Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Oops, Players Accidentally See Solution to Exploration Challenge
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7889275" data-attributes="member: 16814"><p>Indeed. There was a middle point, though, where we began to discuss it, when such language was missing, hence my missing the context.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Actually, [USER=2525]@Mistwell[/USER]'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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>I'm left confused about what intent-and-task would be. </p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7889275, member: 16814"] Indeed. There was a middle point, though, where we began to discuss it, when such language was missing, hence my missing the context. Actually, [USER=2525]@Mistwell[/USER]'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. 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. 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. 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Oops, Players Accidentally See Solution to Exploration Challenge
Top