Life is busy and I'm month behind on this, but a blog entry by Elliot Wilen caught my eye. It concerns interpreting the result of skill rolls.

To quote a bit of it:

Quote from: Elliot WilenThe problem is to determine when a failure happens because the character wasn't up to it, and when it happens because of something extrinsic. This can be important because the extrinsic event may have interesting consequences, or at least the image of the character and the integrity of the fiction will be maintained instead of looking ridiculous. Bond doesn't fail to catch the hit-man because he trips over his own feet--it's because a truck suddenly enters the intersection, blocking him.

A number of things stuck me about this article.

The first is that I never looked at it in enough detail to label the causes. I certainly considered the causes of skill failure, but I quickly filed them away as hidden by my chosen system's abstraction level. If it should for some reason become important (and that generally only happens at the very highest skill levels where failure is unexpected), I merely (in author mode) insert it- making it up on the spot. The truck entering an intersection is an excellent example as it's comes across as a random event and is unlikely to generate its own adventure offshoot.

That's a very narrative solution, but I doubt there exists as less narrative one other than simply ignoring the issue ("you failed, no one cares why"). But I'm interested if there are any here who disagree- say those who would immediately turn to a role-master like chart to explain what happened.

The second point of interest is that Elliot seems to be suggesting that there's value in always knowing if the failure was internal to the character, or external- not just for extremes like James Bond, for every failure. Perhaps I've misread him on this point, but here I don't think we necessary agree.

Rather than having the failure of every strike explained, I tend to resolve my examination of such things to important 'story impacting' skill use which the issues should have been a give (success or failure) but ended up in unexpected outcome. Things like Jones has failed to translate the ancient runes, or Bond have failed to shadow the deliveryman. In combat, I just want things to move along and will let the player himself decide what went wrong if he wants to know.

Some interesting questions. I suppose I usually assume PC incompetence is responsible. Ewilen classes the internal/external event as a separate consideration to critical fumbles, but I would be more likely to bother assigning flavour text to a fumble, which in turn I suppose makes it more likely to be external (normal missing due to 'internal' factors/ lack of skill being the default).
 
Another guideline I use, occasionally, is that an external event occurs when multiple PCs or NPCs all simultaneously roll particularly badly; the logic here being that an 'external' factor is something that will very likely inconvenience everyone involved. In one D&D game for instance, a PC trying to hide quite badly down a dungeon side passage avoided being spotted by two NPC dwarves, quite to my surprise, when both rolled natural 1s to Spot - I decided one of the dwarves had stepped in something - the PC group had a worg travelling with them - and this had distracted them both. (Pardon the overshare).
 
The same logic I think applies to the truck entering the intersection and preventing someone from catching a fleeing suspect; this would be something that means all the pursuers are likely to be stymied, so it only works fictionally if none of the players can make their roll. Unless the rules assume that one PC's critical failure can cancel anothers success, perhaps.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;632385The same logic I think applies to the truck entering the intersection and preventing someone from catching a fleeing suspect; this would be something that means all the pursuers are likely to be stymied, so it only works fictionally if none of the players can make their roll. Unless the rules assume that one PC's critical failure can cancel anothers success, perhaps.

Interesting approach, and a rather neat idea actually. It sort of splits things up between internal and external without additional mechanics. It leans to internal being far more common, but that would be true unless the characters were suppose to be nearly infallible sorts.


Myself I have a rather had and fast rule that in most cases only one roll is ever made for success no matter how many characters are involved. So this method wouldn't work for me.

oh...yes I remember that now from the d% discussion...fair enough.
 
Thanks, anyway. Thinking about it, I do have to admit to one problem with my approach, that being that the more people are rolling, the less likely an 'external' cause will be plausible, so more PCs means less strange accidents occuring.  It does bothers me slightly that the number of PCs can influences the fiction in a purely metagame way.
 
Oh also, something else from the first post.
 

Quote from: gleichman;632076That's a very narrative solution, but I doubt there exists as less narrative one other than simply ignoring the issue ("you failed, no one cares why"). But I'm interested if there are any here who disagree- say those who would immediately turn to a role-master like chart to explain what happened.

Possibly off-topic, I'd just like to note that I do like the RM approach - although I have to admit never having played it, unfortunately. The perk I can see though is that with exact cause of failure being discernable, factors that influence that can be represented better. So for instance if the result says "you drop your sword" then the player has room to argue that, say, they have a locked gauntlet with a chain attached so it can't go far. By comparison, I think that in a fairly abstract system a GM in the same situation (of having to provide a fumble result) is likely to change the event and instead say that the PC had (for example) slipped in blood and gone off balance, or some other event that maintains the fumble, since otherwise the PC is benefiting from their (arbitrary) description of the 1.
 
