Not a Conspiracy Theory: Moving Toward Better Criticism in RPGs

[hawkeyefan]

This isn't really true. It just happens to be the damage roll is an accumulated success roll not produced by a simple roll. Its like the accumulated success rolls in some other systems. However I think there's a big difference between "success with consequences" and "success over time" especially when the vast majority of tasks using that specific subsystem will cost you time, and it may, in fact, not be possible to do so with one simple roll. I guess if you want to be really picky you could call "taking extra time" a consequence, but I think that only makes sense when succeeding without that consequence is possible, and in most cases it isn't; its simply not a single-die-roll resolution.

It’s clearly true.

You do not achieve the full success of removing the target from play. That is the intent of an attack.

We’re just so conditioned to hit plints and other game elements that we tend to view it differently.

I described it as a partial success rather than as a success with complication. “Reduced effect” is a consequence in BitD. Butof course there are other consequences. The enemy is still in play and can potentially harm the PC or the PC’s allies.

We separate that in D&D (and many other trad games) into its own turn and rolls, but it doesn’t change that the PC has failed to achieve full success, and now things happen as a result.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think you're conflating two things though. The hit roll is purely success/fail. It's the damage roll that gives you partial success, but, even then not really because you entirely succeeded (presumably) in dealing damage. The trick is, you need several successes before achieving your goal.

The roll itself is binary, but the result is what I’m talking about.

The result is succeeding part of the way toward the full goal.

But, if you try to apply that logic to anything outside of combat (a la a Skill Challenge or Social Combat system forex) there is just zero chance that the conversation will be productive.

I’m not really even addressing that at this point, though I think it’s clear it can be done. How accepted it would be is another matter.

 

[Hussar]

Well, that's not how the game system equates them. As I've noted, whether a player involved considers them such is a more complex question.

That said, I do agree there's a big difference between imposing consequence on success in a binary pass/fail system, and a system like most PbtA variants that bake it into the resolution roll. To claim imposing a consequence when the mechanics tell you to do so is a violation of the social contract is either not understanding how those mechanics work or not accepting the mechanics in the first place.

Yes, I would largely agree with this and I think that's where @Lanefan's difficulties lie. Seeing a consequence (probably not the best term since consequences are almost always bad - perhaps opportunity would have been a better choice but, that ship has long sailed) as a failure is baked into trad play. You fail the roll you get a consequence. You succeed the roll and nothing bad happens.

But, like you say, in something like PbtA, a consequence (which is probably best thought of as an opportunity) is baked right into the mechanics.

 

[Hussar]

It’s clearly true.

You do not achieve the full success of removing the target from play. That is the intent of an attack.

We’re just so conditioned to hit plints and other game elements that we tend to view it differently.

I described it as a partial success rather than as a success with complication. “Reduced effect” is a consequence in BitD. Butof course there are other consequences. The enemy is still in play and can potentially harm the PC or the PC’s allies.

We separate that in D&D (and many other trad games) into its own turn and rolls, but it doesn’t change that the PC has failed to achieve full success, and now things happen as a result.

But, that's not the goal of an attack. The goal of an attack roll is to deal damage. Period. Now, the player might want to remove the target from play, but, that's not the goal of a single attack. A single attack simply tells you whether or not you succeed in ablating the baddie's HP. That's the success/fail states.

Compare with Savage Worlds where, outside of Wild Cards, your attack actually does remove the target from play on a success. (Note, the system is more complicated than that, I do realize). In that system, it would be fair to state that the goal of an attack is to remove a target from play. But, in a HP system, that's simply not true. That might be the overall goal, but, again, not the success/fail states of the action itself.

 

[Pedantic]

It’s clearly true.

You do not achieve the full success of removing the target from play. That is the intent of an attack.

We’re just so conditioned to hit plints and other game elements that we tend to view it differently.

I described it as a partial success rather than as a success with complication. “Reduced effect” is a consequence in BitD. Butof course there are other consequences. The enemy is still in play and can potentially harm the PC or the PC’s allies.

We separate that in D&D (and many other trad games) into its own turn and rolls, but it doesn’t change that the PC has failed to achieve full success, and now things happen as a result.

Yeah, that's semantic nonsense, or possibly projection too far into a different mechanical structure. The goal of a dungeon crawl is to escape with treasure, so is a successful roll to open a locked door a partial success?

Intent isn't evaluated at the level of individual actions in that kind of task based resolution system (and even the rules lightest trad games use that model for combat), it's evaluated in aggregate action choice.

You're calling for a procedure with a known effect on the board state when you declare an action. Actions have a pre-established magnitude (or an established range of magnitudes) and achieving any given player side intent that can't be summarized in one action necessarily involves stringing several together. There is no action you can succeed on (setting aside the save-or-die spell question for a second) that kills the monster in one hit, so it's not possible to have a player side intent to kill the monster in one action, that's outside the set of legal moves the game allows.

 

[Campbell]

I don't think it's a very fruitful comparison in either direction, especially through the prism of something like dungeon crawling which is not really built around the conflict space.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It’s clearly true.

Only when you consider an apple an orange. Progressive success systems and subsystems are simply not the same as simple success systems and to act like they are is not going to convince much of anyone of anything.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yes, I would largely agree with this and I think that's where @Lanefan's difficulties lie. Seeing a consequence (probably not the best term since consequences are almost always bad - perhaps opportunity would have been a better choice but, that ship has long sailed) as a failure is baked into trad play. You fail the roll you get a consequence. You succeed the roll and nothing bad happens.

But, like you say, in something like PbtA, a consequence (which is probably best thought of as an opportunity) is baked right into the mechanics.

I'm not convinced most people would consistently consider many of the example PbtA consequences "opportunities" but I agree with the rest of this.

 

[Thomas Shey]

But, that's not the goal of an attack. The goal of an attack roll is to deal damage. Period. Now, the player might want to remove the target from play, but, that's not the goal of a single attack. A single attack simply tells you whether or not you succeed in ablating the baddie's HP. That's the success/fail states.

Compare with Savage Worlds where, outside of Wild Cards, your attack actually does remove the target from play on a success. (Note, the system is more complicated than that, I do realize). In that system, it would be fair to state that the goal of an attack is to remove a target from play. But, in a HP system, that's simply not true. That might be the overall goal, but, again, not the success/fail states of the action itself.

Interestingly enough, SW is one of the games that has a progressive result subsystem, used for disarming bombs and the like. There are potential successes and setbacks baked interim states, but the final result is whether you've succeed by the time you go through four rolls.

 

[Hussar]

I'm not convinced most people would consistently consider many of the example PbtA consequences "opportunities" but I agree with the rest of this.

Well, that's neither here nor there. Look upthread to @pemerton's response to the Warehouse example where he does exactly what I'm alluding to - a consequence that is an "opportunity" - note opportunity in this sense simply means "chance" as in an opportunity to move forward, backward or sideways, as it were. However, I do think that you are right that many people consider this to be problematic and that any "consequence" of a success=failure, no matter what.

But, I do think that a this is the primary sticking point when trying to compare the two systems. The insistence that one system must adhere to the mechanics of the other. It does work the other way too. A player who declared, in a trad game, that the warehouse guard was his friend from school would be very much violating the intent of the system. Players simply don't have the authority to do that and that's largely intentional. You can't "explore and discover" if you can edit what you find.