Performance and Result?

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by chaosvoyager at 2005-09-19 06:50:47
Converted from Phorums BB System

"Performance concerns what the character does, result represents the impact of what the character does on the setting. A character moves and hits a table. That's his performance. Does the china jar fall? If it falls, does it break? That's the result."

What would the 'Result' be if the character's intent was to hit the table to knock down and break the china jar? Also, what if the character fails? Do they fail to hit the table, knock down the jar, break the jar, or even to move at all? Traditionally, a character never 'fails' to swing a sword, only to hit a target, yet the prior outcome is just as valid a result. It all seems to be based on who narrates the outcome, and how many cause and effect steps they choose to use.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Sergio Mascarenhas at 2005-09-20 03:12:05
Converted from Phorums BB System

"What would the 'Result' be if the character's intent was to hit the table to knock down and break the china jar?"

It would work more or less the same way, the difference is that in this case the performance is intentional while in my example it is unintentional (yes, my example was not the most conventional since most rule systems focus on intentional actions). The intention of the character is to move the table to make the jar fall. Moving the table is his performance. It may lead (or not) to the fall of the jar. That's the result.

"Also, what if the character fails? Do they fail to hit the table, knock down the jar, break the jar, or even to move at all?"

The character can fail in his overall intention at one of two stages: He may fail in his performance (he may not hit the table, for instance); he may perform as he wishes but this may not be enough to achieve the result he has in mind (the jar does not fall or, if it falls, it does not break). In action resolution terms it all depends on where the failure happens.

"Traditionally, a character never 'fails' to swing a sword, only to hit a target, yet the prior outcome is just as valid a result."

Are you sure? It all depends on the guidelines provided by the game system. For instance, in RuneQuest and other BRP games I interpret a failed result as 'the character was not able to do a meaningful action'. Going back to your example this means, 'the character was not able to swing effectively the sword'. Both ways of looking at this issue are consistent with the way RQ describes what happens in a round of combat. According to RQ, in a round there may be several attempts to hit the target but if the character fails none of these was enough to achieve his aim. It may mean that the character did nothing (there was no opening, for instance) or that he did something but what he did was ineffective.

"It all seems to be based on who narrates the outcome, and how many cause and effect steps they choose to use."

To a point you are right. The issue is that in game terms there are only two steps. There could be more or less (several game systems handle action resolution in a single step), of course. What is, in narrative terms, incorporated into the performance and what is placed in the result depends on the way the different types of actions are described (say, actions for combat, craft, communication, etc.).

Furthermore the game may include an extra level of causality. Think about death. If death can be the outcome of several accumulated actions (several hits that wound the character) whe have here an more broad level of causality. This is also common to many game systems.

All these things will have to be sorted out at a later stage when I look more closely at the action resolution mechanics.

Sergio

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by toran at 2005-09-22 22:58:04
Converted from Phorums BB System

In that case, why are you even determining the attributes and skills if you don't have some concept of the action resolution mechanics?

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Sergio Mascarenhas at 2005-09-23 02:59:52
Converted from Phorums BB System

It is not exact that I don't have some concept of action resolution mechanics. I've been referring to several games and I know my preferences in terms of action resolution mechanics. I can also define a tentative concept of action resolution without providing mechanics for it, as I did in the column. In fact, I need to do this since a game system is a whole that has to work smoothly. Still, I can leave for a latter stage the definition of the exact mechanics. At least that's my point of view.

Sergio