Quote from: Skywalker;594950How fair does this extend to? Do you provide an explanation on how you went about creating each monster, designing each encounter and applying various modifers for each roll?

If someone cared enough to ask, I'd be happy to explain the specific cases after the game . No one has, but sure, why wouldn't I? I have nothing to hide.

Of course, before the game, I've already given them insight into my GM style and how I do those things, so they'll probably have a good idea. Also, I sometimes (often) think aloud when applying modifiers "hmm... Well they're hugging the corner of the building so that's light cover... So that'd be -2 to hit" which makes it pretty transparent.

QuoteNo matter how you cut it, some of the GM's mechanical workings in an RPG are not going to be simple, open, and transparent. The application of GM discretion is a part of what prevents an RPG from being a boardgame or wargame.

The same can be said of MHR's doom pool. Why did the GM spend a Doom Die then, but not at another point? Why did they call for a roll against the Doom Pool this time? Why did they activate this opportunity but not that one? Why did they add a doom die rather than step one up this time? These things may not be readily transparent.

The point was every game I run is just as simple, open and transparent as MHR's Doom Pool is.

You see, I've actually run a few games of MHR, and the GM's actions are no more or less transparent than any other rpg. that's what I'm calling bullshit on. I spotted alot of ways the GM could manipulate the players through the Doom Pool. If I were interested in metagaming, I could very likely manipulate the game However I wanted a shocking amount of the time.

If your whole point is that no RPG, including MHR is readily and immediately transparent to everyone, and all game systems can be run with the same limited amount of transparency, then sure, I concede that point. It's the same point I was making, after all.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;594953of course.

Why?

I expect we'll discover that your answer to this question will answer your original question, too.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;595057It isn't. I think that planning for 2/3 failure and 1/3 success is stupid since there's a non-zero chance of a 3/3 failure. So no, I don't think that avoids the problem. Or rather, it only avoids the problem 2/3 of the time. It's gambler's fallacy to believe that a 1/3 chance of success guarantees one of three attempts will succeed.

I take it math isn't a strong point for you? I agree that it seems problematic to make it so that you have only a single method for finding any given clue and that method involves a check with a 66% chance of failure.

The Three Clue Rule is a useful, practical rule of thumb. Combined with permissive clue-finding, proactive clue-finding, and multiple investigatory paths it results in robust mystery scenarios that rarely or never fail. (I recommend reading the full essay. You appear to think that the Three Clue Rule is intended as a rigid magical wand. That is not the case.)

Furthermore, the belief that you've magically solved all the problems of a single clue failure point by giving people a 100% chance of finding the clue is a naive one. Following up on a clue requires at least four things to happen: You have to look for the clue, you have to find the clue, you have to recognize it as a clue, and you need to draw the proper conclusion from the clue. Solving one of those problems doesn't magically resolve the others.

In other words: Redundancy solves all these potential problems. Fudging, ignoring, or routing around a die roll only solves one of them (and does so in an unsatisfactory fashion).

Quote from: Doctor Jest;595057Moving a mystery forward should NEVER depend on chance. Which is why I cited the idea of using a die roll to do that as a BAD THING.

Maybe designing adventures that even have a "forward" is a bad thing?
"Forward" implies direction and a predetermined outcome.

Why not move sideways, or backwards?*

In a sandboxy megadungeon (or megacity, or megawilderness, or megaplane), or a freefom relationship map-driven situation (or locale) there is almost always another thing to do.
It might not be what the characters originally had in mind.

The mysterious portal on the second level of Moria might resist any (rolled) check to open. So they have to come back at a later time, when they gained a level or got access to magic or some weapon of portal destruction.

The hidden prince of thieves might resist any (rolled) chance of detection or diplomatic contact. Maybe another power or faction in the city can help establishing that contact, or be a replacement for what the thieves ought to do.

(Note that this is different from the "three clue rule". The three clues are planted to make one in-game barrier solvable, while Moria or the City of Factions simply are what they are, and whatever solutions to in-game barriers might exist have to be found or created in-game, through play.)

* And sometimes, in dungeons or diplomatic encounters there are dead ends.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;595063If your whole point is that no RPG, including MHR is readily and immediately transparent to everyone, and all game systems can be run with the same limited amount of transparency, then sure, I concede that point. It's the same point I was making, after all.

