Consensus-based roleplaying?
John R. Snead
: But I think it's getting perilously close to becoming 'conflict is what
: generally makes stories interesting, so everything that makes a story
: interesting is conflict'. If you make the definition of conflict so
: broad that it covers virtually every form of interaction with animate or
: inanimate objects ("Ginger biscuit or bourbon? Conflict!") it becomes a
: rather unhelpful term.
: Can you have a conflict free game? Well, patently not, if you have such
: a wide definition as to include shopping and, er, conversation as
: conflict.
While neither of those activities must contain conflict, an argument
(conflict between the two people arguing) does, as does a shopping trip with
extensive haggling (conflict between seller and buyer) or where two or
more mildly disagreeing people are shopping for a shared good (ie a
couple with somewhat different tastes or needs in cars goes shopping for
a shared car).
Would you define any of those situations as not containing conflict?
-John Snead jsn...@netcom.com
Mary K. Kuhner
John R. Snead <jsn...@netcom14.netcom.com> wrote:
[haggling, disagreeing over shopping itinerary]
>Would you define any of those situations as not containing conflict?
Isn't this kind of missing the point? There's a pronounced and
obvious difference between a gaming session with a standard RPG
level of conflict, and a gaming session involving, say, a non-
critical shopping trip. Calling the latter "no conflict" is an
exaggeration, yes, but could we try focussing on what makes the
latter game different and how it might be handled, rather than
saying over and over "well, it's not no-conflict"? Maybe a
different label, like "low conflict"?
A fairly recent session with _Radiant_ involved the characters
picking out costumes for the masquerade, and Jerl and Sapphire
dying each others' hair to look like primative Dolmenite
tribesmen; Markus flirted with some people at the party, and
Sapphire got friendly with a pet of Omar's, which upset Omar--
that was the major axis of conflict.
A recent session in the Feng Shui/Cthulhu game had the PCs'
hired pilot unexpectedly killed by sea snakes; the PCs suspect
the local tribesmen and plan to sneak into their ritual site,
drug and question the guards there, and find out if it was
murder. If so, they'll try to covertly hunt down the perpetrator
and take him out.
I can vouch for the fact that pacing, description style, and
player approach to these two games differ a *lot*; and that we
still don't know as much about how to run the first as we do
about how to run the second.
Let's not get hung up on labels.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@eskimo.com
Amber, Dan, DARE, or Julie
>
> In article <81o37k$5tr$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>,
> John R. Snead <jsn...@netcom14.netcom.com> wrote:
> >Would you define any of those situations as not containing conflict?
>
> Isn't this kind of missing the point?
Well, the idea was to explore the concept of no-conflict; low-conflict
is a valid but separate thing to examine. The subject should be changed,
though.
Aside, I suspect that the final answer to the ultimate goal will lie in
low-conflict; no-conflict would be interesting to create, but probably
quite dull to play.
One interesting thing I note is that in the part of your message I
snipped, you described the shopping trip as "non-critical". That strikes
a chord with me. Perhaps the key to the ultimate goal(in this case,
making an RPG that appeals more to female gamers) is a situation where
you have a stake in the outcome, but can afford to give ground. It's
certainly closer to the stereotype.
- DARE, GURPSist extraordinaire and plenipotentiary
* I have the body of a god... it's been in my basement since the 60s.
* Hi! I'm a .sig virus! Join the fun and copy me into yours! :)
Andrew Bernstein
<delph...@geocities.com> wrote:
> low-conflict; no-conflict would be interesting to create, but probably
> quite dull to play.
Please be more clear. No convincing storyline, be it in film, literature,
or RPGs could be without conflict. Combat, on the other hand, is not
necessarily so ubiquitous.
There allways must be opposing forces with different stakes in the
resolution of a given situation. Said resolution need not absolutely
require a bloody aftermath, however.
Even the goal of "building consensus" presupposes obstacles thereto.
Overcoming such obstacles is a form of conflict. If it's resolved through
trickery or diplomacy instead of 20 lbs of C4, then that's a different
story.
--
Glory to the gateway..............................Andrew Bernstein
(remove the asterisks before responding) http://www.total.net/~harma
ha...@total.net Montreal, CANADA
John Kim
Andrew Bernstein <h*a*r*m*a...@total.net> wrote:
>"Amber, Dan, DARE, or Julie" <delph...@geocities.com> wrote:
>> low-conflict; no-conflict would be interesting to create, but
>> probably quite dull to play.
>
>Please be more clear. No convincing storyline, be it in film,
>literature, or RPGs could be without conflict. Combat, on the other
>hand, is not necessarily so ubiquitous.
>
>resolution of a given situation.
I have heard before that story must have conflict: but this
is only true if you include external conflict (both "Person against
Others" and "Person against Nature") as well as internal conflict
("Person against Self").
A person trapped in the wilderness trying to survive against
the elements and starvation is a story about conflict, even if there
isn't an animate "opposing force". A person who goes into a peaceful
trek through the wilderness to find herself is a story about conflict,
even if there isn't an external "opposing force". Similarly, there
are stories about growing up, or deciding what one's future is
(internal conflict).
At that point, however, the objection applies that *anything*
that takes place in non-zero time has conflict ("Ginger biscuit or
bourbon?" @-). There are plenty of stories about day-in-the-life --
more in literature than movies or RPG's, admittedly. These have
conflict of internal impulses, or the conflict against weeds and
aphids damaging one's garden, etc. I think the application of this
theory to authorship is simply that sometimes it is helpful to ask
what your conflict is. You can be assured that no matter what your
concept, it has a conflict in it -- the helpful part is tracing down
what sort of conflict it is.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
As to how this applies to RPG's: We are fairly familiar
with "Person against Other" conflict in RPG's. In RPG's, this is
often violent but not universally so. However, I much less often
see "Person against Nature" or "Person against Self" conflict
in RPG's.
What techniques are good for handling internal conflict,
then? For example, there is player narrative -- where a player
speaks his character's internal thoughts. There is also
"blue-booking" -- a term for passing notes to the GM where the
notes are all recorded in a notebook which is saved (thus giving
more continuity). However, I have had more success (admittedly I
tried more as well) with playing out selected conversations.
Choosing and running the conversations is tricky, though.
Amber, Dan, DARE, or Julie
>
> In article <384064...@geocities.com>, "Amber, Dan, DARE, or Julie"
> <delph...@geocities.com> wrote:
> > low-conflict; no-conflict would be interesting to create, but probably
> > quite dull to play.