Also, a quick look over RM core seems to show most RM results are actually 'internal', I think (or mostly; they do include hit locations and some foe responses to events). It would be... weird.. to have external results on an RM table since the die roll is heavily modified primarily by PC skill.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;632516Possibly off-topic, I'd just like to note that I do like the RM approach - although I have to admit never having played it, unfortunately.

We tried it for a while, and gave up on it rather quickly (a couple of months of weekly games or so).

One of the problem with the charts is that while they are fun for a bit just for the wild things that happened, they got old quickly. "Oh look, another exploding spline!" (That was actually an example from Book of Mars, but the result was the same).

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;632516Also, a quick look over RM core seems to show most RM results are actually 'internal', I think (or mostly; they do include hit locations and some foe responses to events). It would be... weird.. to have external results on an RM table since the die roll is heavily modified primarily by PC skill.

Given the desire to reflect external causes for highly skilled people, I would think it would have to be a different chart done in that style.

It would have the same problem as RM proper, but some people do like that game.

(This topic is slightly maddening to me - I have a feeling there's important insights to be gained here about about how mechanics interface with fiction, but sitting just out of reach.)
 

Quote from: gleichman;632565Given the desire to reflect external causes for highly skilled people, I would think it would have to be a different chart done in that style.
 
It would have the same problem as RM proper, but some people do like that game.

OK I think I see what you mean.
 
Another approach might be that chance of external failure should be the same regardless of skill - so best represented by 'automatic failure' results in the game system. The character with imperfect skill then has a chance of failure equal to that, plus whatever amount skill is short of perfect ( The assumption there, is that an external event is something that really high skill can't overcome).
The table would then be a list of possible complications that are rolled between randomly (with no skill modifier to the results) that is rolled on when a die roll comes up in the 'automatic failure' range.
 
That seems logical to me anyway, and avoids the chance that a character with a skill that's supposed to be high, but who actually doesn't give that high a chance of success in the system, will get fluke disasters happen to them more often than the amateurs would in order to explain their failures.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;632706(This topic is slightly maddening to me - I have a feeling there's important insights to be gained here about about how mechanics interface with fiction, but sitting just out of reach.)

I know what you mean. It's likely to remain there I'm afraid, IME mechanics are seldom a good window into to fiction. Physics, Game, Choice- yes. Fiction, not so much.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;632706That seems logical to me anyway, and avoids the chance that a character with a skill that's supposed to be high, but who actually doesn't give that high a chance of success in the system, will get fluke disasters happen to them more often than the amateurs would in order to explain their failures.

Since most systems have a fixed 'automatic' failure, both the amateur and the the master will encounter them at the same rate. The Amateur however would get a much greater number of internal failures.

Still, I like the concept as that would seem to what one would wish (after all external causes aren't 'aimed' at our Master now are they?).

You could even apply this to games that allow multiple character's to roll. One automatic failure in the bunch effects everyone. This would help to offset (likely not by enough, but by a little at least) the advantages such roll give the PCs.

Surely if the game (as GM'd) is doing a good job of modelling the game-world, all dice-results should be plausible.

If James Bond only has a 0.1% chance of missing the shot and it comes up, well, he misses the shot.

If James Bond is so good that he can't miss, then why are you rolling to see if he misses or not? (Sure, roll for a minimum chance of insurmountable difficulty arising such as a truck driving in between him and his target, but if barring that there's no chance of him missing, then he hits...)

This is not just about what the rules give you in terms of a basic structure for how you roll dice, what numbers you add etc.

More, it's about the GM's decision to allow/require a dice-roll and what that dice-roll represents - how the GM frames the dice-roll. In other words, the GM setting stakes. Because even where the rules largely dictate what stakes will be attached to each dice-roll, in the final analysis, a human being (tradly, the GM), is bringing that to the table and could modify it in transit.

BTW if your system doesn't adequately model your character's ultra-high level of skill, the GM could just frequently waive dice-rolls, and sometimes make you roll, thus simulating the higher chance of success you should have.

Finally, sometimes this "internal" v "external" boundary may be blurred. If it's an external thing that your character might conceivably have been able to compensate for, for instance.

Quote from: Omnifray;632768If James Bond only has a 0.1% chance of missing the shot and it comes up, well, he misses the shot.

The question Elliot raises is "Why?", the answer may impact at the narrative of the adventure.

Quote from: Omnifray;632768If James Bond is so good that he can't miss, then why are you rolling to see if he misses or not?

Because he can, what's interesting is that the why and how varies between low skill and highly skilled characters.


