Original question reworded and posted later in thread...

I predict this will not end well.

Quote from: StormBringer;454429I predict this will not end well.

Why?  Because I posted it? Or because I just stuck my penis in a hornet's nest?

"Okay, folks, show's over. Nothing to see here."

>578 posts
>acts oblivious as to what this site is about and the opinions of its operators

I hate to call trolling, but I mean this just seems so obvious.

Also, the main point of the essay really doesn't revolve around the resolution methods, and it's fairly out of date in terms of the theory-stuff.  It's also of debatable merit even among people who do enjoy discussing design theories.

Given that your idea has more to do with resolution methods and less with the "creative agendas" listed in the essay, I think it would be more productive to use the terms divorced from the paper, since they don't even originate from Edwards' writing.  I think in that case we could have a reasonable discussion here, since those are fairly simple terms that don't have any real baggage tied to them.

disregard post

I guess I was wrong.

As long as we are on the topic, though, a quick opinion poll:  Do you prefer the dice to determine the quality of the outcome, or the quantity of the outcome for task resolution?

Quote from: StormBringer;454540I guess I was wrong.

As long as we are on the topic, though, a quick opinion poll:  Do you prefer the dice to determine the quality of the outcome, or the quantity of the outcome for task resolution?

I'm not sure how you're defining quantity and quality there. Let's say you're setting a snare, you've got success in terms of how hard it is to notice, how likely is it to catch a monster that steps on it, how strong a monster it can hold, how quickly you can get it completed, how many resources you have to use to make it, etc. What are quantities, what are qualities, there.

I'm guessin Stormy differenciates between:

(1) A roll with an outcome of "success" or "failure". Period. Rolling 1-2 on d6 to find a secret passage is an example. Either you do, or you don't.

(2) A roll with an outcome that not only determines whether the action is a success or failure, but also how much of a success or failure it actually is. "You succeed your d20 roll by 5 so that's a brilliant success" or "you've only got one success in your Melee pool roll so you almost failed, but did hit nonetheless" are examples of this.

Quote from: StormBringer;454540I guess I was wrong.

As long as we are on the topic, though, a quick opinion poll:  Do you prefer the dice to determine the quality of the outcome, or the quantity of the outcome for task resolution?

Quality, I guess. I'm a fan of only rolling dice when the consequences of failure are interesting. So a die roll to determine the degree of success... Meh.

Quote from: Cole;454543I'm not sure how you're defining quantity and quality there. Let's say you're setting a snare, you've got success in terms of how hard it is to notice, how likely is it to catch a monster that steps on it, how strong a monster it can hold, how quickly you can get it completed, how many resources you have to use to make it, etc. What are quantities, what are qualities, there.

Essentially, 'quantity' is fairly binary; how often can you succeed?  A 'to hit' roll may be 50%, 80% or even 90%, but the outcome is still just two options - hit or miss.  Most skill based systems, or non-skill based systems that have skills embedded use this model.  D&D after 2e, obviously, is a class/level system with embedded skills.  CP2020, Traveller, and so forth are almost entirely skill based.

Whereas 'quality' determines how well you succeed.  I am drawing a blank on other examples, but I believe Feng Shui works like that; the outcome is more or less guaranteed to succeed, but the degree to which it succeeds is what the dice determine.  To some extent, White Wolf games follow that model, using a dice pool with botches.  WEG d6 Star Wars is a more traditional game example.  The rules encourage a task resolution roll to guide the quality or the amount of time it takes for tasks that take longer to complete.  Rolling damage for just about any game is a roll for the quality of a combat task, although it is separate from the actual task resolution roll.

Quote from: StormBringer;454551Essentially, 'quantity' is fairly binary; how often can you succeed?

Gotcha.

Quote from: two_fishes;454546Quality, I guess. I'm a fan of only rolling dice when the consequences of failure are interesting. So a die roll to determine the degree of success... Meh.

I see where you are coming from but degree of success can set up interesting consequences later. The party builds a makeshift bridge :maybe it can support the weight of the party, but won't support the weight of the angry ogre who comes chasing them as they flee. Can you lift the guards keys, but can you also lift them without him noticing?

Quote from: StormBringer;454540I guess I was wrong.

As long as we are on the topic, though, a quick opinion poll:  Do you prefer the dice to determine the quality of the outcome, or the quantity of the outcome for task resolution?

Ideally both.
I have no idea what the original point of the thread was (damn you Zalmoxis you cocktease!).
Pass/fail (quantity) is critical for many game situations *particularly life or death saving throws), while quality (effect) is the point of other checks (damage rolls, weird magic variables like # targets or duration, how many fish you can catch, distance jumped, worth of crafted items, possibly time taken for any task). In a perfect world a good system would give you both and let you disregard whichever one isn't important, but individual mechanics are usually better for one or the other.

Die pools for example are good at giving a readout of how well you succeeded, but they make estimating the likelihood of success quite difficult for most people and make it difficult to fail at large dice pools - unless sucess requires more than one hit, in which case tasks suddenly become extremely for individuals with lower die pools.

On the other hand, a linear roll (d20+modifiers) is good for pass/fail but gives dramatic increases in margin of success (quality) as your bonus goes up. There's also two-tier systems where you roll say hit and damage separately, but this then requires kludges like 'critical hit' rules so that a maximum-awesomeness hit doesn't get followed by a 1 for damage. I experimented for awhile with a system that was first d20 for success, then a dice pool for effect, with indifferent results.

Quote from: Zalmoxis;454432Or because I just stuck my penis in a hornet's nest?

What was the original post penis?

Quote from: two_fishes;454546I'm a fan of only rolling dice when the consequences of failure are interesting.

Me too. I like to assume competence and then bring possible failure into play when failing adds to the drama. Its why I handwaive mop ups at the end of a battle.