>
> Please be more clear. No convincing storyline, be it in film, literature,
> or RPGs could be without conflict.
Note the hedging: "convincing". All the ones I can imagine are pretty
unconvincing, yes. I seem to recall at least one children's book without
conflict; the "plot" had the main character wandering about, greeting
everyone. The idea was probably to show polite greetings. I think even a
child would find this dull and unconvincing, though.
What I meant is that it would probably be an interesting exercise to
try to create a complex scenario without conflict, but that once created
it should be shelved, because it would probably be a dreadful bore to
play.
- DARE, GURPSist extraordinaire and plenipotentiary
* "Love wouldn't be blind if the braille weren't so damned much fun."
Adam H. Morse
> As to how this applies to RPG's: We are fairly familiar
> with "Person against Other" conflict in RPG's. In RPG's, this is
> often violent but not universally so. However, I much less often
> see "Person against Nature" or "Person against Self" conflict
> in RPG's.
I've played in games with significant Person against Nature issues. My
experiences have not been positive.
A long running D&D game I played in had fording a major river as a
major part of one session. (I believe that this was supposed to last
about a half hour of real time, but actually lasted several hours). It
was a disaster. We struggled...various people almost drowned...we
planned...plans mostly worked but dropped people in the water, where
other people almost drowned trying rescues. The worst aspect was that
it was frustrating without any sense of accomplishment...at the end of
the day, we'd succeeded, but still felt like idiots. Mostly, we walked
away from that session with a resolution to flee if we ever encountered
another river.
I've also heard of Person against Nature subplots in games. An example
would be survival scenarios. Part of the adventure is the goal. But
part of the adventure is coping with the limits of travelling in a
desert with limited water, say. I think Dark Sun often includes
elements of this, for a commercial example.
Still, I can't say this is doing it well. Interestingly, Person
against Nature is not a style of story I tend to like either. Perhaps
people who really like "To build a fire" or similar stories would
prefer these elements in games.
Adam Morse
Warren J. Dew
A long running D&D game I played in had fording a major river as a
major part of one session. (I believe that this was supposed to last
about a half hour of real time, but actually lasted several hours). It
was a disaster. We struggled...various people almost drowned...we
planned...plans mostly worked but dropped people in the water, where
other people almost drowned trying rescues.
This sounds so familiar I could almost suspect you of being one of my players
in disguise. I've probably had this happen half a dozen times - every couple
of years, perhaps. At least one of my players actively enjoys this kind of
encounter.
The worst aspect was that it was frustrating without any sense of
accomplishment...at the end of the day, we'd succeeded, but still
felt like idiots.
Why? Sounds like the risks of the river crossing were as high as a major
combat encounter, so the degree of accomplishment was significant.
If it was really D&D, was it just an issue of not getting experience points? I
do try to hand out experience in situations like that commensurate with the
difficulty of the task. That's often a lot more than most gamesmasters are
willing to hand out for noncombat encounters.
Mostly, we walked away from that session with a resolution to
flee if we ever encountered another river.
Yes, those rivers, they're really dangerous. One would almost have to rank
them up there with gods - almost like a force of nature.
Warren J. Dew
Powderhouse Software
Brian Gleichman
news:19991209160733...@ng-fi1.aol.com...
> Yes, those rivers, they're really dangerous. One would almost
> have to rank them up there with gods - almost like a force of
> nature.
Large bodies of water have a horrible reputation in our games. Heavy groans
always break out when they are encountered.
--
Brian Gleichman
glei...@mindspring.com
Age of Heroes: http://gleichman.home.mindspring.com/
Adam H. Morse
Dew <psych...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> The worst aspect was that it was frustrating without any sense of
> accomplishment...at the end of the day, we'd succeeded, but still
> felt like idiots.
>
> Why? Sounds like the risks of the river crossing were as high as a major
> combat encounter, so the degree of accomplishment was significant.
>
I'm not sure. I think there was partially a dichotomy between the
danger level that the DM expected and what the players expected; we
were kinda stunned when it wasn't an easy task. Maybe we had different
images of the river. The analogy I would use is a bunch of midlevel
characters fighting an equal number of kobolds and almost losing, but
winning anyway. There's little satisfaction there.
> If it was really D&D, was it just an issue of not getting experience points?
> I
> do try to hand out experience in situations like that commensurate with the
> difficulty of the task. That's often a lot more than most gamesmasters are
> willing to hand out for noncombat encounters.
>
This wasn't actually the problem. It was a relatively low combat
campaign, so almost all experience was handed out for noncombat
activity. I've played in games where character action was heavily
distorted by experience only coming from combat, but this wasn't one of
them. :)
Adam Morse
Mary K. Kuhner
> The worst aspect was that it was frustrating without any sense of
> accomplishment...at the end of the day, we'd succeeded, but still
> felt like idiots.
>Why? Sounds like the risks of the river crossing were as high as a major
>combat encounter, so the degree of accomplishment was significant.
If the players were goal-centered, as I often am, they probably didn't
consider the river a significant sub-goal. They had things they
meant to accomplish, and had probably expected to make some progress
towards accomplishing those things. Instead, they spent a whole
session on something they hadn't even considered as a problem. In
some moods I can find this almost unbearably frustrating, especially
if I have put a lot of planning into the PCs' explicit goals.
It's also the case that defeating an enemy means you have fewer
enemies, but defeating a river gains you nothing except that you are
on the other side. Thus, everything you lose in the attempt is pure
loss without compensation, or at least it tends to feel like that
to me. (And no, EXP don't help.)
I think it's the same emotional reaction as the one I feel if the PCs
have a lengthy, painful run-in with people who are not their foes
(say, the police). There is nothing you can possibly gain by such an
encounter except getting past it: it would unequivocally have been better
for the PCs if it hadn't happened. In a game where the GM is willing to
contrive encounters, I would prefer he didn't contrive very many of these.
Of couse, in a simulationist game you can't suppress the encounter,
but abstracting it is a possibility: it sounds as though from
Adam's POV his GM might have done well to abstract the river.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@eskimo.com
Warren J. Dew
man versus nature conflict. I've rearranged the order of the quotes somewhat.
Of couse, in a simulationist game you can't suppress the encounter,
but abstracting it is a possibility: it sounds as though from
Adam's POV his GM might have done well to abstract the river.
I beg to differ. Recall that several characters 'almost drowned' in the
encounter, implying that drowning was a real possibility.