For my part, I think the question is interesting. But I don't intend on answering it mechanically as I don't see practical way or a clear advantage to do so.

I mostly don't bother explaining why failure occurs. I guess I typically assume "internal" causes rather than (say) creating a puddle for someone to have slipped in.

I do know folks who dabble in descriptive effects on a critical hit or fumble (usually only in combat) and vary these effects based on circumstances. This might include things like secondary targets if they're available, but not if they're not and so on.

I guess leaving the reasons for failure within the abstraction of dice-rolling doesn't bother me as much as certain other things. For example, if you ran a game of Pulp Fiction, the scene where the gun goes off accidentally could never happen because no one was attempting anything. Basically people rarely if ever choke on potato chips or get T-boned at an intersection in RPGs, but that sort of thing can be interesting and in-genre in certain cases.

Quote from: beejazz;632797For example, if you ran a game of Pulp Fiction, the scene where the gun goes off accidentally could never happen because no one was attempting anything.

I love this example because it just so nicely illustrates one of the lasting conflicts in RPG design/thought.

As I play my games, it would never happen either. And I'm good with that, my games are not about such things.

But others do want to see it, and that desire resulted in the whole concept of plot points and other mechanics that allow either the player or the GM to insert such events. In the end, it resulted in the whole Forge movement.

Quote from: Omnifray;632768This is not just about what the rules give you in terms of a basic structure for how you roll dice, what numbers you
add etc.
 
More, it's about the GM's decision to allow/require a dice-roll and what that dice-roll represents - how the GM
frames the dice-roll. In other words, the GM setting stakes. Because even where the rules largely dictate what stakes
will be attached to each dice-roll, in the final analysis, a human being (tradly, the GM), is bringing that to the
table and could modify it in transit.
 
BTW if your system doesn't adequately model your character's ultra-high level of skill, the GM could just frequently
waive dice-rolls, and sometimes make you roll, thus simulating the higher chance of success you should have.
 
Finally, sometimes this "internal" v "external" boundary may be blurred. If it's an external thing that your
character might conceivably have been able to compensate for, for instance.

I guess that's another level at which the GM can try to fix results.
Trying to put that in a layered form I guess flow between levels a bit like say...
 
MECHANICS (die rolls, etc)
-
-
-
GM Interpretation of Mechanics (calls for dice roll not required)
-
-
-
GM Fiat Interpreting Fiction (explaining high/low dice results)
-
-
Fictional Result
 
A question that may be interesting, at what stages here do the players have input?
Arguing With The GM can affect either of the intermediate stages (as to rules or as to explanation). Player dice re-rolls (story points) I guess would normally affect the Mechanics level, but as Eliot has said if the GM has already decided before announcing the roll that failure was due to external causes and rerolls are fluffed as just willpower, this causes a conflict between the fiction (that the GM hadn't realized was inappropriate) and rules.
(Using a guideline that automatic failure = external cause might help, some systems at least limit re-rolling of critical failures, e.g. one of Savage Worlds' optional rules does this).

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;632932Player dice re-rolls (story points) I guess would normally affect the Mechanics level, but as Eliot has said if the GM has already decided before announcing the roll that failure was due to external causes and rerolls are fluffed as just willpower, this causes a conflict between the fiction (that the GM hadn't realized was inappropriate) and rules.

That's a rather specific subset however, I would think in most cases the GM wouldn't announce details of success or failure until after the player has decide if he's invoking a HERO (Story/Plot/whatever) Point or not. This is reality is frozen until the die roll is complete, including any allowed re-rolls.

The fluff for this can be difficult, but then again I have always viewed the fluff for this as difficult for any player really looking for cause and effect.

Quote from: gleichman;632941That's a rather specific subset however, I would think in most cases the GM wouldn't announce details of success or failure until after the player has decide if he's invoking a HERO (Story/Plot/whatever) Point or not. This is reality is frozen until the die roll is complete, including any allowed re-rolls.

The fluff for this can be difficult, but then again I have always viewed the fluff for this as difficult for any player really looking for cause and effect.

True... Perhaps this is something that is only a possible problem if mechanics are set up explicitly to specify whether a failure is external or internal, then.

Oh also...in the list of player inputs above, one thing I missed off was 'actions declared by player' -which have an effect on what rules/mechanics are applied (the thing CRKrueger usually brings up re. Dungeon World's archery rules; the Volley action).
System will limit what external results are possible in the fiction, since some things would have to be described in advance so that the player can respond to them. The greater the level of abstraction, the more external results are available to the GM, I suppose.
 
EDIT: rereading that I can see it wasn't too clear. Another way to put it may be that external results the GM can describe, are limited to things that wouldn't have provided a modifier to the original roll.