Cool. I think my thoughts here were getting mixed with those in the fudging thread but, yes, I totally agree that all RPGs lack perfect transparency by the very nature of GM discretion and the fact that no communication between GM and player is perfect.

On saying that, in terms of MHR, the Doom Pool does add a sort of transparency to certain aspects of GMing, mostly around conflict. The "difficulty" will be known to all and the GM has known finite resources to adjust it. There is also no expectation that the GM should exercise their discretion to fairly model reality, so GM influence isn't mixed, and possibly obscured with that expectation. I think it is these aspects that GW was getting at.

On saying that, you are totally right that the GM in MHR has the discretion of a GM in other areas that are equally as influential, such as actually choosing the opposition in a given scene.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;595045Well other than the fact it can replace all the other test types, it resolves the inconsistencies many RPGs end up having in their implementations. For example in FATE you can actually get the equivalent of a +8 in an Opposed roll (you: +4, Opponent: -4), but only a +4 in a Static one.

And lets face it, Extended tests build excitement. That's why combat in D&D is an Extended test (sometimes TOO extended). And as D&D Skill Challenges have shown, an Extended test is NOT simply a bunch of Static tests made in a row. In an Extended test each sub action affects the next, and gives you a chance to reconsider your action at every step, providing additional results or information in which to make that decision.

You've used examples of games i'm completely unfamiliar with. I don't know what skill challenges are. Combat is already an extended test in the sense that you are working toward removing an opponent's HP/equivalent.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;595070I take it math isn't a strong point for you?

I take it logic isn't a strong one for you?

QuoteYou appear to think that the Three Clue Rule is intended as a rigid magical wand. That is not the case.)

No, I think it's ham-fisted, clumsy, and amateurish.

QuoteFollowing up on a clue requires at least four things to happen: You have to look for the clue, you have to find the clue, you have to recognize it as a clue, and you need to draw the proper conclusion from the clue. Solving one of those problems doesn't magically resolve the others.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

QuoteIn other words: Redundancy solves all these potential problems.

Except of course for the fact that it doesn't.

QuoteFudging, ignoring, or routing around a die roll only solves one of them (and does so in an unsatisfactory fashion).

I never have and never will advocate fudging die rolls. As I said in the thread on fudging quite plainly, I never find fudging to be acceptable.

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;595077Maybe designing adventures that even have a "forward" is a bad thing?
"Forward" implies direction and a predetermined outcome.

You're right. "Forward" was a poor word choice on my part. As long as the game is moving, the direction is unimportant.

I, personally, only run games in a sandboxy fashion, even if I'm drawing from a written adventure for the basic situation. Just like in the real world, not all mysteries will be solved. And this is a good thing.

Quote(Note that this is different from the "three clue rule". The three clues are planted to make one in-game barrier solvable, while Moria or the City of Factions simply are what they are, and whatever solutions to in-game barriers might exist have to be found or created in-game, through play.)

* And sometimes, in dungeons or diplomatic encounters there are dead ends.

Very true.

Quote from: Skywalker;595079On saying that, in terms of MHR, the Doom Pool does add a sort of transparency to certain aspects of GMing, mostly around conflict. The "difficulty" will be known to all and the GM has known finite resources to adjust it.

I completely disagree with that last sentence there. The "difficulty" isn't readily knowable to anyone taking an action in MHR until the party rolling a Reaction does so. The dice pools are  so diverse that I doubt many people could calculate odds in their heads for the average roll, either. Further, you don't necessarily even know what dice a reacting character might use; even if the GM is rolling Doom, the players may not know that up front, the GM may select an NPC instead, and their pool will be assembled after the player has assembled and rolled theirs already. So you'll only know the "difficulty" of any action after someone has already tried to stop you and the conflict is resolved.

I'd say the Doom Pool is more obfuscating to everyone, including the GM, than it is transparent to players. This is one thing that I think rankles alot of GMs used to having more control over the game is that as a GM they're not able to easily or immediately understand, much less modify, the base difficulty of any action.

I think a game like D&D or Savage Worlds is significantly more transparent for everyone involved when knowing the difficulty of a given action; if I'm playing D&D and need a natural 20 to succeed, I know my odds are 5%. If I'm playing Savage Worlds and need to hit a TN of 4 with a d6 trait and I'm a wild card, I know my odds of success are 75%. I have no easy way to determine these sorts of difficulties with MHR at all.