"You try to cross the river? Okay, everyone roll a D12. On a 1, your
character drowns."
I somehow don't think the player who rolled the 1 would be too happy about
that.
If the players were goal-centered, as I often am, they probably
didn't consider the river a significant sub-goal.
I think this may be getting at the root of the problem, which I am beginning to
see as assumption clash. The gamesmaster thinks of the river as a real
barrier; the players are assuming that only animate opposition counts.
It's also the case that defeating an enemy means you have fewer
enemies, but defeating a river gains you nothing except that you are
on the other side.
With one fewer barrier between you and your goal; I don't really see how that
differs, except with respect to assumptions about what constitutes an opponent.
If you are going to pass that way again, I can see how you might not look
forward to crossing the river the next time; on the other hand, you probably
have a better idea of what the best plan is, so it should be easier. Depending
on specific circumstances, the characters might even learn to swim.
One of the current groups in Laratoa has been doing something that is mostly
man (well dwarf) versus nature. It has actually been very interesting, as the
solutions to these problems are usually more original and interesting than the
better known solutions for dealing with other humanoids and such.
Russell Wallace
> The worst aspect was that it was frustrating without any sense of
> accomplishment...at the end of the day, we'd succeeded, but still
> felt like idiots.
>
> Why? Sounds like the risks of the river crossing were as high as a major
> combat encounter, so the degree of accomplishment was significant.
I've had similar experiences, not with river crossings specifically but
with outdoors-survival type scenes.
Part of it is frustration. For me, if my first ten attempts at
something fail, by the eleventh time I'm usually sufficiently pissed off
that I don't really want whatever it was I was supposed to be aiming for
anymore anyway. If the prize was something stunningly magnificent,
discovering the meaning of life or something, then that *might* make up
for it, but getting across a river sure as hell won't.
Part of it is annoyance. Think about it this way: Occasionally my
character will attempt something that I the player think is going to
fail. But honestly, that's damn rare. And non-living obstacles usually
don't have much randomness. Therefore in this sort of situation, if my
character is trying something, most likely I the player think it
logically *ought* to work. Now, the first couple of times might be
legitimate differences of opinion, but by the time several reasonable
things have failed (regardless of the GM's excuses as to why) my
conclusion is that, whether for conscious or subconscious motives, he's
deliberately screwing us over.
In neither case is the man-vs-nature scenario a bad thing in and of
itself, the problem is the repeated failures and the length of time
taken. My solution to this sort of thing as GM is, if the PCs' first
couple of attempts at such a task fail, just let the next one succeed.
(Unless the task is genuinely beyond the PCs' abilities, in which case
say so up front.)
--
"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem."
Russell Wallace
mailto:mano...@iol.ie
Wayne Shaw
wrote:
>Of couse, in a simulationist game you can't suppress the encounter,
>but abstracting it is a possibility: it sounds as though from
>Adam's POV his GM might have done well to abstract the river.
The problem with that is that as soon as the river has any chance of
producing a fatality or loss at all, the abstraction can feel too
abrupt. Say I conclude that there's somewhere less than a 5%, but
still not less than 1% that someone might drown; I could have everyone
roll a D20 and on a 20 have to make a swimming roll or drown. But at
that point it can feel too abrupt with no sense someone could have
applied intelligence to the process.
Russell Wallace
However, I think all but the most hard-core simulationists would figure
the solution to this is to just describe it as a close call and move on,
and forget about the actual probability of drowning.
Now if one *is* a hard-core simulationist, of course, there's still a
problem. But the abstraction would work fine for most groups.
Wayne Shaw
wrote:
>However, I think all but the most hard-core simulationists would figure
>the solution to this is to just describe it as a close call and move on,
>and forget about the actual probability of drowning.
>
>Now if one *is* a hard-core simulationist, of course, there's still a
>problem. But the abstraction would work fine for most groups.
Even if you're not, the purpose of the river may be to make the game
harder later, because of lost equipment or some such. In such a case,
if you just say "You lost some equipment fording the river" many
people will feel it's too much a case of fiat. I certainly would, and
I'm more gamist than simulationist.
Martin Mertens
> The problem with that is that as soon as the river has any chance of
> producing a fatality or loss at all, the abstraction can feel too
> abrupt. Say I conclude that there's somewhere less than a 5%, but
> still not less than 1% that someone might drown; I could have everyone
> roll a D20 and on a 20 have to make a swimming roll or drown. But at
> that point it can feel too abrupt with no sense someone could have
> applied intelligence to the process.
Well, you could switch to more detail the moment someone rolls that 20,
i.e. zoom right into the *middle* of the situation by working out an
approach to crossing that the PCs might reasonably have taken (with input
from the players), and then improvise and describe what's gone wrong
("Jake is at the other side, Monty is halfway across the rope when Kyle
notices that the rope is beginning to fray *fast*...unfortunately, neither
Jake nor Monty can hear him above the roar of the river...").
Regards, Martin
Martin Mertens
> No convincing storyline, be it in film, literature,
> or RPGs could be without conflict.
This depends on the definition of conflict, which may have been broadened too
much in this thread to be of much use. Ultimately, *any* decision involves
conflict - and rising in the morning or taking your next breath might be
construed as 'decisions'...
I think one way to get a handle on this matter might be to think of it as
*stress*.
I think the concept of stress is less ambiguous and more accesible than that
of conflict, not least because it is measurable - at least in theory - by
examining adrenaline levels, sweat composition etc..
(Of course, this doesn't cover non-living or alien characters, proxies or
nature.)
(Another stray thought: what about a look at the audience's stress levels?)
The activities I would intuitively have dubbed high-conflict in this debate
so far (combat, important negotiations, emotionally charged situations,
agonizing decisions etc.) all induce quite a lot of stress, usually far more
than what posters generally dubbed either low- or no-conflict activities (a
shopping spree, participation in an online debate, daily routine).
Regards, Martin
Wayne Shaw
That would work sometimes and with some groups, but with others you'd
immediately get into arguments about where people were, exactly how
the ropes would have been set up, and so on. At that point you might
as well have just played it out.
Wayne Shaw
>In article <k=NROAJ43fIYFjr...@4ax.com>,
>Wayne Shaw <sh...@caprica.com> wrote:
>>>Of couse, in a simulationist game you can't suppress the encounter,
>>>but abstracting it is a possibility: it sounds as though from
>>>Adam's POV his GM might have done well to abstract the river.
