In your own efforts to clarify the difference between the 3 Nuclear War and the 30 Nuclear war, you re-wrote the backstory. You made them two different worlds. But the GE roll has to be made relative to a specific character in a specific world, and so it can't work that way.
Besides, a 30 GE roll in that scenario is that nuclear war kills most of the humans, but the aliens survive and begin to conquer the rest of the planet.
And the 3 GE roll is wow, guess what, there's another way to kill all the aliens that won't kill quite so many people.
Besides, there is no reason to roll such a general effects roll in that story. Whose roll is it? That is, if we're talking about events happening around the player character, what is his place in the story, and what does he want to have happen? If he wants all the aliens killed and is willing to sacrifice all the people to do it, then the nuclear war is a good thing. If he wants to save the people and the aliens are the problem then then nuclear war is a bad thing. Remember, the general effects roll is not about some absolute notion of what good and bad outcomes there are. It is about what the player character hopes and what the player character fears. You cannot, as an individual inside that scenario, both hope that a nuclear war will kill all the aliens at the cost of most of humanity and want to avoid that as your prime objective. It's either what you want or what you do not want, and never both.
You're objectifying the "good" and "bad" sides of these outcomes, but the General Effects Roll is never objective, it is always subjective.
--M. J. Young
In your own efforts to clarify the difference between the 3 Nuclear War and the 30 Nuclear war, you re-wrote the backstory. You made them two different worlds. But the GE roll has to be made relative to a specific character in a specific world, and so it can't work that way.
No MJ, I can see where you got confused, but what I was saying is that the nuclear exchange triggered either the sense of love or the sense of every man for himself. Or maybe I didn't. I can't be certain. However, this is a possible loophole.
Besides, a 30 GE roll in that scenario is that nuclear war kills most of the humans, but the aliens survive and begin to conquer the rest of the planet.
Well, a nuclear war would be a 1 in 1,000 bad luck, wouldn't it?
And the 3 GE roll is wow, guess what, there's another way to kill all the aliens that won't kill quite so many people.
No, I was thinking that for someone who was afraid of the aliens, the 1 in 1,000 good luck would be that they be taken out in one fell swoop. A nuclear exchange would be a 1 in 1,000 fell swoop to take out the aliens, would it not? It's just in the "Intolerably Good" category.
What I was saying was that for someone in say, Brazil, who will more than likely survive, this could be a 1 in 1,000 good or bad event. If the destruction the aliens promise is worse than the destruction of the two countries.
The 3 world gets another bonused GE roll for how many aliens were killed.
The 30 world gets a penalized GE roll for how many humans were killed.
Still though, those are separate rolls.
Well, this is close, if nothing else.
(Doing Therapy)
Not necessarily. If I drop you in Wargames, and you leave it to Matthew Broderick to solve the problem and don't get involved, a nuclear war is not worse than a 21, bad enough, and maybe happens on any roll worse than a 13 Barely Good Enough. But then, that's assuming that you care whether there's a nuclear war or not. If you don't care either way--if whether the nuclear war happens doesn't make a difference to you--then a GE roll probably isn't the way to resolve it. A GE roll only works in relation to what the character for whom the roll is being made wants. If the character doesn't care, it doesn't work.Well, a nuclear war would be a 1 in 1,000 bad luck, wouldn't it?
Sure it is--but it's not also the result of a 30. If I'm the character for whom the roll is made, and I want to get rid of all the aliens at any cost and human lives are irrelevant as long as they aren't mine, then something that kills all the aliens and most of the humans is, hey, a good answer for a 3 GE roll (although better if it leaves lots of reclaimable land and wealth, so maybe neutron bombs with short half-lives). But then, the same outcome is not a 30 GE roll, because it does what I most want, not what I most fear. The 30 GE roll would be that nuclear war kills most of the humans and none of the aliens, because my fear is that the aliens are here and will get me, so the thirty means that they are even closer to getting me.I was thinking that for someone who was afraid of the aliens, the 1 in 1,000 good luck would be that they be taken out in one fell swoop. A nuclear exchange would be a 1 in 1,000 fell swoop to take out the aliens, would it not? It's just in the "Intolerably Good" category.
And what I'm saying is for that guy who is in Brazil, either this is a good thing or it is a bad thing. It is not both the best possible thing and the worst possible thing. In order for you to make "nuclear war" both the best and the worst, you have to qualify it differently--"nuclear war which kills all the aliens and few of the people" versus "nuclear war which eliminates our best hopes for defeating the aliens and leaves them greatly strengthened in their positions." But then, "nuclear war" is no longer the consequence, it is the first part of the consequence.What I was saying was that for someone in say, Brazil, who will more than likely survive, this could be a 1 in 1,000 good or bad event. If the destruction the aliens promise is worse than the destruction of the two countries.
