that the character decision space and the player decision space diverge here is a fact.
There is no divergence.
The character wants to read the runes, having conjectured that they may reveal a way out, and hoping that they do. The player wants to read the runes, hoping that they will reveal a way out, and knowing that there is a chance - based on the resolution of their declared action - that they will.
The player has
knowledge that the character doesn't: namely, that this is a fiction being authored. That's the same in all RPGing: it's not unique to this case.
What is not the same is the causality. Why you keep ignoring this?
When did I ignore it. I posted about it 6 weeks ago, so well before you joined the thread:
To me, it seems that the real issue is this:
@AlViking and
@Maxperson are affirming some restricted version of the following principle:
Counterfactual statements about the real world, and counterfactual statements about the fiction, should tightly correlate with one another.
That is why they insist that
what would the GM have narrated, had the roll succeeds must correlate tightly with the way causation is working in the fiction. This then leads to an idea that the purpose of the dice roll and the associated decision-making about resolution is to directly model the causal process that is taking place in the fiction.
The RPG that I know that comes closest to an unrestricted version of the above principle is RuneQuest. There are two reasons that I say that
@AlViking and
@Maxperson are affirming a restricted version of the principle:
(1) There are big chunks of D&D's mechanics, including its surprise mechanics (as per my post not too far upthread), its stop-motion combat resolution (as per a post of mine further upthread), and other stuff too (eg at least some aspects of saving throws and hit points) that don't conform to the principle. It's that failure of conformity to the principle that explains why all the classic simulationist FRPGs that were designed in reaction to D&D (RQ, RM, etc)
don't use these resolution mechanics, or at least try to minimise them to a great degree.
(2) They don't adhere to the principle in cases like the farrier you've been discussing with
@Maxperson
I've also repeatedly posted passages from, and links to,
an essay from over 20 years ago that talks about the role of causation in simulationist, including "process simulationist" (or as the essay calls it, "purist for system") play. But no one has agreed with me on any of this, because they don't like the author and hence insist he must be wrong, even though they seem to be largely reiterating his points.
As the self-quote points out, there are lots of parts of D&D's core mechanics that depart from the tight correlation principle. Those are all the bits that serious process-sim RPGs depart from, to greater or lesser degrees. There are also a lot of pretty typical GMing practices that depart from the principle too (including narration of climbing checks that introduce things like sharp edges, crumbling rocks etc). This is why, as I've posted, Sorensen's principles in the New Simulationism manifesto are so demanding.
In fiction it does not matter if the treasure hunter examines the runes first and it does not matter that they hope for different things than the arcanist. In the fiction the examination will not cause the runes to be anything. However by the rules they have 10% chance to get the treasure location and 90% get bad stuff, and now the runes are "fixed", so the arcanist who would have had 75% to chance for the runes be the map and only 25% chance for them to be bad stuff cannot examine them again.
In the fiction, the runes could have been X or Y. But once the GM rolls on the "random runes" table, they are "locked in" as X rather than Y. And now someone else can't prompt a re-roll on the table.
All this shows is that, in a game, if one person makes a move, that shapes the "play space" in ways that affect future moves by that participant and other participants. Which is pretty standard for a game.
I do not know how the people in your game react to this. Do they have meta discussions about what to do, or do they just play their characters and have them take actions that are sensible in the fiction but disadvantageous by the rules?
This comes back to the point of play. Most of the time, when I am playing a RPG or GMing a RPG, the players are not trying to beat a scenario that the GM has authored and presented to them. Or to overcome obstacles set by the GM in the way of getting to some "finish line".
Typically, the players are playing the game to have their PCs do things and to find out what happens to their PCs.
Here, again, is an example of play from Torchbearer 2e:
Telemere then decided there must be some other secret room or cache, and tested his Beginner's Luck Stonemason to find it. Golin - whose Creed is that Elves are lost in dreams, and need grounding in reality - declined to help him; but Fea-bella - whose Creed is that These are dark times, so all Elves need help! - decided to help, even though she thought it was hopeless.
The test failed, and so Telemere found nothing. Rather, Golin - watching from atop the shrine - saw a vessel sailing down the river towards them. He recognised it as a pirate river galley, especially when it ran up the Jolly Roger!
The impression that I get from your post is that, when you read this, what you see is (i) Telemere's player creating risk by declaring an action that is unlikely to succeed, and (ii) Golin's player compounding that risk by not helping with the check. "Disadvantageous by the rules".
But it is not "disadvantageous" to declare actions in TB2e. If players didn't declare actions for their PCs, everyone would just be sitting at the table silently. Given that the whole reason for playing is to find out what these characters are going to do and what will happen to them, declaring actions is the core of play.
To me, you seem to be assuming that play will look - in its structure - like a D&D dungeon of 45 to 50 years ago: there is a pre-authored set of latent situations (the dungeon rooms, or the GM's notes about the obstacles in the way of <this goal>, or whatever) and the players' job is to (i) identify those latent situations, and (ii) defuse/defeat/overcome them as efficiently as possible.
But I very rarely play or GM RPGs that have that structure. The situations are not predominantly pre-authored. In MHRP or BW they are not pre-authored at all. In TB2e some are, but the rules for "twists" mean that many are not. And there is no pathway for players to "win" the game by minimising their action declarations, their engagement with situations, etc. Engaging with situations
is the play of the game.
