The Forge Archives

It just struck me that Fortune-at-the-End tends to almost universally require some basic hacking to create a cohesive IIEE.

Mortaneus, can you elaborate on that?

Hi Mortaneus,

Absolutely - especially when the common sequence is being used:

1. Roll to hit
2. If you hit, roll hit location
3. Roll damage
4. Adjust damage by location (e.g. double damage to head)

One then has to re-write various statements made prior to #1 in order for whatever intention was necessary for #4 to occur to make sense.

To stick with linear in-game time, one really ought to roll hit location before finding out whether one hits, but (a) this doesn't match the wargame model which produced the common approach, and (b) it is irrelevant information if one misses, especially if handling time is high (which it is for hit location, almost by definition).

So a reverse-versy of in-game time has to occur, which, given a commitment to in-game causality, often forces hacking.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: Shreyas SampatMortaneus, can you elaborate on that?

Very simply:

Step 1:  Declaration: "I run up and hit him with my sword!"
Step 2:  System:  Miss!
Step 3:  Hack: "Err...I run up and swing at him with my sword, but miss!"

Hmm, but isn't that fixed by a more correct declaration given the rules:

"I run up and attack him with my sword!"

Frank

Hi there,

No, Frank, that doesn't solve anything, because the phrase "I attack him!" actually is too vague on its own. For it to work, it must be translated by the group (on shared understanding, if they have enough coherence for that) into Fortune-in-the-Middle, which permits, after the roll, narration of actions before the actual hit along with after it

In other words, you solve the problem in exactly the way that Mortaneus and I are talking about - bu getting the game-play out of the problem situation. It does not actually help the problem situation which faces a group which is committed to Fortune-at-the-end resolution.

Now, I do think that hacking is a viable solution to the potential problem, and that we have many years of play and many game texts which have relied on it, tacitly, to preserve Fortune-at-the-end resolution.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: ffilzHmm, but isn't that fixed by a more correct declaration given the rules:

"I run up and attack him with my sword!"

That was a pretty simple example.  What about this one?

"I jump over the bar, somersault between those two goons, and launch a flying drop kick to the face of the villain, bounce off his head, and land on top of a table, drawing my sword as I land."

If using a system that requires rolls for each part of this declaration, what happens if you fail one of the rolls in the middle, or, if done in one roll, botch it horribly?  Hack time!

Hmm, can't you still make the declaration as one of intent? For example you could say "I try to..." Isn't it inherent in these systems that the player makes a declaration of intent?

I see a real distinction between the types of hacks presented in the Code of Unaris examples and the hacks that might be necessary to resolve a statement in a Fortune at the End system.

Frank

The basic steps of the hack still exist in both instances, though.

1. A participant of the game attempts to establish something in the SIS.
2. Some mechanism negates/alters the thing from step 1
3. The SIS is re-written to conform to the changes of step 2

The difference between fortune-in-the-middle and fortune-at-the-end is that FotM decides who has the credibility, and how far that credibility extends, towards establishing facts in the SIS. The actual proposal of those facts comes after, and follows the already established guidelines.

FatE consists of a proposed set of facts, and a decision regarding their credibility after the proposal, often leading to a retraction and rewrite to fit the guidelines established by fortune, which necessitates a hack.

Strikes me as fairly useful to this thread to quote the relevant bits of glossary:

QuoteFortune-at-the-End (FatE)
Employing a Fortune Resolution technique (dice, cards, etc) following the full descriptions of actions, physical placement, and communication among characters. See "Fortune in the Middle" and associated links.

Fortune-in-the-Middle (FitM)
Employing a Fortune Resolution technique (dice, cards, etc) prior to fully describing the specific actions of, physical placement of, and communication among characters. The Fortune outcome is employed in establishing these elements retroactively. This technique may be employed with the dice/etc as the ultimate authority of success or failure (e.g. Sorcerer) or with the dice/etc outcome being potentially adjusted by a metagame mechanic (e.g. HeroQuest). See my review of Hero Wars, see also discussions in the Alyria forum.

Hacking the statement is, in fact, required by FatE as per this definition, given that it specifies "following full descriptions [...]"

What you're suggesting as a fix Frank, is changing FatE into FitM, where part of the action is described, a [mechanic happens], and then success or failure is described as per the result.

To give an example:
"I shoot you!" (roll dice) "damn, missed." is FatE (without strong regard for SIS continuity).
"I shoot you" (roll dice) "damn, missed.  Ok, I shoot in your general direction." is FatE (with strong regard for SIS continuity).
"I shoot at you!" (roll dice) "damn, missed" is FitM.


James

Ok, I see that. I guess I really think in terms of FitM instead of FatE even if the system implies FatE.

Frank

Quote from: BlankshieldTo give an example:
"I shoot you!" (roll dice) "damn, missed." is FatE (without strong regard for SIS continuity).
"I shoot you" (roll dice) "damn, missed.  Ok, I shoot in your general direction." is FatE (with strong regard for SIS continuity).
"I shoot at you!" (roll dice) "damn, missed" is FitM.

