Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7795513" data-attributes="member: 16814">Can't speak for [USER=6779196]@Charlaquin[/USER], but I used to and now I do not.&nbsp; Range of success makes sense if you're still using the system as a process-sim, ie using the resolution system for discrete actions.&nbsp; To use your example of Mr. Flippy, you see the action that needs to be resolved as the number of flips performed.&nbsp; If Mr. Flippy completes 10 flips, then Mr. Flippy gets a good result.&nbsp; But, we don't know from your example what that good result may be, just that to get it, 10 flips must be done.&nbsp; You imply that some fewer number of flips may result in something that's not as good, but still desirable, but, again, we don't know what that is.&nbsp; This is because you're focused on resolving atomic actions -- in this case the number of flips -- as the focus of the resolution mechanic. With goal and approach, however, the number of flips accomplished is immaterial.&nbsp; The goal is to do something, the approach is by doing flips to impress judges (I guess), and the result is then &quot;did you get the something or not?&quot;&nbsp; How many flips are done isn't even necessary to consider -- on a success, the number of flips done was of sufficient quantity and quality.&nbsp; On a failure, the number done was not sufficient.&nbsp; How many were done is now just a matter of color in the narration.In this manner, by not using the resolution mechanics as a judge of discrete acts but instead as a holistic judge of whether the action taken was sufficient for the goal or not, range of effect just falls away as a desirable outcome.&nbsp; Now, if you aren't using goal and approach, then range of outcomes is a great way to drive the fiction into new areas.&nbsp; It's just not universally applicable, as you seem to insist, and is really only useful if you're doing the process-sim of resolving discrete actions that then provide input to the calculus of goal achievement.&nbsp; It's not necessary if you skip the middle parts.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7795513, member: 16814"] Can't speak for [USER=6779196]@Charlaquin[/USER], but I used to and now I do not. Range of success makes sense if you're still using the system as a process-sim, ie using the resolution system for discrete actions. To use your example of Mr. Flippy, you see the action that needs to be resolved as the number of flips performed. If Mr. Flippy completes 10 flips, then Mr. Flippy gets a good result. But, we don't know from your example what that good result may be, just that to get it, 10 flips must be done. You imply that some fewer number of flips may result in something that's not as good, but still desirable, but, again, we don't know what that is. This is because you're focused on resolving atomic actions -- in this case the number of flips -- as the focus of the resolution mechanic. With goal and approach, however, the number of flips accomplished is immaterial. The goal is to do something, the approach is by doing flips to impress judges (I guess), and the result is then "did you get the something or not?" How many flips are done isn't even necessary to consider -- on a success, the number of flips done was of sufficient quantity and quality. On a failure, the number done was not sufficient. How many were done is now just a matter of color in the narration. In this manner, by not using the resolution mechanics as a judge of discrete acts but instead as a holistic judge of whether the action taken was sufficient for the goal or not, range of effect just falls away as a desirable outcome. Now, if you aren't using goal and approach, then range of outcomes is a great way to drive the fiction into new areas. It's just not universally applicable, as you seem to insist, and is really only useful if you're doing the process-sim of resolving discrete actions that then provide input to the calculus of goal achievement. It's not necessary if you skip the middle parts. [/QUOTE]

Verification