That bolded line appeared in my first post in this thread. Perhaps you misunderstood or misread that first post - it happens. But my argument hasn't changed, nor become more nuanced.
Indeed. There was a middle point, though, where we began to discuss it, when such language was missing, hence my missing the context.
Mistwell is positing that the decision procedure is already in use, and hence can just continue to be applied.
Actually,
@Mistwell's initial post was much fuzzier than this, using a metric of, "You simply ask what direction your character would go based on what they do know." This doesn't posit a standard operating procedure, but rather suggests that you should chose the same method you would have used absent any information at all. That's not possible to do. I suppose you could assume that he meant players should have a defined decision process to use when the DM doesn't provide any information useful in determining how to advance, but that appears to be reading into is statements rather than an accurate paraphrasing of them.
While Mistwell does later describe a SOP as if playing in a form of skilled Gygaxian play, such methods are still vulnerable to information known (hence the 'skilled' part) and choosing to use a naive decision tree while ignoring pertinent information is making a decision with the knowledge. It's unavoidable even in Mistwell's conjecture.
The only way that this method would work is if decisions are routinely made without information so a naive use of the SOP actually replicates the usual mode of play. That, however, assumes that the DM is only presenting informationless decision points, though, which seems to be such an outlier that it's not worth discussing.
My preference as a hypothetical player would be to resolve the whole "chasing Capt Whiskers" scenario via intent-and-task resolution, as
@Tony Vargas (I think?) suggested upthread. Which would make the map issue redundant.
But if I found myself in a game in which the way situations are established is being resolved by tracking tokens on a map and seeing which "scene triggers" they hit then I'm not going to be super-fussed if it turns out that that is determined by application of a standard decision-procedure rather than vaa nuanced player decision-making seeking some optimal set or sequence of situation triggers. This is a reflection of (i) my general lack of interest in and skill at classic Gygaxian "skilled play", and (ii) my general preference for GM control over scene-framing.
So, then, this is entirely academic for you and the hill you've chosen is to champion, but not advocate, that you can make a decision as if you don't have information if you use a naive decision-making mechanic like a random die roll. But, only if this is the usual way you make decisions? Okay, fun talk, not sure it did anything useful. It certainly didn't illuminate the topic, just postulated a situation where you usually use a naive decision-making mechanic for most gameplay. Never actually seen a game like that.
By way of contrast, the troll scenario is not about scene-framing at all. It's about action resolution in the context of an established situation.
Action resolution requires iterative framing. You receive feedback on action outcomes that leads back into scene reframing which leads to action resolution et cetera. You're doing a weird divorce of an iterative process to frame how you deal with a troll differently from any other action resolution cycle, like exploring dunes to find a pirate captain. These are the same thing, in different scale loops, functionally speaking.
And also by way of contrast, the intent-and-task resolution of the hunt for the Capt - which as I said would be my own preferred approach, everything else being equal - would convert the overland travel from a series of scene-triggers into action resolution within a particular scene.
Firstly, I'm very aware of your preferences in play from other threads, hence the point of my question above. Secondly, intent-and-task seems like very confusing terminology. I understand intent based resolution as what I would describe as your play -- the mechanics adjudicate the success or failure of the intent of the player's action declaration. I understand task based resolution as well -- the mechanics adjudicate the success or failure of a specific action. The general difference being, "I jump over the chasm (intent)" vs "I jump, how far do I jump? (task)" The former would resolve the intent of the attempt to jump the chasm, the latter the specific action of how well you jump, which would then be checked against notes to see if the chasm was crossed.
I'm left confused about what intent-and-task would be.
I've also seen intent resolution called stakes resolution methods. And I've personally called task resolution atomic action resolution, as you're resolving individual actions independent of intent.
