Goalposts and Strawmen: A Play in Three Acts
Caliburn: It is a fact that a game without dice is a game where you only get to choose 100% success or 100% failure.
Me: I just played in a game with no dice where you get to choose something between success and a little bit of failure, all the way to failure, but with a little bit of success.
Caliburn: Yeah, but you can't possibly have found that satisfying.
Me: Yes, I found it satisfying.
Caliburn: Yeah, but it's not popular.
Me: But we weren't talking about whether or not it was popular?
Caliburn: And two Youtube D&D guys said they like D&D more.
Me: Yes?
Caliburn: So you're saying that me and the Youtube guys and everyone else who doesn't like your game are wrong?!
Me: Whowhat?
-fin-
What are you even arguing? I never said that diceless games were superior to dice-full games. I never stated what my personal preference was between them (I don't have one). I never suggested that people should prefer diceless, or that dicey games shouldn't be or aren't as popular. I never said that diceless games can't have the same kinds of results as a diced game.
I'm not sure what you're asking with regards to all those actions, but I'll try to take a swing at what a player might decide a result would look like in a pass to fail spectrum.
* You pick up the sword, but the shopkeeper notices you trying to steal it.
* You try to pick up the sword, but your opponent is faster and gets between you and it and tells you to yield.
* You successfully open the lock, but you trigger a trap.
* You fail to open the lock, but you know where you saw the key that would fit this lock.
* You chat with the barman, and even though you learn where the Duke is holding your friends captive, you don't notice the pickpocket making off with your coin pouch.
* You spot the thief, but she spots you too and your hopes of an ambush are dashed.
Do any of these answer your question?
No - they only answer a question you have fabricated by design or mistake as passed off as my position on the issue.
What I actually said was that all choice-based mechanics lead to a choice of failure or success - you make it seem as if it has to be ONE HUNDREN PERCENT SUCCESS or ONE HUNDRED PERCENT FAILURE. I emphasise the 100% in text for you there to make it clear where my argument has been fundamentally misrepresented in your post.
I never said degrees of success were not possible or not desirable. I did not make such a black and white statement. I would hope that you have made the mistake of thinking that all choices resulting success or failure means that all failures are utterly wretched and all successes are utter triumphs. That is in no way what I said.
As for the rest of what you said, including all the examples you gave of degrees of success and narrative consequences, as it was all predicated on your erroneous opening statement they serve no purpose in relation to the argument, except to illustrate my point relevant to the second bolded text section above where you actually agree with me - openly admitting that all the examples are examples of pass or fail -
precisely what I was saying all along!
So you see, you can state that all choices will be either pass or fail without making these extreme 100% versions of the same. You just did it in your own post!
This thread was about suspense in rpgs and as combat is a large part of rpgs, the suspense of not knowing where you will win is a big part of that. None of your examples provide that specific suspense as no surprise is involved. The actor
chooses whether they succeed or not and the GM narrates the follow on consequences by
choosing them. That's effectively writing a novel as cooperative author's - a form of cooperative storytelling, not roleplaying as it is most widely practiced. Emerikol in his #161 post clarifies that well.
I suggest you look at permerton's post #163 quoting Ron Edwards and Eero Tuovinen who speak perfectly eloquently on the shortcomings of what you are talking about in the context of suspense. Do you think that Ron and Eero are somehow telling other people that they are gaming 'wrong', or are they just stating what is very well known already?
The vast majority games have randomisation mechanics because the vast majority of players prefer them, and that the alternatives that exist whilst no less valid forms of storytelling entertainment have never, despite various incarnations, been anything other than niche games precisely because they are not the preferred mode of gaming. Likewise, combat is very common in rpgs and narrative combat, or combat with no chance of death (where, as it is so very commonly the
point of combat) would be dull, and lacking suspense. That's my opinion, clearly stated, repeatedly, and I am far from the only one to hold it.
Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they think what you do with your own game is wrong.