Further, while the GM may have limited resources to adjust the "difficulty" in MHR, exactly what the impact of that adjustment is won't be readily apparent or meaningfully informative to much of anyone. Obviously rolling more, bigger dice is Better, but how much better a given pool is vs another pool, when we take into account spending points for additional effects and the like, it's not very immediately transparent. This is a problem with dice pools in general, but MHR complicates things with all the dice manipulation that's available even after the roll is done.  

QuoteThere is also no expectation that the GM should exercise their discretion to fairly model reality, so GM influence isn't mixed, and possibly obscured with that expectation.

While I agree the game as written doesn't have that expectation, I know from experience it can be run from the perspective of a GM trying to simulate the world of Marvel Comics as accurately as possible (here the world of Marvel is "reality"). I know some people run it all meta-gamey, but you don't have to do it that way. The Doom Pool mechanic does not dictate GMing style, except insofar as it is a limited* resource.

*but there are ways a clever GM could metagame those limitations out of their way for the most part.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;595167I never have and never will advocate fudging die rolls. As I said in the thread on fudging quite plainly, I never find fudging to be acceptable.

Your English skills appear to be as pathetic as your math skills. The education system truly has failed you.

QuoteExcept of course for the fact that it doesn't.

(a) You're empirically wrong.

(b) You have yet to present any solution for the majority of those problems. Lemme know when you wanna contribute something meaningful to this discussion.

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;595077(Note that this is different from the "three clue rule". The three clues are planted to make one in-game barrier solvable, while Moria or the City of Factions simply are what they are, and whatever solutions to in-game barriers might exist have to be found or created in-game, through play.)

This ends up being the inverted three clue rule that I talk about in node-based scenario design: If the PCs have at least three directions they could potentially go, odds are pretty good that they'll be able to pursue at least one of them.

In a fully developed sandbox, of course, they'll have vastly more than 3 options available to them. And that does, as you say, solve the problem.

The mistake is designing any scenario in which there is only option available. Obfuscating that option only takes a bad situation and makes it worse.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;595173Your English skills appear to be as pathetic as your math skills. The education system truly has failed you.

Yes, Grammar Policing is always an effective way to win an argument on the internet.

Quote(a) You're empirically wrong.

Please provide the empirical data that proves that. I'll wait.

Quote(b) You have yet to present any solution for the majority of those problems. Lemme know when you wanna contribute something meaningful to this discussion.

I'm not talking about finding clues because that's not what the thread is about. Lemme know when you wanna contribute something meaningful to the actual discussion this thread is about.

Quoteodds are pretty good that they'll be able to pursue at least one of them.

A "Pretty good" chance they'll be able to pursue means, implicitly, there's a "not so good" chance, but still a chance, they won't be able to pursue any of them, so my point stands.

QuoteThe mistake is designing any scenario in which there is only option available. Obfuscating that option only takes a bad situation and makes it worse.

That was never in dispute.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;595172I completely disagree with that last sentence there.

You make some good points. Whilst I still think the Doom Pool does adds transparency on some level, I agree with you that it doesn't on others and may be even more obfuscating at times.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;595172While I agree the game as written doesn't have that expectation, I know from experience it can be run from the perspective of a GM trying to simulate the world of Marvel Comics as accurately as possible (here the world of Marvel is "reality").

I agree, though I think the lack of expectation is pretty significant in and of itself, even if you run it with it.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;595179Yes, Grammar Policing is always an effective way to win an argument on the internet.

You respond to someone questioning your reading comprehension by claiming that they were questioning your grammar? You should change your name to Doctor Irony.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;595179I'm not talking about finding clues because that's not what the thread is about.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;594897"you didn't find the main clue necessary to solve the mystery" isn't.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;595057Moving a mystery forward should NEVER depend on chance.

You are Mitt Romney and I claim my 5 pounds.

I'm always amused when somebody forgets that this is the internet and all someone needs to do in order to see what they said 5 minutes ago is click the back button.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;595179A "Pretty good" chance they'll be able to pursue means, implicitly, there's a "not so good" chance, but still a chance, they won't be able to pursue any of them, so my point stands.

Allow me to repeat myself: You have yet to present any solution for the majority of these problems. Until you do, your whining about the perfect being the enemy of the good just makes you look slightly more foolish than the rest of the foolish crap you've been posting.

Suppose you need to accumulate X successes to get the job done? If you have limited time it might be necessary to make several unopposed roles to get something done in time.