>>The problem with that is that as soon as the river has any chance of
>>producing a fatality or loss at all, the abstraction can feel too
>>abrupt. Say I conclude that there's somewhere less than a 5%, but
>>still not less than 1% that someone might drown; I could have everyone
>>roll a D20 and on a 20 have to make a swimming roll or drown. But at
>>that point it can feel too abrupt with no sense someone could have
>>applied intelligence to the process.
>
>But then you run into another question. Is applying the proper kind of
>intelligence *guaranteed* to bring you across the river safely, completely
>obviating the possibility of death?
>
>If the answer is "no", then you have a random chance of death anyway; it's
>just rolled bit by bit instead of in a single D20, and really isn't that
>different.
But the problem is, some of it may be on the player level, not the
character, and in any case may well involve several different aspects
of character ability, whicht therefor likely can't be summed up in a
single roll.
>
>If the answer is "yes", then you run into questions of player intelligence
>versus character intelligence. Why should the players have to play this scene
>out at all? The GM could easily say "It would be in character for everyone
>to cross the river with 100% safety. So let's assume that happens."
But it may not be in character for it to be 100%...but that doesn't
mean people are going to find it acceptable for the result to be
entirely out of their hands. It's no more acceptable than having a GM
resolve a fight by dicing to see who dies and moving on.
A.F. Simpson
> In article <19991209160733...@ng-fi1.aol.com>,
> Warren J. Dew <psych...@aol.com> wrote:
> >Why? Sounds like the risks of the river crossing were as high as a major
> >combat encounter, so the degree of accomplishment was significant.
>
> If the players were goal-centered, as I often am, they probably didn't
> consider the river a significant sub-goal. They had things they
> meant to accomplish, and had probably expected to make some progress
> towards accomplishing those things. Instead, they spent a whole
> session on something they hadn't even considered as a problem.
There is sometimes a problem with asking players to describe in detail
something that their characters have already done lots of times without
explicitly playing through it.
If this was the first big river the characters had ever come across,
then it's the first time the characters or the players have met the
problem of crossing one.
OTOH, suppose the characters have already crossed a few large rivers 'on
the nod' in their previous travels. In this case, it can feel as if the
GM is amusing themselves at the players' expense by suddenly demanding
the _players_ demonstrate the skills the characters are already known to
have. The characters and the players are both made to look incompetant,
and neither group enjoys it.
This is linked to a problem inherent in some resolution systems whereby
once an action is broken down too finely, you are almost guaranteed to
fail at some point during the proceedings. Therefore, once a GM focuses
closely on a scenario such crossing a rive, it becomes impossible to
overcome what ought to be a reasonably easy obstacle.
> Mary Kuhner mkku...@eskimo.com
love
Anna
Warren J. Dew
But then you run into another question. Is applying the
proper kind of intelligence *guaranteed* to bring you
across the river safely, completely obviating the
possibility of death?
No.
If the answer is "no", then you have a random chance of
death anyway; it's just rolled bit by bit instead of in
a single D20, and really isn't that different.
From the simulationist gamesmaster's perspective, this is true, provided the
probabilities can be accurately maintained through the abstraction process.
The players' perceptions are a different issue. Players are a lot less
accepting of character death by apparent fiat (e.g., one abstracted die roll)
than when they have had some input to the process.
The players may also feel that there's a risk of the gamesmaster erring to
their disadvantage in estimating the abstracted probabilities: that they might
be able to think up better plans that the gamesmaster accounted for.
Brian Gleichman
news:19991213131619...@ng-ba1.aol.com...
> The players may also feel that there's a risk of the
> gamesmaster erring to their disadvantage in estimating the
> abstracted probabilities: that they might
> be able to think up better plans that the gamesmaster
> accounted for.
That would be me. But I'm a detail freak in such things.
Even so, I would have to agree with Mary that a typical river crossing is
not my idea of great fun. A loss there just feels cheap.
As a result, I tend to match 'man against nature' conflicts together with
something else. It's one thing to lose a character to a river, another to
drown while under fire from Hill Giants...
Warren J. Dew
Part of it is annoyance. Think about it this way: Occasionally my
character will attempt something that I the player think is going to
fail. But honestly, that's damn rare. And non-living obstacles usually
don't have much randomness. Therefore in this sort of situation, if my
character is trying something, most likely I the player think it
logically *ought* to work. Now, the first couple of times might be
legitimate differences of opinion,
Yes; that's what I was trying to get at about the assumption clash ...
but by the time several reasonable
things have failed (regardless of the GM's excuses as to why) my
conclusion is that, whether for conscious or subconscious motives, he's
deliberately screwing us over.
And yet, it could just be persistence of the assumption clash.
To oversimplify, if the player is assuming that the river is four feet (1.2m)
deep, and the gamesmaster is assuming it's twelve feet (3.6m) deep, then an
approach that involves ten reasonable backup plans for crossing four foot deep
rivers is simply not going to work. The players need to take the gamesmaster's
feedback as 'reasons' to be incorporated into planning for later attempts, and
not just as 'excuses' to be ignored.
The gamesmaster, in turn, should provide appropriate feedback in providing
reasons for failure, of course. Players can help by asking questions to help
clarify their understanding of the situation.
Wayne Shaw
wrote:
>This is linked to a problem inherent in some resolution systems whereby
>once an action is broken down too finely, you are almost guaranteed to
>fail at some point during the proceedings. Therefore, once a GM focuses
>closely on a scenario such crossing a rive, it becomes impossible to
>overcome what ought to be a reasonably easy obstacle.
On the other hand, the inverse can be true too, depending on the level
of resolution within the system; in a detailed resolution, it may be
possible to attempt to "rescue" a failure, i.e. there may be alternate
things you can do once your Fording River roll has decided to fail on
you; perhaps several things. If made as a single roll, the
probabilities of failure may actually be _greater_, especially since
there is no insurance that the single roll will be based off something
the character is good as.
As an example, let's say I was running the old AH system Powers and
Perils, which had a powerful magic system, but one where mana was slow
to recharge. Normally, it's unlikely the characters would use magic
to expedite their crossing of a river; it's too precious a commodity.
However, if something started to go wrong, it's quite likely that a
mage with some applicable spell would now take action. His success
chance with his magic may well be considerably greater than with
whatever was being used to ford the river.