Looked at another way, we could take the nuclear war out of the GE roll. We could say that for whatever reason the nuclear conflict is inevitable, and someone fires the first shot as the aliens are trying to get control of the world. We know that the nuclear war will do specific damage to the two major powers. We need a GE roll for what it does to everything else. On a 3, wow, the war is contained and all or most of the aliens are killed. On a 30, oh my, the aliens are unaffected by the nuclear attacks and the spreading fallout is weakening humanity and making it easier for the aliens to take the rest of the planet. But it isn't whether there's a war that matters, but what affect the war has on the aliens and the rest of the world. That's the part the GE roll is covering.
--M. J. Young
MJ, I guess we just see it differently. The way I see it is, Guy in Brazil:
3 GE Roll: "Man, I really wish those aliens would be destroyed in one fell swoop. That would be my wish." (However, he doesn't know that the nuclear war would take them out in one fell swoop.)
30 GE roll: "Man, I really hope those aliens arriving doesn't cause the (normal racial tensions) to escalate into nuclear war." (Again, he doesn't know that nuclear war would ALSO take out the aliens.)
To him, wiping out the aliens would be a 1 in 1,000 good thing.
A nuclear war between the US and Russia would be a 1 in 1,000 bad thing.
Ah, I think I get you now. A 1 in 1,000 good thing would be a nuke war that killed all the aliens and left most of the people.
A 1 in 1,000 bad thing would be a nuke war that killed most of the people and left most of the aliens.
Still though, a nuke war is never good.
Damn, I really thought I had it that time.
I'll come up with one. Just give me time.
(Doing Therapy)
Two Posts
Just curious, could you run it the 3 and the 30 both being nuclear war, and who and what survived determined by a separate GE roll?
I'm asking if that would be an acceptable way to do it.
The 3 roll is the guy in Brazil saying "I wish those aliens would be taken out in one fell swoop"
Then rolling a bonused GE roll for how many aliens died, a bonused roll for how many people survived, and going from there.
The 30 roll would be, guy in Brazil "I really hope this doesn't push things into nuclear war."
Penalized roll on how many aliens were left, penalized roll on how many people survived.
Would that be an acceptable way to do it?
You say that this game can do ANYTHING, having two 1 in 1,000 chance rolls have the same outcome is SOMETHING.
If that would be acceptable as a compromise as per the Multiverser rules, then a 3 and 30 can have the same outcome, and Multiverser can do ANYTHING.
And even then, a roll of 12-21 could be the same on both bonued and penalized rolls. So, the 3 and 30 could have the EXACT same outcome. If this would be an acceptable way to do it, per the Multiverser rules, then it works.
(Doing Therapy)
Let's imagine I told you that this car we built can do anything any other car can do. I show you how to make it do jumps, skid turns, 180s, 360s, wheelies, two--wheel driving, flips--everything you've ever seen a car do, this car can do.You say that this game can do ANYTHING, having two 1 in 1,000 chance rolls have the same outcome is SOMETHING.
Now you tell me, "I want it to peel out when I step on the brake."
I tell you that it can't do that, because the brake is what makes it stop.
You tell me that if you can't use the brake to make it go faster, then the car can't really do everything.
But the point is that the brake is one of the controls that enable the car to do anything. The brake is not itself part of the stunt, but is the tool you use to accomplish the stunt.
A game that can do anything means that from the perspective of the characters anything can happen. But the general effects roll has nothing to do with the character--that is, the characters are blissfully unaware that there are any dice deciding their fate behind the screens. What they know is what happens within the world, not what mechanics make it happen.
The GE roll is one of those mechanics, like the brake and the accelerator and the shift and the steering wheel, that the driver uses to make the vehicle do everything. The fact that the controls do specific things and don't do different specific things doesn't mean that the car--or the game--can't do everything. It only means that to get the car--or the game--to do any particular thing, you have to know how to use the controls.
