[RPG Theory] Open Forum: Resolution Transparency

[stevekenson]

I’m woolgathering before leaving for the airport to pick up a friend who’s visiting us from out of town for a few days, and I’d like to pose a general question for readers of my blog:

What degree of “transparency” of action resolution do you prefer in an RPG? That is, how apparent should it be whether or not a character’s action has succeeded or failed, and why?

In a typical RPG, the players roll dice for their characters’ actions out in the open, and the results are fairly apparent: the players know the character’s relevant abilities and the result of the dice. The only real X-factors are the difficulty or modifier set by the GM. In some systems, even these are known (or the GM may choose to share them). The GM rolls dice for the actions of non-player characters, typically behind a screen or the like, so the players don’t know the results of either the rolls or necessarily the abilities/traits of the NPCs, although some players can and will figure them out from the available evidence. The GM has a fair amount of leeway to “fudge” results while remaining within the realm of credulous possibility.

If this is the mid-point, then the extremes would be:

1) Where all resolution must be out in the open and transparent; the GM makes rolls the same as any other player, open to player scrutiny and the only unknowns are the actual traits of the NPCs, and perhaps even they must be known (depending on how the resolution system works). Even if they’re not, players will pick up on them quickly. Or...

2) Where all resolution is hidden from the players and handled by the GM (much as some “secret” rolls are in mid-range games). All the players know are their characters’ traits; the outcomes of the dice are like a black box, and the GM has even more leeway to “fudge” results. The players are more heavily reliant on the Gamemaster’s interpretations of what “actually” happened.

What level of transparency do you prefer in your RPG experience, and why?

Comments

[fatespawn.livejournal.com]

For me it depends a lot on the game. Games that I feel are more story-driven (Mage, for me) benefit from more secret rolls to keep things feeling both more unknown and more realistic. In more combat-oriented games (not to be stereotypical, but for me this is usually D&D) I like more rolls out in the open specifically so that ST's can't fudge the results. In tactics-oriented games like that the thrill and tension comes from knowing that even if the ST wants you to win through, if you mess up only lucky dice can help you.

In general though, I prefer secret rolls. I've been doing a lot of gaming over Skype these days and to simplify things I just have copies of all the character sheets and roll pretty much everything. And generally the degree to which I let a player know how well they did is dependent on how many dots they have. A master hacker might screw up now and then, but they'll at least know it. Not only will an amateur not be as good at things, but they also won't have as good a sense as to how well things are working out.

The aspect of secret rolls that I have the hardest time with is false-positives, especially with things like suspecting people of lying. Generally, if you suspect someone then the ST rolls Sense Motive or whatever. If the NPC is lying and you beat them then you learn about it. If they're lying and you fail then you're not sure. If they're telling the truth and you succeed then you're sure about it. But most systems don't have a good way for people to see something that isn't there, when in reality that happens all the time. It's a conundrum.

[codrus.livejournal.com]

The old Digest Group Traveller rules had something that might help with your false positive case. Some tasks were marked as "uncertain". Here's the rules as written (except I simplified the table):

Uncertain Task: If the result of a task attempt is largely "opinion" or, because of the nature of the task, if immediate feedback on how successful the task has been is not possible, then declare the task to be uncertain. With an uncertain task, those associated with the task have some idea of how successful the task attempt was, but they are not certain.

When a player is attempting an uncertain task, both the player and the referee roll for the task attempt. The referee's roll is hidden from the player, and serves to modify the result of the player's roll.

If both rolls failed: No Truth
If one roll succeeded: Some truth
If both rolls succeed: Total Truth

No Truth: The player is totally misled as to the success of the task attempt. Completely erroneous information is given.

Some Truth: The player is given some idea of the success of the task attempt. Some valid information is given. Notice that it is possible for the character to fail at the task attempt and still get some helpful information -- although he can not know for sure this is the case.

Total Truth: The player is not misled in any way as to the success of the task attempt. Totally valid information is given. Notice the player may still not believe all of the information he is given, even though it is the complete truth.

Conceptually, that's very handy for interpersonal skills.

[bruceb.livejournal.com]

That's pretty darned elegant. I'm going to add that to my repertoire. Thanks!