizens had proper food and water supplies too...sheesh...
;-)

Valamir wrote: You put air vents in your dungeons?
And I suppose you made sure all the denizens had proper food and water supplies too...sheesh...
;-)

First off: I'm pretty sure Sauron was already beaten when Isildur cut the ring off of his finger. It was just done differently in the movie, in the book there is no 'called shot to the ring finger of the right hand.' Sauron was beaten and on the ground, which makes cutting it off pretty trivial. Isildur took the ring as 'spoils of war' and a reward for all the destruction Sauron causesed. I thought this was cooler, but I'm digressing...

Christoffer: I was misunderstanding a few things, but I get it now.
The system REALLY needs the concessions mechanic to work though.

My point with the Random Difficulties: Say a skill 5 and skill 7 person try to jump the chasm. The GM rolls a 4 for the first person, who makes automatically, but a 8 for the second person, who falls in automatically. It's the same wiff factor here.

Other Point:

What I mean by the GM taking control of the game was as response to Pyron's (what's your real name?) and James' concern that the GM would blatantly force the player's decisions and railroading the story by using the power of determining difficulties. That's what I'm against. With at least moderately intelligent players they would quickly ge the feel that the GM was working against them when they weren't doing stuff according to plan.
....
If the GM uses the heavy handed approach of what amouts to overtly stacking the odds against the players when they don't follow The Plan, then that's breaking the illusion. So when I say "definately not GM taking control", it's this overt, heavy handed control which cripples the players actions and explicitly stop any character's attempt to do things contrary to the GM's wishes. Yes I have played with GMs like that. GMs can do stuff like that in non-Karma games too :)

Italics mine.

I fail to see the difference between there two ideas. The advantage of your system is that the GM can overtly stack the odds easier because of the large granularity & the way the system works. Or are you saying that since ALL the odds are overtly stacked players won't be able to tell when it's because their 'not following the plan' or when it's just part of the story? Interesting...

You might want to keep possible concessions small, as the GM has to consider them when setting difficulty numbers.
GM:The lock has a difficulty of 5 and orcs are approaching, so you can't take extra time.
Player:I have skill 4, doh! Oh wait, I have +1 lockpicks!
GM:Doh! 50-50 roll please.

Fang wrote:
Excellent. One suggestion, about wording? Don't put it in terms of the illusion hiding the fact that "some of the decisions the players do might not have a real impact." I suggest that Illusionism for you might be not giving the players those choices in the first place. You aren't blunting any choices, it's the 'magician's offer.'

James wrote: Christoffer: I was misunderstanding a few things, but I get it now. The system REALLY needs the concessions mechanic to work though.

James wrote: My point with the Random Difficulties: Say a skill 5 and skill 7 person try to jump the chasm. The GM rolls a 4 for the first person, who makes automatically, but a 8 for the second person, who falls in automatically. It's the same wiff factor here.

James wrote:
I fail to see the difference between there two ideas. The advantage of your system is that the GM can overtly stack the odds easier because of the large granularity & the way the system works. Or are you saying that since ALL the odds are overtly stacked players won't be able to tell when it's because their 'not following the plan' or when it's just part of the story? Interesting...

Pale Fire wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: Excellent. One suggestion, about wording? Don't put it in terms of the illusion hiding the fact that "some of the decisions the players do might not have a real impact." I suggest that Illusionism for you might be not giving the players those choices in the first place. You aren't blunting any choices, it's the 'magician's offer.'

Of course, this might be because I'm mainly playing improvised adventures. So there is no cliff until the players decide to cross it. All details for the adventure is generated as things moves along. Of course it's a bit of the magician's offer there too. For example, the players can go left or right. One way leads to the right place and one is way off.

No matter what the player choses, the decision will always lead the way the GM decided on, because the GM only decides afterwards if it's turning right or turning left that leads to the right spot.

Pale Fire wrote: Then there is the "Choosing The Path" which I already talked about. Sometimes the GM doesn't want to decide, so he randomly sets left as being leading right straight away and right leading the players away and leave it up to them to decide how the adventure unfolds.

Le Joueur wrote:

Pale Fire wrote: Then there is the "Choosing The Path" which I already talked about. Sometimes the GM doesn't want to decide, so he randomly sets left as being leading right straight away and right leading the players away and leave it up to them to decide how the adventure unfolds.

Isn't "way off" almost as bad as dead? I mean, now their doing things that everyone will eventually conclude are totally irrelevant, right?

Yep!

Now I'm quite curious to see how it looks in print; you go girl!

Fang Langford

Girl!?!

Christoffer (and apologies for previous misspellings of that)--

You go, girl! is fairly recent American slang, intended to be encouragement. I'm not certain of its derivation, but it has become gender neutral.

Sort of like White Wolf's annoying use of she when the antecedent is not clearly feminine.

--M. J. Young

Ah. :)

That's why I normally don't use slang. And I avoid cliches like the plague.

Fang Langford