You keep attacking the general effects roll, and saying that because it can't mean all different things the game can't really do everything. The fact is, the GE roll is an extremely flexible mechanic. It can sometimes mean nuclear war as a good outcome, or nuclear war as a bad outcome; but it cannot mean nuclear war as both a good and a bad outcome unless it also means something else about the nuclear war that makes one outcome good and the other bad. But why not attack the other mechanics? Look at the skill success roll. Why can't it be that sometimes a 20 is a success and a 60 failure, and other times the 60 is the success and the 20 the failure? Why can't there be some situations in which you botch on a 1 and succeed on a 100? The answer is, the mechanics are designed to do what they do by being used the way they were designed to be used. To say that the game can't do some things because you can't change what the mechanics do from moment to moment is like saying that a car can't really do anything any other car can do because the brake pedal always slows and stops it and never causes it to accelerate.
What the mechanics can or cannot do is measured by what outcomes can be achieved in the game. It is possible with the existing mechanics to have nuclear wars occur due to die rolls, good or bad. That is sufficient for the statement that the game can do anything. That the best result and the worst result are not the same result does not mean that the game cannot do things. That's not a thing. It cannot ever be the case that the best and worst things that could happen to someone would be the same thing. It can be that what he thought was bad turned out good, or he took what was bad and made it good; the reverses are also true. But the thing that happens is either good or bad when it happens, and what comes from that is entirely separate.
--M. J. Young
Now you tell me, "I want it to peel out when I step on the brake."
By which you demonstrate your own lack of knowledge in the fine art of stunt driving. One way to make a car peel out is to hold down the brake at the same time you're holding down the accelerator. Not sure exactly how it works, but it does. So yes, a car DOES peel out when you step on the brake, if done properly.
Which is completely beside the point here. I asked:
Just curious, could you run it the 3 and the 30 both being nuclear war, and who and what survived determined by a separate GE roll?
I'm asking if that would be an acceptable way to do it.
The 3 roll is the guy in Brazil saying "I wish those aliens would be taken out in one fell swoop"
Then rolling a bonused GE roll for how many aliens died, a bonused roll for how many people survived, and going from there.
The 30 roll would be, guy in Brazil "I really hope this doesn't push things into nuclear war."
Penalized roll on how many aliens were left, penalized roll on how many people survived.
Would that be an acceptable way to do it?
You say that this game can do ANYTHING, having two 1 in 1,000 chance rolls have the same outcome is SOMETHING.
If that would be acceptable as a compromise as per the Multiverser rules, then a 3 and 30 can have the same outcome, and Multiverser can do ANYTHING.
What I'm asking here is if that would be an acceptable way to work within the rules to get a 3 and 30 to do the same thing. That's basically a yes or no question, perhaps with some explanation as to why or why not. This is a legit question about the rules, not an argument. If the rules can be bent (or properly used, if you prefer) to do this, then Multiverser can do a lot more than you thought.
I think what you're doing is taking this as some manner of personal insult. It's actually a compliment towards the flexibility of the system. Only in Multiverser can your 1 in 1,000 good fortune be exactly the same as your 1 in 1,000 bad luck. If this can be accomplished through proper manipulation of the rules as outlined above, then this system is a lot more powerful than even you realized.
John - let's say you've given me a gun. This particular gun shoots forwards, and kills the person I'm pointing it at. Suppose that next week, I inform you that the gun you gave me can also sometimes shoot backwards, killing the person who's holding it. Do you:
a) Rejoice, because the gun is more powerful than you realized?
or
b) Try to fix the gun so that it works how it's supposed to?
Within the rules, a 3 and a 30 never do the same thing for the same person in the same situation. If a GE roll that came up three ever has the same effect as another GE roll that came up thirty, then either the player for whom the roll was made was different (or felt differently about the situation), or the situation in which the roll was made was different, or both. Never, if the player, his feelings, and the situation are the same, will a GE roll of 3 have the same result as a 30: if that were the case, then the GE roll as a mechanic would be similar to the gun that could fire forward or backward with no way to predict which. Bullets must fly forward, and threes must be better than thirties.
John - let's say you've given me a gun. This particular gun shoots forwards, and kills the person I'm pointing it at. Suppose that next week, I inform you that the gun you gave me can also sometimes shoot backwards, killing the person who's holding it. Do you:
a) Rejoice, because the gun is more powerful than you realized?
or
b) Try to fix the gun so that it works how it's supposed to?
No, I'd sell it to somebody I didn't like. It was just an idea that I got when I was doing my psychosis therapy. If a 3 and 30 could have the exact same outcome. You gotta admit, two 1 in 1,000 rolls with the same outcome would be a pretty interesting notion.
Actually, the way it works is it allows the engine to rev while the wheels are locked and the transmission is engaged but partially clutched. It's the same effect as popping the clutch on a standard transmission, really, but it's a bit easier on the transmission. But the brake is the part that stops it from moving until the brake is released, at which point the already rapidly turning engine transfers speed abruptly to the wheels, which engage so quickly as the trans drops into first at extremely high speed that they lose traction with the ground, and you burn rubber and take off more quickly than you would if the engine had to take the car with it while accelerating.
And the answer, which has been given several times, is no. That's because the thing that is far better than your best hopes and dreams cannot also be worse than your worst fears or nightmares. It is either one of the other. It may be that you cannot tell which it is immediately, but it is not the same outcome in any way that matters.What I'm asking here is if that would be an acceptable way to work within the rules to get a 3 and 30 to do the same thing. That's basically a yes or no question, perhaps with some explanation as to why or why not.
Maybe I can clarify it by reference to what I consider a joke. John 1 and Kyler often say that if you roll a 30, Vin Diesel shows up, beats you up, breaks all your stuff, and leaves. I think that's silly; but let's suppose for a moment that there might be a circumstance in which that would be a 30. Let's further suppose that if you roll a 3, Vin Diesel shows up, busts you out of there, kills all the opposition, and sets you free. Now, you can argue that the 3 and the 30 are the same thing, because Vin Diesel shows up in both cases. Really, though, Vin Diesel is irrelevant. It could be Arnold Schwartzeneggar or Chuck Norris or Thor or Angel Gabriel or Little Orphan Annie, for all it matters. That part that matters in that case is that someone showed up who had the ability to do a lot of damage, and that he or she either, on a 30, used that power against you, or, on a 3, used it for you.
So if you want to say that whether you roll a 3 or a 30, Vin Diesel shows up, and therefore the same thing happens on either roll, I guess you're right; but it is not that he showed up but what he did that makes it a 3 or a 30.
Does that clarify anything?
--M. J. Young
Actually, the way it works is it allows the engine to rev while the wheels are locked and the transmission is engaged but partially clutched. It's the same effect as popping the clutch on a standard transmission, really, but it's a bit easier on the transmission. But the brake is the part that stops it from moving until the brake is released, at which point the already rapidly turning engine transfers speed abruptly to the wheels, which engage so quickly as the trans drops into first at extremely high speed that they lose traction with the ground, and you burn rubber and take off more quickly than you would if the engine had to take the car with it while accelerating.
Now I'm wondering if you knew that, or if you looked it up.... I'm betting you knew it. Ah the joys of being a Jack of all Trades.... (Said with a modicum of pride in my friend)
So if you want to say that whether you roll a 3 or a 30, Vin Diesel shows up, and therefore the same thing happens on either roll, I guess you're right; but it is not that he showed up but what he did that makes it a 3 or a 30.
OK MJ, just so we agree that a nuclear war could either be a 3 or 30, (Following results notwithstanding) Would it be acceptable in the rules to use a second, bonused roll for the 3, and a second penalized roll on a 30? They would have the numbers 12-21 in common. Perhaps the second roll for the bonused was the 21, that would be the same as the penalized roll, rolling a 12. Would that be an acceptable use of the rules? I don't think you quite get what I'm saying. A nuclear war is something I, as a referee, would not want to leave in the hands of a single GE roll. Call it imaginary guilt, but I'd feel a lot more comfortable giving that at least 2 GE rolls. Would that be an acceptable use of the rules? That's what I'm asking. I don't think you're understanding me. Or maybe I'm not understanding you.
(Doing Therapy)
Two posts
MJ, I believe what I am doing is trying to get a feel for my refereeing style. You guys have all been doing, if not Multiverser, some RPGs for years. I know virtually nothing about this. I'm trying to get a feel for how I would handle these situations as a referee. It's kind of like imagining how I would have handled this situation. Three and Thirty being equal seemed appropriate as a discussion of GE rolls. How I would have handled that.
(Doing Therapy)
Three Posts
The 12 on the bonused roll is the average. It's the 16-17 of a 3D10 roll in a roundabout kind of way. The average of the penalized roll would be the worst-case scenario for the bonused roll. I'm just trying to get an idea for how I, as a referee, would handle this situation.
(Doing Therapy. May post more. Will try to keep them short and to the point)
Mistake, sorry
I did not look it up. I've seen it done.
The problem here is is that under this view the nuclear war is not really the outcome, but the conclusion from the outcome.OK MJ, just so we agree that a nuclear war could either be a 3 or 30, (Following results notwithstanding) Would it be acceptable in the rules to use a second, bonused roll for the 3, and a second penalized roll on a 30?
That is, taking the alien scenario, the 30 is nuclear war breaks out killing most of the developed world and leaving the few human survivors to face the unaffected aliens. A 3 would actually have to be something more like nuclear war breaks out in the alien empire, and all of its forces are recalled to fight a protracted war which leaves the empire too weak to return to Earth. However, somewhere in the "good" side, maybe 13, "barely good enough", maybe 14 "not desired but generally favorable result", we have an outbreak of nuclear war that destroys all the aliens at a devastating price to humanity. The point, though, is that if nuclear war is the outcome of more than one part of the general effects scale, then it is not the outcome but the path to the outcome, a part but not the critical part of the outcome.
The only way I can see "nuclear war" as part of a 3 outcome would be something like this:
- The character for whom the war is made is a "hawk" on the American side during the Cold War, hoping for an opportunity to rid the world of "those commie %@$+@^&$".
- The aliens have focused on taking the Soviet Union first, and all their forces are in that area.
- The Americans launch a first strike which is undetected by the seriously compromised Russians, and so the Soviet Union is devastated in the attack.
- All the aliens are killed in this attack.
- And the Soviet Union is destroyed, ending the threat and the Cold War with a momentary hot war.
So I think if you're trying to get your "Nuclear War on 3 or 30" result, you've really got to think it through. Probably you have to start with "This guy really wants a nuclear war which he hopes will achieve X", in which case the best outcomes are all that he gets his nuclear war and at least partially and possibly totally achieves "X", and the worst outcomes are that he gets his nuclear war, but it does not achieve "X" and in fact makes "X" more difficult or impossible to achieve. But you have to set up the scenario such that for that particular character for whom the roll is made, a nuclear war would be the best possible outcome as long as it achieves a desired result, but it is not certain that such a war would succeed. Further, given that scenario, the nuclear war is part of the result of the GE roll, but so is the result of the nuclear war. A second GE roll to see the effects of that war would probably not be part of it, because you've already got the range in the GE roll itself: the 3 does far better than desired, the 4 better than desired, the 5 all that is desired, the 6 most of what is desired, the 7 a substantial amount of what is desired, down to the 13 which does just enough that with a lot of effort the desire can be achieved, the 14 in which it sure helped, and the 15 in which something good happened which was not a nuclear war; on the 30, you're the last surviving human and the aliens were untouched, 29 humanity is devastated but still fighting, somewhere around 21 "Bad Enough" the aliens have suffered casualties from the war but nothing near what the humans have suffered (Terminator future with aliens intead of machines), 20 "Just Bad Enough" the war took out many on both sides, and below that there was no war, but things have gotten bad, down the 16-17 "Neutral Result or No Effect" in which everything is the same as it was.
It's very difficult to see a way for the war to be on both ends of the scale and the outcome of the war not to be part of that.
It is possible for a GE roll to be used to determine the intensity of various factors following another roll. For example, one way to handle a botch is to roll a GE roll to see how bad a botch it is (this is different from making a botch list, but can be used with any particular entry in a botch list). Also, the psionics and magic explosions table uses two GE rolls, one for the intensity of the blast within its primary area (from annoying to multiple obliterative), the other for the size of the primary area (from an inch to the entire universe), but this is two rolls for two different aspects of how bad something can be.
--M. J. Young
Well MJ, remember when Eric had that botch in our first world, and it took out 4.8 billion human inhabitants? That made me feel really guilty, out of character. I know the people aren't real, but I think if my character knew what happened, he wouldn't be doing psionics at all. I thought something that devastating should have 2 or more rolls. Maybe take an average or something. Feeling guilty about killing imaginary people..... That's kind of strange, isn't it?
I think my character thinks the army tried to drop a nuclear bomb on Godzilla or something.
(Doing Therapy)
John, there's nothing at all strange about you feeling vicarious guilt over the deaths of 4.8 billion imaginary people your character was trying to help. That's part of the role playing.
But actually, that outcome was the result of five rolls:
- Rich botched on a skill learning attempt. It was not inevitable that he would botch, but it was pretty likely given that he had a 0@ bias and Tadeusz was rather foolishly attempting to teach him a 13@ skill. Still, had there not been a botch in the first place, the rest of it would not have happened.
- There was a roll on a botch options table. "Explosion" was one possible result. I never do botch tables with fewer than six options, and I prefer ten, but I do not know how many were on this particular table. in any case, if it were only six, that would be a 16 2/3% chance of having an explosion, versus some other disaster.
- The psionic and magic explosions table has two columns, and there is a die roll for each. The first column gives the amount of damage done. The midpoint is Lethal+Lethal, two to forty intensities of damage with the average around twenty-one, which kills the vast majority of humans; but it's entirely possible to roll a 3 on that and get an Annoying level of damage--something that might on a good roll kill caterpillars and other small creatures but will be minor injury to people. I don't remember what the roll was for the level of damage.
- The second column has to be rolled separately. This is the range of the explosion. If a 3 had been rolled, the explosion would have been contained to a single one inch radius (two inch diameter) sphere, and even its outlying shock could not have been more than a foot away. The average roll on that chart is a radius the size of a single building. As it happens the roll was 29, Planetary--worse than Planetary Surface, the entire planet including its core was racked with the explosion. It was a really bad roll for the size of the explosion, but fortunately not Universal, so it did not affect the Dar Koni or the Architect, who were off-planet.
- Once we know the size of the explosion and the damage category, we have to roll the damage. I don't know what the damage category was, but I do know that the damage roll was eighteen intensities. Unless the damage category roll is at least 29 (Obliterative) there is the chance, growing slimmer as the damage rises, that the total damage even of an Annihilating+Annihilating explosion would be two intensities. On a really good roll, such as 10 Dangerous+Damaging, the maximum damage would be less than that required to kill the average human outright (although at 15 intensities a lot of people would be dying).
The combination of rolls as they fell were such that it was a devastating botch. I have not witnessed an explosion of that magnitude in any previous game. I have seen entire worlds destroyed--Chris Jones' famed teleportation of the Starship Warden into the heart of a planet leaps to mind--but disasters of this magnitude are rare in the extreme.
Also, you're not the only one bothered by it, as evidenced by the Herculean efforts to which Tadeusz and the Architect went attempting to repair as much of the damage as possible. Very few humans wound up dead, thanks to their efforts.
--M. J. Young
John, there's nothing at all strange about you feeling vicarious guilt over the deaths of 4.8 billion imaginary people your character was trying to help. That's part of the role playing.
So you've felt guilty about things like that? I thought I was the only one.
Rich botched on a skill learning attempt. It was not inevitable that he would botch, but it was pretty likely given that he had a 0@ bias and Tadeusz was rather foolishly attempting to teach him a 13@ skill. Still, had there not been a botch in the first place, the rest of it would not have happened.
Yeah, thanks for mentioning that. It makes me feel a slight bit better about the knock out driver botch. If even Eric, as experienced as he is, can make a mistake that stupid, then a newbie verser crashing a jeep isn't at all bad.
Speaking of which, I'm really sorry about dragging that out so long. It was just driving me nuts!!!!!
Ya know, maybe a 3 and 30 can't have the same outcome, but a 15, 16, 17, 18 can all have the exact same outcome. (That's slightly good, neutral, and slightly bad, respectively, isn't it?) I was just thinking about something that happened to me. Depending on how you looked at it, the exact same event could be considered slightly good, slightly bad, and the most likely outcome.
It is sometimes difficult to be quite certain about numbers close to each other on the GE roll. That's in part because it is something of a narrativist conception, a very seat-of-the-pants approach to how good or how bad. That is, the measure of the GE roll is inherently subjective: it relies on the referee's subjective assessment of the player's subjective feelings about the subjective elements of the scenario to reach a subjective conclusion about what ought to happen next.
16 and 17 have the same description. In some cases I treat 16 as slightly better and 17 as slightly worse, and in other cases I treat them the same. In some cases the possibilities are a lot less obvious--if in rolling for how the night passes a 12 Good Enough means that nothing of note happens, what does a 7 Better Than Expected mean? Would 6 Best Hopes mean that breakfast wanders within reach of the night watchman, and 3 mean that the camp is visited by a spirit who gives information about the road ahead? That won't work in every scenario; sometimes Good Enough is as good as it can get, and anything better is pretty much the same, at least until you reach the very best outcomes.
So yes, adjacent numbers can have very similar or even indistinguishable outcomes.
--M. J. Young
Ya know, a 3 and 30 can have the same outcome. If I found out that plastic toy cookie was worth a half million dollars, and had someone willing to buy it.
If I accept, I'm set for life, but I'll regret it the rest of my life.
If I don't accept, I'll wonder about it for the rest of my life.
Either one is, at best, a 1 in 1,000 chance.
I would see it both ways, for the above stated reasons.
(Doing Therapy)
Accidental Double Posting of the same thing.
On reflection, that would not be a three or a thirty.
It would not be a three because it is not beyond your best hopes and dreams, precisely for the reason you give: you would not want to part with it for that.
It would not be a thirty, because it is not worse than your worst nightmares: even without selling it, you could use it for collateral for a loan. Ever read The Million Pound Note? People who have money get credit very easily. As long as you can parlay the credit into income-producing results to repay, you never lose the nest egg.
--M. J. Young
No, I think finding out that it was worth a half million dollars would be a 3. Finding that out, and then having it stolen would be a 30. I might regret parting with it, but I'm sure Mollie (The girl that gave it to me) would understand.
(Doing Therapy)
(Emphasis added)I think finding out that it was worth a half million dollars would be a 3. Finding that out, and then having it stolen would be a 30.
So then, you agree that the three and the thirty are completely different outcomes: one in which the object is suddenly discovered to be worth a fortune and you can decide whether to sell it, and one in which the object is stolen just as you discover that it was worth a fortune.
--M. J. Young
Mistake, sorry.
Thought I had one, realized I don't.
(Doing Therapy)
How about this one. When I was flipping the knife, I rolled a 3 on my botch. A quarter inch one way, Janie would have lost the use of her hand. A quarter inch the other way, it would have cut her femoral artery and she would have bled to death before the 911 operator answered.
Here's the thing. If the knife hit her just right in the femoral artery, it would have sealed the cut in her leg, and she wouldn't have bled to death.
The 30 is getting the knife stuck in her femoral artery, the 3 is it sealing the cut. Or is that the damage rider of a weapon attack? (This was the one posted and edited out one post up. I now can't decide which it is)
And no MJ, I am NOT trying to "break the game". I'm just having fun.
John, I think that "pierces but seals the femoral artery" simply is something between a 25 and a 29, not a 30. It leaves you in the very difficult position that you can very easily make the situation worse, and it could very easily get worse, if the knife is dislodged, but you've got a chance to save the situation if you handle it aright.
Your problem is that in order to distinguish your 30 from your 3 you always have to say "and" in connection with one or the other--which means you are creating two distinct scenarios. Just because it's a 30 doesn't mean you can't take mitigating action, nor even that you can't turn it in your favor. Just because it is like something that would be a 30 doesn't mean it is a 30 itself. In order to have something that is both a 3 and a 30, you would have to be able to say, "This is simultaneously better than the best and worse than the worst possible thing that could happen in this situation, for exactly the same reason, based solely on what happens and not on anything the character might do or be able to do in response to it." You can't have that. It's inherently contradictory.
--M. J. Young
Then MJ, I must go back to the original post I made on the subject. Meeting a demon in a alley and then meeting a beautiful woman and becoming rich and powerful, having a good life. Yes, the guy was married to a demon, but he didn't know that. Ignorance is bliss, and he was a happy camper. If he had never broken his promise, that would certainly have been a 3 roll. Breaking the promise is what made it a 30. Since breaking the promise would have been a willpower check, and completely unrelated to the original roll, I must insist that that could be either a 3 or a 30.
Two Posts
Just to expound a little on what happened in the movie. The guy is broke, down to his last $20. He's leaving a bar, and sees a demon in a alley which killed two of his friends. The demon catches him and says "Your life for a promise. Never tell anyone you saw me." So, the guy agrees. Then he (literally) runs into Rae Dawn Chong. (Tommy Chong's daughter, who would have thought he could produce that angel) The woman helps him get his life together. He turns things around, becomes wealthy, they have 2 children, the American dream.
Then, he breaks his promise. He tells his wife about the night in the alley. He just can't keep it inside him anymore. His wife screams "You broke your promise you idiot!!!" and transforms into the demon. She kills him and takes the two demon children with her.
Meeting a demon is certainly a 30. Meeting a beautiful woman who changes his life is a 3. Having it turn out that the beautiful woman IS the demon is a 30. Not knowing this and living a really good life keeps it a 3. Breaking the promise and discovering that his wife is the demon is what makes it a 30. If he had never broken his promise, the 3 would have stayed. Breaking the promise was a willpower check.
It's exactly what you said. Beyond best hopes, and beyond worst fears, for exactly the same reason.
John, this scenario of yours is just too convoluted to matter.
First, meeting a demon in an alley does not have to be a thirty or a three. If you're in the sort of universe where demons are common (e.g., Angel), you will meet them all the time on relatively ordinary rolls. Walking into the middle of a murder could be pretty bad, but again it depends on how common murders in alleys are in that world. If you are Buffy or Angel, stumbling upon a demon who has just killed two people could easily be a three--a wonderful opportunity to catch this guy you've been after, and proof positive that he's the villain.
The very fact that the demon does not attack the guy proves it is not a thirty. You met a demon in an alley who had just killed two people, and he did not add you to the pile? Count yourself pretty lucky--that's not worse than a 20, just bad enough, and in the right world that could be a 13, barely good enough.
So you married a gorgeous and competent woman who is really a demon in disguise, and fathered two children who are also disguised demons, but you don't know this. That doesn't sound like a 3 to me, even with her putting his life together for him. That sounds like a 21, Bad Enough--you're completely fooled. Or maybe it doesn't matter to you that you're completely fooled. Maybe it's a 12, good enough, because you don't know that what you have isn't what you think you have. But it would only be a 3 if it didn't have that dark center. Does it matter to you that she's a demon? If it does, then this is a bad thing; if it doesn't, then this is a good thing. But remember--the GE roll is not based on objective outcomes but on subjective perceptions. If the player actually knew all the facts, would this be what he wanted, or what he didn't want? Thus you have to ask, would it bother the player character that his beautiful wife was actually a demon in disguise? If it would, then this is a bad roll, even if he never discovers the truth; if it wouldn't, then this is a good roll, even if the truth bites him the morning after the honeymoon. It is not dependent on what the character (or the player) actually knows, but on what the facts actually are and whether that is something that the character would desire or dread.
So you can't make the distinction based on whether the character knows the truth, but only on whether the truth is desireable or undesireable.
--M. J. Young
Ya know MJ, you likely think this is completely pointless, but think about it. I've gotten quite a bit of information on the nature of GE rolls out of this. That HAS to count for something!!! I just think it's fun to think about, that's all.
(Doing Therapy)
Ya know MJ, a 3 and 30 can have the same ultimate outcome, even if the immediate outcome wasn't the same.
Junior year of high school, I got into some serious trouble and didn't even realize it. Probably the single worst trouble I've ever been in.
A 30 would have meant that I got arrested and expelled from school.
However, a 3 would have meant that nothing changed the course I was on. If nothing had changed the course I was on, I almost certainly would have gotten arrested and expelled from school.
So yes, a 3 and 30 can have the same ultimate outcome. A 30 is that I get arrested and expelled that week, a 3 is that I get arrested and expelled a week later.
I think I rolled somewhere between a 15 and an 18. Got my course changed without getting into too much trouble.
(Doing Therapy)
You might be right, John--but the immediate path would have been different.
If you see a dragon, a 30 might mean that it kills you before you can figure out what it is. A 3 might mean that it's asleep and you get to creep up on it--but it does not mean that there is not another dragon coming from the next room that will kill you.
The best thing that could happen and the worst thing that could happen are never the same thing.
--M. J. Young
I disagree that a 3 would have been no change and getting expelled and arrested the next week. That sounds like about a 25 to me. 3 is getting your course changed in a dramatic (even if subtle at the time) fashion that results in some flavor of amazingly happy and successful life you couldn't otherwise imagine.
For that matter, rolling a 3 could result in you getting expelled and arrested if it put you in the right place at the right time for something wonderful to happen.
I would say that a single event could be a 3 *OR* a 30, it just can't be both. Which one depends on what other things are set in motion. A 3 could *look* like a 30 at first, and vice versa.
Llarry wrote:
I disagree that a 3 would have been no change and getting expelled and arrested the next week.
Well, a 3 meaning that it is my 1 in 1,000 best hope, that would have been that nothing changed my course. I don't want to go into any more detail about what happened, but my 1 in 1,000 hope would have been that nothing changed my course.
MJ wrote:
The best thing that could happen and the worst thing that could happen are never the same thing.
I disagree, I just haven't figured out the scenario where it would happen YET. (Stress YET)
The best thing that could happen and the worst thing that could happen are never the same thing.
Logically, this is only true if only one thing could happen.
_
(Edit: forgot the quote tags! "This" refers to x and y being the same thing; it does not refer to the quote, said quote only being true if more than one thing can happen.)
Logically, this is only true if only one thing could happen.
Mind going into more detail? I don't quite follow you.
If a thing is the best thing, there is no thing better than it.
If a thing is the worst thing, there is no thing worse than it.
Thus,
If a thing is the best thing and the worst thing, there is no thing better than it and there is no thing worse than it.
Unless all things are exactly equivalent, there can only be one thing if it is both best and worst; being best and worst prohibits the existence of non-equivalent things.
__
Edit: possibly my post was confusing because I quoted MJ without marking the quote as a quote. Sorry about that.