I'm thinking of a number...
Simon C:
This sounds like a subset of what I like to call "Chicken Entrails" resolution. That is, you roll the dice, and the GM scrutinises them, before pronouncing success or failure. There might be a functional resolution system happening, but from the perspective of the players, it's identical to GM fiat. "I'm thinking of a number" as you put it, is one very important facet of this kind of play, but any situation where the GM is privy to the means of resolution and the players are not is subject to the same problems. The first time I played Sorceror was like this, though unintentionally - I was the only one at the table who really understood the resolution process, so in play, resolution was everone rolling their dice, then me pronouncing the result. I could almost feel Ron's outrage from across the sea.
Filip Luszczyk:
Callan,
Indeed, the fact that the GM has the rulebook-supported right to stomp the otherwise fine default rules with his godly powers is obviously the main weakness of the design. Though in this case the weakness lies in a section of the rules that is entirely different from the resolution procedure itself.
As for your comment about playing a board game, I'm afraid I don't see it. A well-designed set of rules is a well designed set of rules. If it has to effectively function like a board game, so be it.
Callan S.:
Hi Filip,
Yeah, I was a little glib with the board game reference. What I mean is all the board games I know of don't grant a certain amount (a budget) of currency that can be applied to the physical mechanics of play as a representative of imagined space.
However, with roleplay design it seems simulationism by habit occurs and it's not a certain amount, it's an unlimited amount. The difficulty class has no ceiling - 'because sometimes the worlds like that' etc, etc, ie no reason at all.
I don't agree that this problem only starts at the GM's golden rule. You could remove that entirely and still most traditional games leave the difficulty number of a skill roll entirely in the GM's hands. GM fiat is built into resolution itself (and ON TOP of that, you also have the golden rule. A double dip of fiat, really)
Filip Luszczyk:
That's funny how I generally see fiat-based difficulties (as well as the choice of the statistic to be tested in a given situation, which tends to effectively contribute to the overall difficulty of a check) as simply an extension of the Golden Rule, whether formulated explicitely, as in WW's stuff, or assumed as an element of "good GM-ing skills".
Either way, I point at D&D 3.0/3.5 as an example of a game with resolution that is generally functional and works most of the time. Which doesn't mean it's completely free of unconstrained GM's fiat. Though I can't think of many instances from our games when the DM was forced to exercise his fiat due to a lack of a specific rule in the book and the need to construct one on the spot (whether particular DMs actually exercised their godly powers or not in situations when they didn't have to is an entirely different matter).
I generally favor mechanics that ascertain there are no such issues in the first place - i.e. even if some part of the resolution process (or any other aspect of the system, for that matter) is left to the GM's fiat, there is some factor that effectively balances his or her choice. Bliss Stage comes to mind, for example. The GM can pretty much regulate the difficulty of the missions however he likes (through the ratio of mission goals to Interludes). However, since losing pilots is the only way for the group to eventually resolve Hopes and close the game, it's not simply a matter of regulating the probability of immediate success or failure, but rather of balancing the chances for immediate success versus the overall progress of the campaign.
JB:
Simon, I'm perfectly happy to accept "I'm thinking of a number..." as a subset of "Chicken Entrails". As you say, the key definition is "[A] situation where the GM is privy to the means of resolution and the players are not."
All of the games I'm observing in play use some kind of Fate mechanic with a target number and a randomizer for resolution. (This works for games that use a dice+mods, sum and compare to target number mechanic, and for dice pool compared to number of successes type games as well. "Ok, make a 'firearms' check. Hmm... three successes out of six dice... Ok, you hit.")
I'm sure it could be used to supersede other resolution mechanics as well, but I'm not familiar enough with any games that use other systems to give any examples, particularly of how those games are actually played.
I coined "ITOA#" as the whole thing reminds me of the way one of my grade school teachers used to 'choose' students for, say 'milk monitor' or whatever, eg, "I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 100. Whoever picks the number that's closest 'wins'." The whole point of the game is that it looks impartial, and it may well be, but it depends entirely on the 'honesty' of persons 'thinking of a number'.
-----
Philip, when you played D&D, did the GM ever reveal the 'roll over' number, or was it played like what Simon describes so well as 'Chicken Entrails', eg, "you roll the dice, and the GM scrutinises them, before pronouncing success or failure"?
The D&D system played with GM Disclosure is actually pretty functional. It does what it's supposed to. Whether you like what it does (traditional game, task resolution, etc...) is another matter.
However, D&D, or any other game played via 'I'm thinking of a number...' may be functional, but it's not using the same system/mechanics.
But it's such a subtle difference in procedure that the majority of players are largely unaware of it, and if they are, they aren't aware of how much impact it has on the game.
-----
So, how are people playing stuff? I don't mean this as an 'opinion poll' but a request to look at our games to see how they work in practice. Is there any reason NOT to play with Disclosure in a game with a 'target number vs randomizer mechanic' besides making it easier to exercise Illusion? I can't think of any personally, but I've had players ask me to 'keep the difficulty secret' on certain rolls when I'm GMing, so now I just make it clear in the social contract that if they ask, "What's the difficulty?" I will answer honestly.
There may be games where it's required that the GM is privy to the means of resolution and the players are not. The best example I can think of is Amber, where the 'hidden number' thing is pretty much required for play as written. But Amber doesn't use any randomizers, and it's been criticized as using 'GM Fiat as System' by some.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page