From 4ae4e1319647e08bdb59b75f0d606b2c7d2aa6dd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: slaguru666 <111923774+slaguru666@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2026 15:25:03 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Desk playtest 7: an honest session, and the three bands nobody wrote MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Full session, six players, seed 7742, nothing forced. Pass 6 forced its triggers on purpose; this one takes what the dice give, because a forced pass proves a branch works and cannot say how often a GM meets one. It reached neither thing pass 6 asked for — no fight, and Ashcroft refused THE OFFER again. What it found is what both of those are instances of. 1. The document covers two bands out of five. Seventeen failure cases are written across the acts, which is the house rule honoured properly. Four beats state a fumble. Three state a special or a critical. Enumerated through gradeRoll against the cast's best rating for each of the 22 rollable beats: 42.1% of sessions contain a fumble and 36.0% contain one with no written case; 93.9% contain a special or better and 90.8% contain one on a beat that says nothing. Specials are not rare — 13% at 63, 11% at 53 — and the scenario asks for 22 rolls. This seed landed on four uncovered bands in thirteen rolls, three of them GOOD rolls: a critical Persuade on Swinburne that buys less than the fumble does, and a special Xenology with nothing above the success. 2. v0.16 wrote the trigger into EXPOSURE and never wrote EXPOSURE into the trigger. The Act Three swap beat is named in the new mixed-fight block as the moment that starts the fight, and it carries no pointer back; its last word before the decision is "survivable". Act Two has done this correctly for versions. Five locations across 1,100 lines to adjudicate one beat. 3. Three of the four fumble branches do not print their band, and the one that does is the one written in v0.16 — the fix landed where it was being thought about, not where the same need already existed. The Close's is worse: "on a fumble asking the question" names no skill at all. The v0.16 fumble clause earned itself immediately: 99 against Medicine 53 is a fumble, and v0.15's wording read it as a plain failure. Timing: ~3:35 against 3:40 at six players with no cuts taken. First honest pass to land inside the clock unaided. Two fumbles in thirteen rolls is a 4.4% event and is recorded as an illustration, not a rate. Five fixes listed, unapplied. npm run check: 18 guards pass. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 --- docs/scenarios/CLEAN_GROUND_PLAYTEST_7.md | 257 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 257 insertions(+) create mode 100644 docs/scenarios/CLEAN_GROUND_PLAYTEST_7.md diff --git a/docs/scenarios/CLEAN_GROUND_PLAYTEST_7.md b/docs/scenarios/CLEAN_GROUND_PLAYTEST_7.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..1958c11 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/scenarios/CLEAN_GROUND_PLAYTEST_7.md @@ -0,0 +1,257 @@ +# CLEAN GROUND — desk playtest 7 (an honest session against v0.16) + +**Scenario version:** v0.16, at commit aa3ae24 +**Date:** 13 September 2026 +**Method:** **full session, GM chair, six players — the declared cast.** Seeded roller, +**seed 7742**, banding from `rules.mjs`. **Nothing was forced.** Pass 6 forced its triggers +on purpose and said so; this one takes what the dice give, which is the only way to find out +what an ordinary evening looks like against the current text. Earlier passes: 4271, 9314, +5580/7731, 6142, 8815, 3319. + +Ratings read through `expandFromRegister`, not recalled. + +**Why this pass.** v0.16 applied seven fixes off a *forced* pass. Forced passes prove that a +branch works; they cannot tell you how often a GM meets one. And the list pass 6 closed with +named two things an honest session might reach — a fight the players choose, and Act Four +with Ashcroft having accepted. It reached neither. **What it found instead is the thing both +of those are instances of.** + +**Verdict: the document is excellent at the two outcomes a table sees most and nearly silent +at the three it sees the rest of the time. Seventeen failure cases are written across the +acts — the house rule, honoured. Four beats state a fumble. Three state a special or a +critical. Nine sessions in ten will contain a special or better on a beat the document says +nothing about.