Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8368042" data-attributes="member: 42582">Here's another take on it: does the resolution process in a RPG system need a &quot;credibility test&quot; as part of the framing of action declaration and resolution?In HeroQuest revised and MHRP/Cortex+, the answer is yes. Robin Laws's example in the former involves a cowboy trying to outrun his horse: while, for reasons to do with respective builds, the cowboy PC might have a Fast Runner ability rated at 17, while the horse has a Galloping ability rated at 12, that doesn't mean the player can make a test to have the PC outrun his horse. Because that makes no sense in the fiction.MHRP has the same consideration: mathematically, it is possible (not very likely, but possible) for (say) Jean Gray's arm wrestling dice pool to beat The Thing's. But that doesn't mean she has a chance of beating The Thing in an arm wrestle (other than by using mind control or TK to beat him). Again, we first have to pass a credibility test before then building our pools and resolving the opposed check.In Burning Wheel, on the other hand, the notion of &quot;credibility tests&quot; has no work to do in these sorts of scenarios (it might have work to do in some knowledge or discovery cases, as per other threads we've been party to). The obstacle is set and the dice are rolled. What is credible, or possible, is a downstream consequence of action resolution, not an input into it. AD&amp;D and Rolemaster also work pretty much like this; so does Classic Traveller. (That last one, given the technical scope it covers, might have some cases where minimum stats are needed to try something - but that is still credibility/possibility is read off the mechanics, and is not an input into framing before any stats are consulted and applied.)As per my post upthread about sealing the Abyss, I think that 4e needs credibility checks as a precursor to framing. Page 42 of the DMG suggests as much. This is another reason I think of it as falling on the HeroQuest revised &quot;subjective&quot; side of this methodological divide, rather than the Burning Wheel &quot;objective&quot; side.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8368042, member: 42582"] Here's another take on it: does the resolution process in a RPG system need a "credibility test" as part of the framing of action declaration and resolution? In HeroQuest revised and MHRP/Cortex+, the answer is yes. Robin Laws's example in the former involves a cowboy trying to outrun his horse: while, for reasons to do with respective builds, the cowboy PC might have a Fast Runner ability rated at 17, while the horse has a Galloping ability rated at 12, that doesn't mean the player can make a test to have the PC outrun his horse. Because that makes no sense in the fiction. MHRP has the same consideration: mathematically, it is possible (not very likely, but possible) for (say) Jean Gray's arm wrestling dice pool to beat The Thing's. But that doesn't mean she has a chance of beating The Thing in an arm wrestle (other than by using mind control or TK to beat him). Again, we first have to pass a credibility test before then building our pools and resolving the opposed check. In Burning Wheel, on the other hand, the notion of "credibility tests" has no work to do in these sorts of scenarios (it might have work to do in some knowledge or discovery cases, as per other threads we've been party to). The obstacle is set and the dice are rolled. What is credible, or possible, is a downstream consequence of action resolution, not an input into it. AD&D and Rolemaster also work pretty much like this; so does Classic Traveller. (That last one, given the technical scope it covers, might have some cases where minimum stats are needed to try something - but that is still credibility/possibility is read off the mechanics, and is not an input into framing before any stats are consulted and applied.) As per my post upthread about sealing the Abyss, I think that 4e needs credibility checks as a precursor to framing. Page 42 of the DMG suggests as much. This is another reason I think of it as falling on the HeroQuest revised "subjective" side of this methodological divide, rather than the Burning Wheel "objective" side. [/QUOTE]

Verification