Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GMMichael" data-source="post: 7599538" data-attributes="member: 6685730">Lots of issues, even more context, so I might be stabbing in the dark, here.&nbsp; If so, feel free to ignore me <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devil.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":devil:" title="Devil&nbsp; &nbsp; :devil:" data-shortname=":devil:" />One problem here, which I always see as a problem, is trying to put &quot;success&quot; and &quot;failure&quot; into the game world.&nbsp; The problem is that, unless you unequivocally define how each term translates into results, success and failure are 100% subjective.&nbsp; In the Vincent Baker example, a PC could roll a success on cracking the safe, and literally &quot;crack&quot; the safe; the iron door was so rusty that the action of pulling the handle breaks the door in two, or breaks the handle off.&nbsp; This is why success/failure should be limited to metagame/logic concepts, like doing &quot;damage.&quot;&nbsp; An opponent either takes numerical damage or does not.&nbsp; There is no middle ground or gray area.Another problem is confusing simulation outcomes with story outcomes.&nbsp; In pemerton's example, smashing a vessel is a simulation outcome (Vincent Baker's &quot;Task&quot;), while thwarting the adverse effects of the widget is a story outcome (VB's &quot;Conflict&quot;).&nbsp; If GMs and PCs have different ideas about what type of outcome will result from a given conflict, it should be fairly obvious that it will lead to real world conflict.I have no idea how this ties to the lie-deducing thread, but I hope this helps to clear up one or two issues in this thread: does the GM know what the outcomes of a die roll will mean?&nbsp; What defines a success or a failure?&nbsp; And are those outcomes part of the simulation, or part of the story?&nbsp; Next, what answers does the player have in mind?&nbsp; Finally, are the two people in agreement or not?My personal solution is to 1) remove the false succeed/fail dichotomy, and 2) hand over, as GM, enough narrative agency to the player to determine what a good or bad roll means, and then I take the yoke back before the plane crashes into the mountain.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GMMichael, post: 7599538, member: 6685730"] Lots of issues, even more context, so I might be stabbing in the dark, here. If so, feel free to ignore me :devil: One problem here, which I always see as a problem, is trying to put "success" and "failure" into the game world. The problem is that, unless you unequivocally define how each term translates into results, success and failure are 100% subjective. In the Vincent Baker example, a PC could roll a success on cracking the safe, and literally "crack" the safe; the iron door was so rusty that the action of pulling the handle breaks the door in two, or breaks the handle off. This is why success/failure should be limited to metagame/logic concepts, like doing "damage." An opponent either takes numerical damage or does not. There is no middle ground or gray area. Another problem is confusing simulation outcomes with story outcomes. In pemerton's example, smashing a vessel is a simulation outcome (Vincent Baker's "Task"), while thwarting the adverse effects of the widget is a story outcome (VB's "Conflict"). If GMs and PCs have different ideas about what type of outcome will result from a given conflict, it should be fairly obvious that it will lead to real world conflict. I have no idea how this ties to the lie-deducing thread, but I hope this helps to clear up one or two issues in this thread: does the GM know what the outcomes of a die roll will mean? What defines a success or a failure? And are those outcomes part of the simulation, or part of the story? Next, what answers does the player have in mind? Finally, are the two people in agreement or not? My personal solution is to 1) remove the false succeed/fail dichotomy, and 2) hand over, as GM, enough narrative agency to the player to determine what a good or bad roll means, and then I take the yoke back before the plane crashes into the mountain. [/QUOTE]

Verification