Roll for Effect or Intent?

[bloodtide]

And I think your GM did it wrong. You told him what you were going for, they asked for a roll, you super double succeeded, and the GM then made you fail anyway. Bad form.

I don't have a problem with this.

I really hate the idea that the players think the can Alter Game Reality. The player says "my character does this" and so "this happens and this happens, By My Command!".

A player should never have a PC take an action, and then demand the result be exactly what they wanted.

This would be a teaching moment in my game of "Ok, if you want to keep the guard quiet don't do something where you LOOSE CONTROL OF THE SITUATION." And also...take out that guard when you take out the tent guy too.

 

[Hriston]

And I think your GM did it wrong. You told him what you were going for, they asked for a roll, you super double succeeded, and the GM then made you fail anyway. Bad form.

Conflict resolution prevents this because it maintains the connection between success and winning. Task resolution allows it because it leaves the GM free to break that connection at will.

 

[Reynard]

I don't have a problem with this.

I really hate the idea that the players think the can Alter Game Reality. The player says "my character does this" and so "this happens and this happens, By My Command!".

A player should never have a PC take an action, and then demand the result be exactly what they wanted.

This would be a teaching moment in my game of "Ok, if you want to keep the guard quiet don't do something where you LOOSE CONTROL OF THE SITUATION." And also...take out that guard when you take out the tent guy too.

This is kind of trying to read the GM's mind stuff I abhor.

 

[Umbran]

And I think your GM did it wrong.

I think the point is that whether it is wrong or not depends on what form of resolution you are using, and we cannot assert it as flat wrong without knowing the table expectations.

I really hate the idea that the players think the can Alter Game Reality.

Hey, if you have an axe to grind, please grind it on your own players, not us. Thanks.

A player should never have a PC take an action, and then demand the result be exactly what they wanted.

Players do get to have expectations, based on the table rules.

That you, personally, would never set such an expectation is only useful to us if we were to play at your table.

More interesting are how there are different ways to resolve things, and what kind of results you can get with each method, or with hybrid approaches.

 

[bloodtide]

Players do get to have expectations, based on the table rules.

Odd, what table rules are you talking about here?

Some rule that says what exactly?

How to you word the table rule to be "whatever the player expects will happen?" without it just being pure chaos?

 

[Gorgon Zee]

I really hate the idea that the players think the can Alter Game Reality. The player says "my character does this" and so "this happens and this happens, By My Command!".

Well, if you escalate the language and decide to portray players as very aggressive, then yeah, I can see why you hate that. Let's de-escalate your example before addressing it:

I really hate the idea that the players think they can alter game reality. The player says "my character does this" and so "this happens and this happens".

Isn't the entire point of taking actions in the game to alter its reality? If I hit a window with an axe, isn't my goal to alter the reality of the game by changing the state of the window? If I roll persuasion vs an NPC, I wanted to alter that NPC's mental outlook.

I think what you really hate is when players want to change the state of something that you don't think they should have control over. But I think it might be better to think of it as a continuum. For me, my reaction might be more this:

• "I drink the beer and am no longer thirsty" -- seems fine, happy for the player to assume it works
• "I roll 23, which it before, so I guess I do usual damage - 12" -- actively happy for players to make this sort of assumption
• "I succeed at a basic contacts check, so I find a guy who ..." -- generally OK, but I might intervene if the situation makes this unlikely.
• "I spend a Fate point so there is a secret door allowing us to escape to the outer city" -- getting a little over-reaching here. I'd need you to tag something to explain why there's a door there, and I'll probably jump in to say where it goes.
• "I critical the battle check! My forces are able to wipe out the enemy without loss!" -- yeah, that's OTT. I'd offer a couple of options as to what the outcome was, but make it clear that the player's desire is not one of them

A player should never have a PC take an action, and then demand the result be exactly what they wanted.

No one, player or GM should ever demand anything of anyone else within the game context. The game is a shared consensus. De-escalating your language again:

A player should never have a PC take an action, and then expect the result be what they wanted.

As I described above, I basically just disagree. It's just a painful slow game if the players have to ask every time if an action they think has an obvious outcome actually has that outcome. Much better for them to expect (politely) an outcome and if they're wrong, handle it then.

This would be a teaching moment in my game of "Ok, if you want to keep the guard quiet don't do something where you LOOSE CONTROL OF THE SITUATION." And also...take out that guard when you take out the tent guy too.

It's actually a good teaching moment for you too. You allowed the player to roll to take an action where you knew that the result would not be what they intended, even if they succeeded, and it caused problems for your game. This helps you understand that you need to put more effort into building a better shared understanding of the simulated world. In fact, your last comment is a good example of what you should have said -- only BEFORE the roll, not after!

 

[bloodtide]

I think what you really hate is when players want to change the state of something that you don't think they should have control over. But I think it might be better to think of it as a continuum.

That does sound nicer, though in my view the players should have control over almost nothing.

For me, my reaction might be more this:

• "I roll 23, which it before, so I guess I do usual damage - 12" -- actively happy for players to make this sort of assumption

This one does not fly for me. That the players think everything is always the same is wrong. Just because you hit Orc#1 and did X damage, does not make Orc#2 exactly the same.

• "I succeed at a basic contacts check, so I find a guy who ..." -- generally OK, but I might intervene if the situation makes this unlikely.