** + +--- + +## The rolls, in order + +``` +seed 7742 — no forcing + +ACT ONE + Bhattacharya Research — Corrigan's paperwork 36 vs 63 success + Braithwaite Medicine — the body 99 vs 53 FUMBLE + Renshaw Persuade — Swinburne 1 vs 63 CRITICAL + Pollard Spot — the stump 100 vs 53 FUMBLE + Ashcroft Listen — the valley, crossing 81 vs 63 failure + +ACT TWO + Renshaw Persuade — the column 19 vs 63 success + Pollard Spot — the same six at the back 26 vs 53 success + Ashcroft Insight — it is offered, not remembered 42 vs 63 success + → ASHCROFT REFUSES THE OFFER + +ACT THREE + Bhattacharya Anomaly Lore — the sky has not moved 39 vs 63 success + Bhattacharya Research — RESERVE ENTRY (NORTHERN) 84 vs 63 failure + Ashcroft Anomaly Lore — what a peg is 21 vs 63 success + Pollard Listen — the lorry 45 vs 53 success + hollow man swap 75 rolled 98 failure vs Okonkwo 55 rolled 52 success + → OKONKWO HOLDS. Second pass running the swap has failed. + +ACT FOUR + Braithwaite Xenology (Baseline) — the understudy 6 vs 53 SPECIAL + Renshaw Insight — it is word-perfect 56 vs 63 success + Renshaw Psychology — it thinks it is the file 62 vs 40 failure + Bhattacharya Borrowed Authority — pull the record 92 vs 63 failure +``` + +**A generous seed — and it still landed on four bands the document does not cover.** A +fumbled Medicine, a fumbled Spot, a critical Persuade and a special Xenology, in thirteen +rolls. Three of those four are *good* rolls. This is not a pass about things going wrong. + +⚠ **Two fumbles in thirteen rolls is a 4.4% event and is not evidence of a rate.** It is an +illustration and nothing more; the rates below are enumerated from the rule, not counted from +this seed. The project has been caught reading a single stream as a distribution more than +once and this pass is not adding to the tally. + +--- + +## ⚠ FINDING 1 — the document covers two bands out of five + +This is the pass's result, and it arrived by accident: the seed simply kept landing outside +success and failure. + +| Band | Beats that state an outcome | Of 22 rollable beats | +|---|---|---| +| Failure | **17 written** | the house rule, honoured properly | +| Fumble | **4** | Swinburne, the peg, the Xenology (new in v0.16), one in the Close | +| Special or critical | **3** | the column's Persuade, the child's Insight, Borrowed Authority | + +Enumerated through `gradeRoll` across all 100 results at each rating, against the cast's best +rating for each of the twenty-two beats the acts name: + +| | Per session | +|---|---| +| At least one **fumble** | **42.1%** | +| At least one fumble **on a beat with no written case** | **36.0%** | +| At least one **special or better** | **93.9%** | +| At least one special or better **on a beat with no written case** | **90.8%** | + +**Nine sessions in ten contain a good roll the document has no answer for.** Specials are +not rare — 13% at a rating of 63, 11% at 53 — and the scenario asks for twenty-two rolls. +The three places that *do* write one are the three best beats in the case: *give something +portable, never more conversation*; *she has been told to smile, and she is doing it +carefully*; *the file has been read recently, from inside the cordon*. The document already +knows how much a special is worth. It writes one about one time in seven. + +- **This pass's own two.** Renshaw rolled **1** on Swinburne — a critical on the scene the + document has taken the most care over, and there is nothing there. A GM improvises "she is + very helpful", which is the flat outcome desk pass 4 complained about *for the fumble* and + which v0.11 fixed by writing the dog. The critical deserves the same treatment and has not + had it. Braithwaite rolled **6** on Xenology, a special, and the text gives a success — a + quiet word in the GM's ear — with nothing above it. +- **Fumble bands, by contrast, are now stated** in GM ESSENTIALS as of v0.16, and this pass + is what that clause was for: **99 against Medicine 53 is a fumble.