Mary K. Kuhner
>This is linked to a problem inherent in some resolution systems whereby
>once an action is broken down too finely, you are almost guaranteed to
>fail at some point during the proceedings. Therefore, once a GM focuses
>closely on a scenario such crossing a rive, it becomes impossible to
>overcome what ought to be a reasonably easy obstacle.
There are a complicated bundle of problems related to this one,
because it matters whether it's a string of rolls all of which must
succeed, or a string of rolls only *some* of which must succeed.
In the former case, if you have to make many rolls you're doomed;
in the latter case, making more rolls actually increases your
chances.
Stealth and intrusion skills are often instances of the first kind
of rule, whereas combat is almost always the second. This leads to
trouble whenever a system designer thinks she can use the same
mechanics for both. The resulting system can work for a GM who
uses exactly the same level of granularity as the original author.
But someone who asks for more rolls will be in trouble--for
example, someone who asks for a Stealth check against every
potential observer, rather than a single Stealth check against
the whole possibility of being observed.
We really notice this in our Storyteller-related homebrew, because
it is a system with high variance and a pretty large chance of
failure even for experienced characters. We can make it work
well as long as rolls are used for very broad situations, and only
when the outcome is definitely in doubt. But once or twice the
GM has been in the mood to use the rolls more finely and/or for
more everyday skill applications, and suddenly the supposedly
competent PCs look like bunglers. If Chernoi can make a whole
starjump with one die roll, that's okay--she screws up now and
again, but she's often doing rather risky jumps. But if she needs
to make five rolls per jump, which is tempting in order to get
more detail of resolution, she'll screw up *much* too often.
(And the player becomes tempted to push for abstraction, which is
in my opinion really the GM's purview, and we get into turf
wars between player and GM over this....)
Mary Kuhner mkku...@eskimo.com
angus_ma...@my-deja.com
sort out we would not move. A more thoughtfull question may be what
type on conflict works well in the role-play genra. If 'well' is defined
by me as leading to emotional intensity but feel free to use another
defintion. (this is getting more like a dictionary thread)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Kodeci
Wayne Shaw <sh...@caprica.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Dec 1999 13:31:25 -0800, "A.F. Simpson" <AF...@le.ac.uk>
> wrote:
> >This is linked to a problem inherent in some resolution systems
whereby
> >once an action is broken down too finely, you are almost guaranteed
to
> >fail at some point during the proceedings.
> of resolution within the system; in a detailed resolution, it may be
> possible to attempt to "rescue" a failure,
Then, can we suggest that :
1. it would be a good point for a system that provide examples of
ability and difficulty for task resolution, to provide those examples at
several abstraction levels (in other words, you can resolve the same
situation with more or less detail, without affecting too much the
outcome).
2. in a more general way, it would be great for a system to have a
scaling mechanism, that allows, given an example of resolution at one
scale, to abstract or detail it while maintaining coherence.
Note : I tried such a scaling mechanism in one of my systems. It doesn't
work yet :-( Are many people interested by that ?
Kodeci
http://members.xoom.com/kodeci/
(Be away from my mail for Christmas, until January 3rd)
A.F. Simpson
>
> On Mon, 13 Dec 1999 13:31:25 -0800, "A.F. Simpson" <AF...@le.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >This is linked to a problem inherent in some resolution systems whereby
> >once an action is broken down too finely, you are almost guaranteed to
> >fail at some point during the proceedings.
> On the other hand, the inverse can be true too, depending on the level
> of resolution within the system; in a detailed resolution, it may be
> possible to attempt to "rescue" a failure, i.e. there may be alternate
> things you can do once your Fording River roll has decided to fail on
> you; perhaps several things. If made as a single roll, the
> probabilities of failure may actually be _greater_, especially since
> there is no insurance that the single roll will be based off something
> the character is good as.
I wasn't really thinking of it as 'one roll systems' v. 'several roll
systems' but rather that the number of rolls required should be within
the normal 'abstraction range' of the resolution system. Some systems
are pitched so that a few rolls cover a whole sequence of actions, some
so that the same sequence calls for more rolls. Both should produce an
acceptable set of results when used as designed.
What makes characters suddenly turn into the Keystone Cops of river
crossing is when the GM increases the number of successful rolls
requires to complete an action without changing the probability that
each individual roll will succeed. Even if the characters don't have to
succeed at every roll, various small failures happen, a further round of
rolls is called for to correct them and sooner or later someone fails at
something important to the plan, or makes a critial failure roll.
love
Anna
dro...@my-deja.com
wrote:
>
> >This is linked to a problem inherent in some resolution systems
whereby
> >once an action is broken down too finely, you are almost guaranteed
to
focuses
> >closely on a scenario such crossing a rive, it becomes impossible to
> >overcome what ought to be a reasonably easy obstacle.
>
> There are a complicated bundle of problems related to this one,
> because it matters whether it's a string of rolls all of which must
> succeed, or a string of rolls only *some* of which must succeed.
> In the former case, if you have to make many rolls you're doomed;
> in the latter case, making more rolls actually increases your
> chances.
>
> Stealth and intrusion skills are often instances of the first kind
> of rule, whereas combat is almost always the second. This leads to
> trouble whenever a system designer thinks she can use the same
> mechanics for both. The resulting system can work for a GM who
> uses exactly the same level of granularity as the original author.
> But someone who asks for more rolls will be in trouble--for
> example, someone who asks for a Stealth check against every
> potential observer, rather than a single Stealth check against
> the whole possibility of being observed.
The problem that I see is that system designers don't want to use
the same entire system; combat almost always has a system for gradual
failure (e.g., hit points) and most everything else is all or nothing
(although realistically with stealth, where it is hard to assign a
meaning to "a little bit discovered").
Another approach is to allow the players to decide how many rolls
to make: if they choose one roll, then failure means they drowned,
and if they choose five rolls, they lose (say) 25% of their hit points
and perhaps some randomly chosen equipment for every roll they miss,
in a near drowning (and thus could die anyway, but only by missing
four out of five rolls; on the other hand, they are very likely to
lose something). The actual process of crossing the river can then
be ignored; the steps taken are abstracted out without depriving
the players of the opportunity to make some sort of decision.
Drotik
Wayne Shaw
>a very clear meaning to "a little bit discovered". However, it is
>difficult to quantify in RPG terms primarily because RPG's never
>take such into account.