Game rules are fine. Though my twist here is if the player is the one making the contact, they also make the rest. So if the player says "my buddy contact tell me a secret way into the castle", as DM I'm not going to have the NPC contact tell the PC anything. That will be up to the player. Of course, anything the player says is pure fantasy, as the DM just ignores it.

• "I spend a Fate point so there is a secret door allowing us to escape to the outer city" -- getting a little over-reaching here. I'd need you to tag something to explain why there's a door there, and I'll probably jump in to say where it goes.

Again, game rule like this are mostly fine. Really I love giving players "wish" type powers and watch them dig and dig deeper holes from themselves.

• "I critical the battle check! My forces are able to wipe out the enemy without loss!" -- yeah, that's OTT. I'd offer a couple of options as to what the outcome was, but make it clear that the player's desire is not one of them

Rules here?

As I described above, I basically just disagree. It's just a painful slow game if the players have to ask every time if an action they think has an obvious outcome actually has that outcome. Much better for them to expect (politely) an outcome and if they're wrong, handle it then.

I would say it is better if the players can just accept that, in general, small bits of effort will not alter time and space like the Pc is a Demigod. And more so, players should expect the bare minimum form most actions. And, the some what easy one: "If the action you want and desire to happen is something you would refused to have your PC do....then the NPC won't do it either".

It's actually a good teaching moment for you too. You allowed the player to roll to take an action where you knew that the result would not be what they intended, even if they succeeded, and it caused problems for your game. This helps you understand that you need to put more effort into building a better shared understanding of the simulated world. In fact, your last comment is a good example of what you should have said -- only BEFORE the roll, not after!

I only wish this was possible. But so few players even want to have a session zero other them making their character. Even the suggestion that we should "talk" sends players running away.

So, sadly this leaves game play as the only place this will come out.

Some of my examples:

*A lone guard is at a back door. The player says and demands "As I hide in the woods I throw a rock far away. When it hits the tree the guard abandons his post and goes into the woods looking for the source of the sound for an hour and keeps his back to the door at all times so I can get in!"

Yep, the above will never work in my game. Though if the player is unlucky a guard patrol might be sent out to investigate the noise....

*"I follow the Ranger Lord until he takes a bath in the river. Once he removes all his stuff and swims 100 feet away I rush over and steal all his stuff!!!!"

This poor PC was polymorphed into a chipmunk by the rangers protective magic.....

 

[zarionofarabel]

*A lone guard is at a back door. The player says and demands "As I hide in the woods I throw a rock far away. When it hits the tree the guard abandons his post and goes into the woods looking for the source of the sound for an hour and keeps his back to the door at all times so I can get in!"

Yep, the above will never work in my game. Though if the player is unlucky a guard patrol might be sent out to investigate the noise....

*"I follow the Ranger Lord until he takes a bath in the river. Once he removes all his stuff and swims 100 feet away I rush over and steal all his stuff!!!!"

This poor PC was polymorphed into a chipmunk by the rangers protective magic.....

I don't think I would enjoy being a player in a game you are running, as I would never be able to discern whether or not my actions would provide meaningful results, even when succeeding at dice rolls.

Now that I have a better handle on my erroneous "intent v task" thing, I would definitely prefer my intentions be decided by a roll. If my intentions can be ignored or overwritten whenever for whatever reason, often simply GM preference, I would feel I completely lack any agency. Nothing I do would matter as everything is simply decided by the GM's whim. Not a fun experience IMHO.

 

[bloodtide]

I don't think I would enjoy being a player in a game you are running, as I would never be able to discern whether or not my actions would provide meaningful results, even when succeeding at dice rolls.

I have heard that before.

So many players think the "toss a rock" should be an Epic Level Power Event where any NPC automatically "looks for the sound".

But really the qualification of "would you as a player ever do this with your character?" works great in my games.

If your PCs was guarding the backdoor of your PCs home with all your loot inside, and you "heard a noise" would you have your PC runs away from the door and look for the cause of the sound? If not, then most NPCs won't either....

Now that I have a better handle on my erroneous "intent v task" thing, I would definitely prefer my intentions be decided by a roll. If my intentions can be ignored or overwritten whenever for whatever reason, often simply GM preference, I would feel I completely lack any agency. Nothing I do would matter as everything is simply decided by the GM's whim. Not a fun experience IMHO.

My rule of "would you fall for what you are doing?" works well.

For example, most players fall for Greed. If they see an NPC walk by and drop their coin pouch, the player will go nuts with the "Huzza! I grab that pouch!"

 

[Reynard]

I have heard that before.

So many players think the "toss a rock" should be an Epic Level Power Event where any NPC automatically "looks for the sound".

But really the qualification of "would you as a player ever do this with your character?" works great in my games.

If your PCs was guarding the backdoor of your PCs home with all your loot inside, and you "heard a noise" would you have your PC runs away from the door and look for the cause of the sound? If not, then most NPCs won't either....



My rule of "would you fall for what you are doing?" works well.

For example, most players fall for Greed. If they see an NPC walk by and drop their coin pouch, the player will go nuts with the "Huzza! I grab that pouch!"

It is always a wonder to me that you espouse such anti-protagonist preferences. Please don't take that as a dig. If you are having a good time and your players are returning to the table, more power to you.

But the idea that a player can't toss a rock to distract a guard is wild to me. It is such a well established trope, it is effectively a law of nature. I mean, what horrors would await a character trying to swing on a chandelier or challenge the killer of their father to a duel?