** Under the wording v0.15 + carried it reads as a plain failure and Braithwaite simply learns nothing from the body. + The clause earned itself in the very next pass. +- **Fix direction, and it is small.** Twenty-two beats do not need twenty-two specials. The + house rule for failure is *every clue states its failure case*; the parallel rule should be + **every beat that can be rolled more than once, or that a player will care about winning, + states what a special buys** — and the existing three show the shape: something portable, + something private, or something early. + +--- + +## ⚠ FINDING 2 — v0.16 wrote the trigger into EXPOSURE and never wrote EXPOSURE into the trigger + +Self-inflicted, one version old, and found by trying to run the thing. + +The mixed-fight block added in v0.16 is explicitly about one moment: *a hollow man tries the +swap in Act Three, fails in front of everybody, and the party fires into the column it is +standing in*. **That beat, at line 768, contains no pointer to it.** It reads: + +> **A hollow man tries the swap** — opposed POW×5 (GM ESSENTIALS has the ruling), 2 +> Coherence. Survivable, and it is the table's first sight of the mechanism… + +"Survivable" is the last word a GM reads before the most expensive decision in the case. + +- **Act Two does it correctly** and has since before this pass: *"If violence against the + column is even possible at your table, read EXPOSURE in Act Four first."* Act Three, where + the trigger now demonstrably is, says nothing. +- **Distance matters here.** The swap is at line 768; the mixed table is at line 910; the + cost-in-minutes lesson at 1008; the Pacing Note instruction at 182; the opposed-roll ruling + at 86. **Five locations across 1,100 lines to adjudicate one beat**, in a document whose own + prime directive is that a GM reads it in thirty-second glances. +- EXPOSURE's heading still says *"Read before Act Two, not before Act Four"* — the document + knows it is filed in the wrong act and asks the reader to compensate. That is a reasonable + trade for a long reference block. It is not a reason for the beats to be silent. +- **Fix direction:** one line under the swap beat, in the shape Act Two already uses. + +--- + +## ⚠ FINDING 3 — three of the four fumble branches do not print their band + +v0.16 put the bands in GM ESSENTIALS, which was right, and then left the branches reading +"On a fumble" with no number. A GM at line 398 with a 99 on the table has to know to go back +to line 80. + +| Fumble branch | Prints its band? | +|---|---| +| Persuade — Swinburne (63) | no — should read **99–00** | +| Anomaly Lore — the peg (63) | no — the Act Three warning has it, the branch does not | +| Xenology — the understudy (53) | **yes, 98–00 at his 53** | +| The Close (line 1173) | no — and it names **no skill at all**, so there is no band to look up | + +The one that prints it is the one written in v0.16, which is the tell: the fix was applied +where it was being thought about and not where the same need already existed. **Four words +per branch.** + +--- + +## Act-by-act + +**Act One — ran ~50 against 45, and the overrun is the finding.** Research landed early and +Corrigan's unfiled casual labour came out, the best opening this scenario has. Then both +fumbles arrived in the same act with nothing written for either, and **improvising two +fumble outcomes cold cost about ten minutes** — not because improvising is slow, but because +a GM who has just read a beautifully specific fumble branch for Swinburne assumes the others +exist and spends time looking for them. + +- **The critical on Swinburne was the one that hurt.** Renshaw rolled a 1 on the scene the + document cares most about, and the best available reading is "she produces the note + willingly", which is what she does on a plain success. **A critical that buys nothing is + worse than a fumble that buys a dog**, and the table noticed. +- Pollard's fumbled Spot at the stump: played as him confidently identifying the felling as + recent storm damage, which put the party off the oak for ten minutes. Serviceable, and + entirely invented. + +**Act Two — ran ~40 against 45.** Clean. Persuade and Spot both landed, the six at the back +were noticed early and flatly, and **Ashcroft refused THE OFFER** — the third honest pass in +four to go that way, which is what a 63% Insight predicts. Worth stating plainly: **the +Act Four figures the document prints most prominently are for the 37% branch.