Actually, there's a fairly easy way to do this, though I rarely see it
doen (including by myself); don't assume a simple Perception roll
automatically detects someone. Instead, have a range of possibilities
from discovered, discovered but not localize, to alerted. In the
latter cases, give bonuses on successive perception rolls based on the
prior roll. It's just that rarely does someone go to the trouble.
John Kim
in when a skill roll is required and when (or how often) a re-roll
is called for.
Mary K. Kuhner <mkku...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>A.F. Simpson <AF...@le.ac.uk> wrote:
>> This is linked to a problem inherent in some resolution systems
>> whereby once an action is broken down too finely, you are almost
>> guaranteed to fail at some point during the proceedings.
>
>There are a complicated bundle of problems related to this one,
>because it matters whether it's a string of rolls all of which must
>succeed, or a string of rolls only *some* of which must succeed.
>In the former case, if you have to make many rolls you're doomed;
>in the latter case, making more rolls actually increases your
>chances.
I find that outside of combat, RPG systems usually are
usually a thin veil over "roll dice: high good, low bad". Usually
the GM decides when a skill roll is called for, what the difficulty
is, and when re-rolls are allowed. Between these, he can vary this
endlessly.
In my old homebrew, this was a specified part of the system,
so at least all three of the above were lumped into a single difficulty
number and the type of task. The scale was based on _CORPS_, where
any tasks where difficulty was less than or equal to your skill are
automatic success. You roll if the difficulty is 1-5 over your
skill. In my scheme, there was almost never re-rolls. Instead,
the initial roll would continue to be used for continuing tasks.
I classified tasks into three categories:
1) "Best Effort": In this case, there is no lasting consequences
to doing poorly. Thus, extra time always gets you a bonus, up to
a maximum total of +5 for the roll plus bonus. As a rule of thumb,
each doubling of the minimum time is worth an extra +1 to the skill
roll, but the GM will modify that as he sees fit.
Examples: picking a lock, ...
2) "Sequential": In this case, early mistakes can cost you. Thus,
extra time gets you no bonus. If the situation calls for a new
bonus or penalty, it is applied to your original roll. You get
a new roll only if the whole situation changes somehow -- such
that your earlier effort is no longer relevant.
Examples: remembering an obscure fact, an invasive surgical
procedure
3) "Worst Case": In this case, a mistake at any time can determine
how well you did on the whole. Extra time will _decrease_
your roll, down to a minimum of 0 roll minus penalty. As a
rule of thumb, each doubling of time is worth a -1.
Example: Sneaking through a building - the longer you move
around in there, the greater the chance of being noticed.
--
John Kim
Drotik <dro...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Mary Kuhner <mkku...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>> it matters whether it's a string of rolls all of which must
>> succeed, or a string of rolls only *some* of which must succeed.
>> In the former case, if you have to make many rolls you're doomed;
>> in the latter case, making more rolls actually increases your
>> chances.
>>
>> kind of rule, whereas combat is almost always the second.
>
>the same entire system; combat almost always has a system for gradual
>failure (e.g., hit points) and most everything else is all or nothing
>(although realistically with stealth, where it is hard to assign a
I think this last bit is rather ridiculous. I think there is
a very clear meaning to "a little bit discovered". However, it is
difficult to quantify in RPG terms primarily because RPG's never
take such into account.
Example: A guard on patrol hears something. However, what
direction did it come from? Was it an animal, a sneaking person,
or perhaps a distant gunshot? How sure is she about what she
heard?
As an example, last night I ran a WWII commando scenario
about OSS missions dropped into France a few weeks after Normandy
to blow up a diesel supply train. One of the PC's attempted to
sneak into the base using forged papers, posing as a sargeant with
a message for the German captain. I secretly had rolled badly
for the PC's forgery roll, but I also rolled only slightly better
for the German's attentiveness.
This was "a little bit discovered". The lietenant assigned
to it suspected something was wrong, but didn't at all suspect that
this was an American commando. I improvised that he saw that the
military address numbers didn't match up for this station, which
might equally mean that this was a false note given to an unsuspecting
soldier or could just mean that the officer who sent it was
incompetant (not at all impossible).
The commando's regular papers were high-quality forgeries
prepared well in advance, so they looked fine.
--
Kodeci
jh...@cascade.ps.uci.edu (John Kim) wrote:
> In my old homebrew, this was a specified part of the system,
about "Best Effort", "Sequential", "Worst Case"
I think this is an excellent distinction of the three cases. I save this
post for later use ! Congratulations ! :-)
However, to this basic mechanism, I would add another dimension.
--------------------------
My point is that, when an action is very important, you may care to
spend some real time resolving it. Resolving it in one roll would be
wasting player stress ...
So you probably want to divide the action into some components, and
solve each component (just by using John method for each, for example).
That way, players and GM alike get to give more time and more attention
to the situation. This is just a scaling method somehow, that divides
one resolution into several.
If someone would have a general solution for this scaling ...
--
http://members.xoom.com/kodeci/
(Be away from my mail for Christmas, until January 3rd)
dro...@my-deja.com
jh...@cascade.ps.uci.edu (John Kim) wrote:
>
> Drotik <dro...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> >The problem that I see is that system designers don't want to use
> >the same entire system; combat almost always has a system for gradual
> >failure (e.g., hit points) and most everything else is all or nothing
> >(although realistically with stealth, where it is hard to assign a
> >meaning to "a little bit discovered").
>
> I think this last bit is rather ridiculous. I think there is
> a very clear meaning to "a little bit discovered". However, it is
> difficult to quantify in RPG terms primarily because RPG's never
> take such into account.
Ouch. At least the ridicule is softened by the comment that "it is
difficult to quantify in RPG terms". Lots of rules contain fuzzy
advice for the GM to decide a result based on how badly the roll
was missed, but that's not too useful--I really dislike appeals to
"GM discretion" in RPG rules. I've never seen rules that apply
a system of gradual failure to hiding in the way that most games
have varying levels of "wounded" for combat; but if you know of such
rules, I would be very happy to hear about them.
The examples given have suggested several in-between states, such
as "heard something, but don't know what", that I hadn't really
considered. My thinking was more along the lines that the guards
either have reason to investigate (which, if they're not incompetent,
should realistically find the thief hiding in shadows or reveal the
forgery or discover whatever fact was hidden; if thorough searching
still wouldn't lead to discovery, the roll was somewhat pointless)
or they don't have enough reason to investigate and thus no discovery
(unless discovery was impossible to avoid, in which case the roll for
hiding was equally pointless). The first result would allow for a
determination of "you have N seconds before the systematic search
finds you; what do you do now?" which does seem better to me than
immediate discovery. The WWII forgery example seems a good example
of my point--either the lieutenant accepts the forgery and lets the
commando pass (regardless of what error he saw), or he doesn't.