OK, I see this distinction.  But in practice, I don't feel that there is a huge difference between these.  In an actual game, I might use any of the three phrasings in practice -- all with the same meaning.  i.e. The meaning is that my character tries to shoot the target.  

Quote from: MortaneusThe basic steps of the hack still exist in both instances, though.

1. A participant of the game attempts to establish something in the SIS.
2. Some mechanism negates/alters the thing from step 1
3. The SIS is re-written to conform to the changes of step 2
...
FatE consists of a proposed set of facts, and a decision regarding their credibility after the proposal, often leading to a retraction and rewrite to fit the guidelines established by fortune, which necessitates a hack.

As Frank mentioned, though, it is much more common for the player to declare character intent.  This isn't the same thing as proposing a result for the SIS.  For example, if I say, "Dot attacks the demon" or "Dot tries to kick the demon in the head" -- I have established that Dot intends to hit the demon.  However, if Dot misses, that hasn't negated my declaration as a player.  It is still true that Dot attacked the demon even if the result is that she misses.  I don't retract my statement.  

The point is, my statement of Dot's intent is different than a statement of my intent as a player.  I could state that Dot attacks the demon know full well, even hoping, that she is going to miss.  

Now, mind you, hacking is still pretty common in my experience.  i.e. "I shoot at the demon on the left"  "Er, that one disappeared last turn."  "Oops, OK, I guess I shoot at whichever one is still here."  That clearly is rewriting statements.

Hi John,

I agree in full with you about Dot ... but not that everyone at the table sees it the same way, all the time, unless they've worked it out in some way. Either they've all played together for a long time in order to understand your intent/result distinction, or the rules-set is extremely clear about it (which in many but not all cases means "very tedious"), or both.

Theoretically, it'd be nice if play worked just as you say, all the time. But it doesn't. IIEE procedure is badly broken in many, many people's experiences of play. Take that phrasing of yours into a variety of other groups and you'll see all kinds of flipped-out confusions ensue.

Best,
Ron

O.K., I'm not getting it.

Quote from: Ron EdwardsSo a reverse-versy of in-game time has to occur, which, given a commitment to in-game causality, often forces hacking.

Now, I gave a brief example on the parent thread, and was told no, that wasn't hacking; but the example I gave seems even more like hacking by these terms than this simple confusion of IIEE.

My example concerned a character with a particular variant of Danger Sense, similar to the famous Spidey Sense, as Multiverser recommends using this. To expand on it:

Referee: As you round the bend, the alien leaps out from a dark corner and slashes at you, scoring a solid hit. You're bleeding badly.

Player: Wait! I have precognitive danger sense. I should be aware of the danger before I round the corner.

Referee:: Roll it. Checks dice. That's a success. Just before you round the corner, you realize that something is about to happen, and thus you are not surprised when the creature springs from the corner. Roll for initiative; are you activating any defenses?

Player: I'm moving into my combat stance; that will bonus me against his attack, as I might be able to deflect his blow. I'll also have my sword drawn as I come around the corner.[/list:u]
Now, I realize that this is a very small rule off in an obscure corner of the game, and I'm hardly claiming that I did something terribly innovative here. However, the description of Psi 12@1 Danger Sense under Psionic Precognitive Skills says,

QuoteAlternatively, the referee may use the skill in the strictly limited fashion that the character is not surprised (ordinary or special) on a successful skill check if the situation contains any element which would be defined as danger. That is, if the character walks into an ambush, and the dice indicate that he is surprised, he may announce the skill, roll a check, and if successful not be surprised after all, as the dice indicate that he had that moment of warning...the instant before the attack....

There are other skills for which similar language is used, and the discussion of surprise generally recognizes the use of skills rolled after it has been determined that the character was surprised to determine that no, the character was not surprised.

This seems to me to be rewriting established facts in the shared imagined space, and has always been treated as such when I've had such skills used in play. What's being discussed in this thread seems rather to be a question of whether "I hit him" is genuinely taken as establishing a fact in the shared imagined space or merely proposing one for consideration to be resolved by the certification process of the mechanics. I don't think anyone really believes that a statement that a character is going to hit an opponent establishes anything in the shared imagined space other than the attempt to do so, however it's worded in the text. It doesn't become a fact until it is certified and accepted, and thus it can't be the object of hacking.

But if that's wrong--if indeed this is an example of hacking--then what's not hacking in connection with the use of skills which negate surprise after it's been announced?

Multiverser has similar skills that negate the facts after they've been determined. For example, many immunities and protections are rolled only after an attack has been determined to be successful, declaring that the rolled damage is not done. In play-by-post play you don't usually see this, but in face-to-face play it's rather common that a character will be hit for serious damage, but will negate it by a successful roll. I seem to recall OAD&D having a similar mechanic for some of its character classes, such as the monk who could reduce or eliminate damage from certain kinds of attacks by making a successful saving throw after the damage had been rolled. The effect of that was something like:

[*]You've been hit.[*]You suffer twelve points of damage.[*]You made your save.[*]You actually only suffered six points of damage; you never felt the other six at all, as they never happened.[/list:u]This seems like mechanics-based hacking to me.

So what am I not getting?

--M. J. Young