** + +**Act Three — ran ~45 against 50.** The depot Research failed and Ivy's ration tin carried +it exactly as the *Missed* line promises; that fallback is the best-written thing in the act. +The peg question was answered correctly — *it cannot be done, and why* — and it landed as +information rather than refusal, as the text intends. **The swap failed for the second pass +running**, so the mechanism has still never actually taken an NPC in front of the party. + +**Act Four — ran ~45.** On budget. Xenology special, so the tell came early and privately; +Psychology missed and surfaced in beat 3 unprompted; Borrowed Authority failed, so the +timestamp clue never appeared. With Ashcroft having refused, step 5 reached for Okonkwo at +POW×5 55 — **and the pairing pass 6 asked for (accepted *and* taken) remains unreached +after seven passes.** It needs a 37% and then a 48.7%; at roughly 18% a session, it will keep +not happening. + +**Close — ran ~25.** On budget. + +--- + +## Timing + +| Act | Budget | Ran | Δ | +|---|---|---|---| +| One | 45 | ~50 | **+5** — two unwritten fumbles | +| Two | 45 | ~40 | −5 | +| Three | 50 | ~45 | −5 | +| Four | 45 | ~45 | — | +| Close | 25 | ~25 | — | +| **Play** | **210** | **~205** | **−5** | +| **Wall clock** | **3:40** | **~3:35** | **−5** | + +**Inside budget on a generous seed, at six players, with every cut available and none taken.** +That is the first honest pass to land inside the clock without help, and it is the strongest +thing this pass has to say about v0.13's recut. + +--- + +## Player-hat verdicts + +| Archetype | Verdict | Score | +|---|---|---| +| Methodical veteran | The ration tin catching the failed depot roll is the best save in the case | 9/10 | +| Roleplay-first talker | Rolled a 1 on the most important conversation in Act One and got an ordinary outcome | 5/10 | +| Quiet tactician | Noticed the six at the back early and cleanly. Nobody shot anybody. Good evening | 8/10 | +| Lore-digger | The peg answer is the moment the case clicks, and it arrived as information | 9/10 | + +--- + +## Fix list + +1. **⚠ Write what a special buys, on the beats where it matters.** Three of twenty-two + currently do, and **90.8% of sessions contain a special or critical on a beat that does + not**. Start with the two this pass hit: a **critical Persuade on Swinburne** (she does not + just hand over the note — she comes with them to the stump, which she otherwise only does + on a fumble, and this time she talks), and a **special Xenology** (the tell, early and + private, *plus* what the hands are imitating — that it has watched somebody specific). +2. **⚠ Point the Act Three swap beat at EXPOSURE.** One line, in the shape Act Two already + uses. v0.16 named that beat as the trigger for the fight it measured and then left the beat + silent, with "survivable" as the last word before the decision. +3. **⚠ Print the fumble band at each fumble branch.** Three of four do not. `99–00` at + Swinburne and at the peg. **The Close's is worse than missing a band — it names no skill**: + *"on a fumble asking the question"* has no `[CUS: …]` tag on it, so there is nothing to + roll and nothing to grade. Either tag it or make it a GM call in terms. +4. **Write the fumbled Medicine and the fumbled Spot**, or say in one line that unwritten + fumbles are the GM's to invent and stop implying otherwise. **36% of sessions hit one.** + The document's four written fumbles are so good that their absence elsewhere reads as an + oversight rather than a licence. +5. **Say that Act Four's headline figures are for the 37% branch.** Ashcroft refuses about + five times in eight, and this pass and pass 6 both did. The 48.7% / 14.5% pair is printed + far more prominently than the 21.9% / 3.8% one that most tables will actually be in. + +**Still untested after seven passes:** a fight the players choose; Act Four with Ashcroft +having accepted *and* being taken (~18% a session — it may take several more passes and that +is not a defect); a hollow man that succeeds at the swap in Act Three, which has now failed +twice running; and the human run.