Scotty has to get the enterprise's shields back up in 3 minutes before the romulans are in torpedo range, but he has to reset all 6 generators, Can he do it and if not can he at least get the most important shields up? Say the foprward ones if you're attacking or the rearward ones if you're retreating. he might have to roll for each shield generator and if he fails move onto the next one or try to repair the same one again.

Another type of unopposed roll might be a case where you had to roll a success vs. a target number AND beat it by more than a certain level.

Blowfeld hid his missile self destruct switch carefully. James Bond has to roll over the normal difficulty level AND get a better margin of success than blowfeld scored when he hid it when searching for it. Some might call that an opposed roll, OK. The issue is the two rolls might be made (in game time} days or weeks apart so is it still an opposed roll? Maybe, maybe not.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;595279You respond to someone questioning your reading comprehension by claiming that they were questioning your grammar?

It was a sloppy sentence you replied to. Nothing else made sense since if you were capable of reading yourself, you'd understand that...

Oh I see. You failed to understand me, and decided it was, in fact, my fault. I assumed you were smart enough to comprehend what I was saying. I won't make that mistake again.

I'll explain and try to use small words to help you understand.

I'm not particularly invested in "ways to solve a mystery with dice", and that wasn't what I was trying to discuss. I used "making a perception roll to find a clue" as a bad thing ("uninteresting" was mirroring language of the poster I was replying to) to use an unopposed perception roll for.

My argument wasn't about solving mysteries, so solving mysteries isn't cogent to the discussion. It was about using unopposed perception rolls in interesting ways. The clue thing was just an example. I could have just as easily used another example of a poor choice for using a perception check. The bad example wasnt the subject og the discussion, the good example was.

Your whole argument was a red herring from the start since "how to best solve a mystery" wasn't the fucking point. Using unopposed Perception checks for Other Things was. it was the Other Things that I consider cogent to the topic.

Do you think you can wrap your tiny, tiny mind around that? Please try.

Failing this, I may need to write a "see spot run" version for you.

I admit my fault was engaging you on the subject at all. Again, I believed you were more intelligent than you actually are. That was solipsistic of me. I dont always consider the limitations of others. My apology.

QuoteAllow me to repeat myself: You have yet to present any solution for the majority of these problems. Until you do, your whining about the perfect being the enemy of the good just makes you look slightly more foolish than the rest of the foolish crap you've been posting.

I'm still waiting for that Empirical Evidence which you have yet to present. Until you do, your claim that I am empirically wrong just makes you look slightly more Ignorant than the rest of the ignorant crap you've been posting.

Quote from: Skywalker;594413That's not what I have seen across the story-games I have played in. I remember feeling failure being more frequent and unavoidable in my early days of playing story-games. Story-games seem generally hard keyed to the idea that the results of the dice are sacrosanct, mostly from necessity of adjudicating success/failure in a definitive fashion without a GM. So, if death is the result of failed dice roll and you fail, your PC is dead. I am sure that there are instances of story-games that are an exception to that (for example, in a game where death isn't even possible under the system or a player may have some right to set stakes on a failure) but the same can be said of RPGs too.

In general, if you give authority to players to make decisions on a story level, then this necessitates that there are times where the player will lose story control (when those players come into conflict). This often makes failure hit even harder than a conventional RPG as there is no safety blanket of the GM able to manage and facilitate the situation as a whole. All you have are the hard rules and cold dice results. In fact, this is one of the main reasons I dislike story-gaming as a whole, as it often leaves a player feeling like they are the target of lynch mob style justice

So, I don't think a lack of failing against your will is a defining characteristic of story-gaming. IME its the opposite if you are talking about letting dice fall where they may.

Except that in every way that counts, failure is not against your will. You are dissociated from the character you play because the emphasis is on building the narrative not on immersing into the character. The typical storygame allows YOU to set the stakes of failure; meaning that you are only rolling to choose between two results you are willing to live with, two things that you find interesting. And failure is inherently mitigated in a storygame, not by the GM but by the structure of the game where the point is to "create story" not to emulate a world, so the result of failure will always be something that is suitable to story being advanced; this often leads to results (success or failure) being what generates more "drama" rather than any kind of "cold hard reality".  The only time a character will die in a storygame is when its felt that this will "suit the story". Your character will only ever get killed by a lucky hit from a goblin if its dramatically more worthwhile than that he survive.

RPGPundit