Drotik
Wayne Shaw
>The examples given have suggested several in-between states, such
>as "heard something, but don't know what", that I hadn't really
>considered. My thinking was more along the lines that the guards
>either have reason to investigate (which, if they're not incompetent,
>should realistically find the thief hiding in shadows or reveal the
>forgery or discover whatever fact was hidden; if thorough searching
>still wouldn't lead to discovery, the roll was somewhat pointless)
The kicker is often things are time based; sure, if they exaustively
search they'll find the hidden thing; but will they find it after it
no longer matters? In the case of the hidden thief, for example, if
the guards hear a noise and search area A first because they weren't
sure where it came from, and the thief is interested in doing
something in area B, he may still be able to finish his task. But the
perception roll wasn't pointless, since not being discovered at all
would have been much safer.
>determination of "you have N seconds before the systematic search
>finds you; what do you do now?" which does seem better to me than
>immediate discovery. The WWII forgery example seems a good example
>of my point--either the lieutenant accepts the forgery and lets the
>commando pass (regardless of what error he saw), or he doesn't.
Ah, but he might keep the matter in mind and think of it later when
the jig is up, which could have repercussions. These things aren't
binary.
David Alex Lamb
> 2. in a more general way, it would be great for a system to have a
>scaling mechanism, that allows, given an example of resolution at one
>scale, to abstract or detail it while maintaining coherence.
>
>Note : I tried such a scaling mechanism in one of my systems. It doesn't
>work yet :-( Are many people interested by that ?
Yes, please do -- but perhaps it would belong in rec.games.design?
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/
John R. Snead
: Drotik <dro...@my-deja.com> wrote:
:>
:>The problem that I see is that system designers don't want to use
:>the same entire system; combat almost always has a system for gradual
:>failure (e.g., hit points) and most everything else is all or nothing
:>(although realistically with stealth, where it is hard to assign a
:>meaning to "a little bit discovered").
: I think this last bit is rather ridiculous. I think there is
: a very clear meaning to "a little bit discovered". However, it is
: difficult to quantify in RPG terms primarily because RPG's never
: take such into account.
: Example: A guard on patrol hears something. However, what
: direction did it come from? Was it an animal, a sneaking person,
: or perhaps a distant gunshot? How sure is she about what she
: heard?
Actually, a number of modern games systems do this. Any of the systems
like Storyteller which use dice pools and multiple successes do exactly
this. One success = barely succeeded (ie the guard heard something
somewhere nearby) to say 5 successes (the guard heard the sound of
footsteps coming from somewhere behind the ammo dump). Heck even old
Skyrealms of Jorune had rules for this sort of thing. One of the curious
things I've found is that lower-detail systems like Storyteller or Castle
Falkenstein are often better at dealing with partial successes than highly
detailed systems like Hero or GURPS.
Also, I've typically seen that in systems with variable margins of success
(for example any system using percentile dice) most GMs will treat a roll
of 10% as giving somewhat more information than a roll of 50% if the
success chance is 51%. The primary difference is that dice pool systems
often attempt to quantify these degrees of success to at least some degree.
-John Snead jsn...@netcom.com
Brian Gleichman
news:839nuh$3v1$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net...
> The primary difference is that dice pool systems
> often attempt to quantify these degrees of success to at least
> some degree.
I've found that degree to be insignificant.
While the rules may define a numeric range of successes, the GM
determination of what they actually mean is rarely better than the straight
up percentile roll - made it by lots/came close/barely missed/missed by
lots.
At best, such system give the illusion of structure. But unless the system
specifically defines each degree of success for each task (or at least core
tasks), it is of little practical result.
John Kim
general, specifically with regards to perception.
John R. Snead <jsn...@netcom13.netcom.com> wrote:
>John Kim <jh...@cascade.ps.uci.edu> wrote:
>: I think there is a very clear meaning to "a little bit discovered".
>: However, it is difficult to quantify in RPG terms primarily because
>: RPG's never take such into account.
>
>: Example: A guard on patrol hears something. However, what direc-
>: tion did it come from? Was it an animal, a sneaking person, or
>: perhaps a distant gunshot? How sure is she about what she heard?
>
>Actually, a number of modern games systems do this. Any of the systems
>like Storyteller which use dice pools and multiple successes do exactly
>this. One success = barely succeeded (ie the guard heard something
>somewhere nearby) to say 5 successes (the guard heard the sound of
>footsteps coming from somewhere behind the ammo dump).
First of all, I think that the term "modern" is a little
deceptive. I think that still the game which uses Degree-of-Success
most consistently is _James Bond 007_, which was published in 1983.
Having the theoretical concept of levels of success is nothing new:
the question is whether the games quantify and provide for different
levels of perception.
When I look in my copy of _Vampire_ and _Werewolf_, it appears
that what you say is false. If a person is trying to sneak, they roll
their Dexterity + Stealth vs a target number of the guard's
Perception + (something). For every success they get, they advance
a certain distance (default 5 feet).
One can always default to the excuse that the GM can make up
their own interpretation of successes, but this is just as true for
_Runequest_ as it is for Storyteller.
On the other hand, I do find that Storyteller has a
quantification of differing levels of perception like you suggest,
but only for the specific subsystem for "shadowing" (in my copy
of _Mage: the Ascension_, 1st ed, at least -- it is mentioned but
not quantified in _Vampire_ and _Werewolf_).
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>One of the curious things I've found is that lower-detail systems like
>Storyteller or Castle Falkenstein are often better at dealing with
>partial successes than highly detailed systems like Hero or GURPS.
>
>Also, I've typically seen that in systems with variable margins of success
>(for example any system using percentile dice) most GMs will treat a roll
>of 10% as giving somewhat more information than a roll of 50% if the
>success chance is 51%. The primary difference is that dice pool systems
>often attempt to quantify these degrees of success to at least some degree.
Hmm. _Rolemaster_ and _James Bond_ are both fairly detailed,
percentile-dice-using, and extremely thorough in quantifying partial
successes (although they do not have percentile ratings like, say,
_Runequest_ where your skill is expressed as a chance like 51%).
My general point was that most systems do a poor job of
quantifying partial successes, specifically with regards to
perception. However, I really should look over more systems before
I make a general statement like that (I'll try to post tonight maybe).
