Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="niklinna" data-source="post: 8997758" data-attributes="member: 71235">Flipping a coin is just a d2 after all. As long as you have different possible outcomes, and that means at least two! But I find three much more interesting.&quot;Just deciding&quot; needs a little elaboration, of course, since a GM could &quot;just decide&quot; that you fail all the time, or that you succeed all the time. Or that you fail all the time and Chris across the table (who is secretly dating the GM) succeeds all the time. That's one big reason we use the dice. But there's no technical reason we couldn't use pools of successes &amp; failures that each player has to choose from in each moment (and a few games have taken this approach). This is putting the decision of success/failure back in the players' hands rather than the GM's (to get back to the topic). The GM would have their own such pool for NPCs (or possibly per NPC).Swinging back around to &quot;just deciding&quot;, some more or less neutral (or rationed) arbiter is good for the axis of how well or poorly things go, at whatever scale of action, but from there I am very much a fan of people working out the particulars of the fiction for in what ways things go well or poorly (or both). In my experience, as long as there's some shared authority at the table there, very little formalism is needed for that, although for groups that tend to bog down in back-and-forth &quot;writers' room&quot; type discussion that drags on, an egg time might be a good idea. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="niklinna, post: 8997758, member: 71235"] Flipping a coin is just a d2 after all. As long as you have different possible outcomes, and that means at least two! But I find three much more interesting. "Just deciding" needs a little elaboration, of course, since a GM could "just decide" that you fail all the time, or that you succeed all the time. Or that you fail all the time and Chris across the table (who is secretly dating the GM) succeeds all the time. That's one big reason we use the dice. But there's no technical reason we couldn't use pools of successes & failures that each player has to choose from in each moment (and a few games have taken this approach). This is putting the decision of success/failure back in the players' hands rather than the GM's (to get back to the topic). The GM would have their own such pool for NPCs (or possibly per NPC). Swinging back around to "just deciding", some more or less neutral (or rationed) arbiter is good for the axis of how well or poorly things go, at whatever scale of action, but from there I am very much a fan of people working out the particulars of the fiction for [I]in what ways[/I] things go well or poorly (or both). In my experience, as long as there's some shared authority at the table there, very little formalism is needed for that, although for groups that tend to bog down in back-and-forth "writers' room" type discussion that drags on, an egg time might be a good idea. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification