Downtime Results.

Hey folks, I have a topic to bring up for discussion.

I *hate* getting the breakdown of downtime results from Jill in terms of numbers. All *I* want from her is a fail/succeed verdict with a bit of flavour text. There are two reasons I want this.

1.) If I do an opposed action against someone and I fail and have the numbers then it reveals too much about the matter. If I know that the action failed because I rolled a 4 on my opposed roll, that tells me something about the opponent's stats as s/he obviously had an advantage. As well, it will change my perspective. If you tell me that I failed my rolls and found nothing, then the implication is that there was something to find. If I do an investigate action for a month and find nothing, i.e., am told I find nothing rather than that I failed, then I might try again IC. Find nothing for two months and I'm likely to believe IC that I did my best for two months and there is nothing to find. Tell me OOC that I failed my roll and OOC I think I just need to try harder or get luckier. It creates a false sense for the character based on OOC understanding/implication.

2.) We need to trust Jill to run downtime fairly. If we can't do so then we shouldn't bother to submit any downtime at all. If she says I fail then I don't need to know any more than that. I understand that sometimes there are things happening that the characters don't know and shouldn't know until they run across them. I'm not saying we can't talk to Jill about it but I am saying that an answer of "the dice didn't like you" should be enough unless she wants to reveal more.

I'm sure that some people like the results as they are. I'd like to hear from you and the people who more or less agree with my side of things. I'd like to see this change but I don't want to railroad Jill into anything; obviously, I'm not the only opinionated player. :)

Getting numbers in my results is a rare thing, but I don't know whether it's because Jill forgets, or because you're only supposed to get them in certain situations? I don't usually mind though. Sometimes I'm curious, but never yet enough to ask. If the numbers went away entirely, I wouldn't miss 'em much... but that said, I think that poor enough rolls (regardless of whether there was actually something to be found) should probably usually be reflected in the flavour text if the numbers do go away. ie, you often know if you did badly at something. Not always, but often. Possibly good enough rolls, too. If you're looking for someone and you find them the first day, you know you don't need to try as hard next time - maybe.

I'm the same. I don't like getting numbers back. If I'm trying to track something down I by researching I really shouldn't know exactly how much time or energy I have left to do in order to accomplish it.

For the most part, I'm indifferent about 'how the dice rolls go'...however, for research, I like to know how many marks I've acquire in a given month as this is important to track in my power-gaming struggle to efficiently attribute my points and resources for future endeavours.

I like the way Jill does them now. If you feel that your knowledge of OOC mechanics is not IC enough then come up with a way that you might have figured out what can be assumed from the numbers.

My question is to new players: Does the way I have been returning your downtime Endeavours help you understand the downtime system better?

For the players who're more used to how to do downtime actions, perhaps a more literary, story-based narrative is preferred, but for the newer players, does having the numbers help?

speaking as a "new player", having a slight background on the mechanics is appreciated because i have NO IDEA how the game works. personally, i like it the way you do it just fine. you include a small narrative as well as a small description of the mechanics and why it turned out the way it did. imho, people should be able to ignore the "dice rolling" if they want to. i can see the point being made but i think its irrelevant for me at least.

Adam Nemo wrote:I like the way Jill does them now. If you feel that your knowledge of OOC mechanics is not IC enough then come up with a way that you might have figured out what can be assumed from the numbers.

I think that is a horrible idea. I'm not interested in making a habit of finding ways to justify using what I have no understanding of IC, but learned OOC, as IC knowledge.

Honestly, neither way makes it easy to understand the system better so for me either is fine. But, as my husband has not been on line for a while I will say that he likes the numbers way better. It helps him to understand the system and to figure out statistical stuff, which is one of the reasons he likes playing. Sigh, I married a guy who does Math for fun. I must be crazy

Actually, Adrienne, I think that doing Maths for fun makes *him* crazy. You're just along for the ride...

Mark will disagree, of course. Mark is also crazy.

Here is why I do not like getting numbers. Lets say I'm following Bal because I think he is eating babies. Jill does her rolls and lets me know that I did amazing with 100 successes but I still did not see Bal eat any babies. I have so many successes that I know for sure that Bal did not eat any babies. All doubt has not been removed where as if Jill just lets me know that I did well and except for one or two minutes I didn't see Bal eat any babies. I (the player) still have some doubt as to whether Bal rolled well and I rolled okay and was able to cover up his baby eating.

The numbers put to much definition to things. We don't have that in real life so why should we have it in a game.

Obviously, it is a trade-off either way - downtime is both IC actions(which you shouldn't know the details of) and OOC system(where you do want to know the mechanical functioning of, so you can understand better).

I think, in general, I'd prefer to know the numbers. Makes it seem less handwavey to me. I do think there are situations where some numbers might be obscured, but those might best be handled on and individual roll basis. Just like a tabletop game you wouldn't insist on making all a player's rolls in secret behind the GM's screen, but you might occassionally make a Notice roll secretly out of sight of the players and not tell them whether they succeeded or not.

I think a lot of it can be handled by tell you what you rolled, but for contested type actions not telling you what your target is. I'd like to know what I need to finish my action for a Predomination or for an Acquire. But if you are following someone, I think it is fine to say 'You got 100 successes' - you can be pretty sure you succeeded, but you don't know for sure - maybe the person you were following got 101 successes. Also, maybe just tell people sometimes the reported successes can be a lie, if, for instance, you are being opposed by someone attempting to decieve you. The result of a successful Hiding action might cause your Investigate action to show 100 successes when you actually only got two, thus introducing some uncertainty - you'll always have reported how well you think you did in mechanical terms, but you might sometimes be mistaken.

<HANDWAVING> Nothing to see here. Move along. Except you. You are suddenly shot in the face by the evil antihero's squidgun.</HANDWAVING>

I don't see a problem with handwaving.

The main reason I like the numbers is that it lets me know if I'm interpreting the rules wrong. There have been countless times I've gotten my results back and thought, "really?!? That's how the system works". I would then re-read the rulebook and still have no idea how/why the rules were working the way they were but at least the numbers in my results helped me make decisions accordingly.

*ponders gibbering about math, decides to eat some fruit instead*