--
Donald Bachman
: John R. Snead <jsn...@netcom13.netcom.com> wrote in message
: news:839nuh$3v1$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net...
:
: > The primary difference is that dice pool systems
: > often attempt to quantify these degrees of success to at least
: > some degree.
: I've found that degree to be insignificant.
:
: While the rules may define a numeric range of successes, the GM
: determination of what they actually mean is rarely better than the straight
: up percentile roll - made it by lots/came close/barely missed/missed by
: lots.
:
: At best, such system give the illusion of structure. But unless the system
: specifically defines each degree of success for each task (or at least core
: tasks), it is of little practical result.
But for those systems that do define what differing levels of success
mean, such as Storyteller?
Donald
John R. Snead
: But for those systems that do define what differing levels of success
: mean, such as Storyteller?
In general success is on a 1-5 scale. For complex or difficult feats, one
success on a roll is counted as partial or minimal success, 3 usually
counts as full success, and 4 or 5 provides more than you expected to get.
Example: overhearing a whispered conversation:
Roll Perception + Alterness:
Botch: you hear nothing useful and the folks you are listening to notice
your attention
Failure: You hear nothing useful
1 success: You hear a few useful snatches of conversation on a cell phone:
"...here at midnight tonight...this will be our big showdown..."
3 Successes: You hear the entire conversation: "We'll meet here at
midnight and so will the Electric Money Triad, this will be our big
showdown for who controls this turf."
5 Successes: You hear all of the above + you can either see the person
dialing their cell phone and notice the number they dialed, or after the
call ends the person softly mumbles something to herself about the meeting
being a trap she designed and you hear this too.
In many cases, especially wrt powers these degrees of success are
quantified quiet explicitly. Wrt skill rolls, general guidelines and some
examples are both provided. Having recently written the rules for skill
rolls in the upcoming Mage: Revised book I have anew appreciation for the
level of detail this system provides. OTOH, the dual variables of # of
success and variable difficult numbers seem mostly unnecessary. Trinity
and Aberrant are easier to use in this regard and provide the same
flexibility with multiple successes (and much easier to calculate success
probabilities).
-John Snead jsn...@netcom.com
Donald Bachman
: Donald Bachman <dbac...@ultra5.ionet.net> wrote:
:
: : But for those systems that do define what differing levels of success
: : mean, such as Storyteller?
:
: In general success is on a 1-5 scale. For complex or difficult feats, one
: success on a roll is counted as partial or minimal success, 3 usually
: counts as full success, and 4 or 5 provides more than you expected to get.
[a lot of explanation snipped]
Thanks, but I'm quite familiar with the Storyteller system having
run it for a while now. I was asking his opinion with regards to
the Storyteller system. :)
Donald
John Kim
levels of success in the Storyteller system. Mainly, I am going
to compare the handling of levels of success to _James Bond 007_,
by Gerard Christopher Klug (1983).
John R. Snead <jsn...@netcom14.netcom.com> wrote:
>Donald Bachman <dbac...@ultra5.ionet.net> wrote:
>: But for those systems that do define what differing levels of
>: success mean, such as Storyteller?
>
>In general success is on a 1-5 scale. For complex or difficult feats,
>one success on a roll is counted as partial or minimal success, 3
>usually counts as full success, and 4 or 5 provides more than you
>expected to get.
You have specified "for complex or difficult feats", but I
cannot find this reference in any of the Storyteller games I own.
Is it your house rule? As far as I have seen, success is always
described as
"1:marginal, 2:moderate, 3:complete, 4:exceptional, 5:phenomenal"
In skill-specific rules, some skills are linear with level
(i.e. 5 feet climbed per success), while others have specialized
descriptions for success which elaborate on the above (a 3-6 word
phrase rather than 1 word). This is definitely better guidance
(IMO) than GURPS' two-step ("normal/critical"), Runequest's
three-step ("normal/special/critical"), and similar systems.
At the same time, I think there is room for work.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
By comparison, _James Bond_ gives baselines for successes
with time and percentage of information. For example, in climbing
a character rolls once for the climb. Any success indicates that
the climb succeeded, but the time baseline is used to determine
how long it took. The baselines are
__Time__ __Information__ __Reaction__
QR1: Excellent x1/4 100% Enamored
QR2: Very Good x1/2 90% Friendly
QR3: Good x1 75% Neutral
QR4: Acceptable x2 50% Antagonistic
Failure x3 False Opposed
Of course, as the system notes, the percentage meaning
for information is often vague (i.e. which 10% do you leave out).
The reactions are only described by 1 sentence each. Still, between
this and skill-specific information, I think this is more guidance
than Storyteller gives. I guess mainly I am disappointed, in that
_Rolemaster_ are from the early 80's, and I would have liked for
later games to have done more.
--
Wayne Shaw
wrote:
> By comparison, _James Bond_ gives baselines for successes
>with time and percentage of information. For example, in climbing
>a character rolls once for the climb. Any success indicates that
>the climb succeeded, but the time baseline is used to determine
>how long it took. The baselines are
Alternity, while it only has three success categories (four in the
cases were a failure is unlikely) tends to tell you fairly specific
effects of each category of success in all the most common cases where
it's relevant (for example, combat, navigation rolls, medical
treatment rolls and interpersonal skill attempts).
John R. Snead
: A reply to John R. Snead and Donald Bachman concerning
: to compare the handling of levels of success to _James Bond 007_,
: by Gerard Christopher Klug (1983).
: John R. Snead <jsn...@netcom14.netcom.com> wrote:
:>Donald Bachman <dbac...@ultra5.ionet.net> wrote:
:>: But for those systems that do define what differing levels of
:>: success mean, such as Storyteller?
:>
:>In general success is on a 1-5 scale. For complex or difficult feats,
:>one success on a roll is counted as partial or minimal success, 3
:>usually counts as full success, and 4 or 5 provides more than you
:>expected to get.
: You have specified "for complex or difficult feats", but I
: cannot find this reference in any of the Storyteller games I own.
: Is it your house rule? As far as I have seen, success is always
: described as
: "1:marginal, 2:moderate, 3:complete, 4:exceptional, 5:phenomenal"
Non-difficult, non-complex feats generally only require a single success.
This is spelled out more clearly than in previous edition in Vampire
Revised and the upcoming Mage Revised.
-John Snead jsn...@netcom.com