PDA

View Full Version : I grow weary of these generic RPG conventions.



mrpitchfork
2010-05-21, 08:21 PM
I was going to rant, but it was going nowhere and it was utterly pointless.

So here is the point:

Random elements are annoying and eliminate any complex strategy, and battle-based games get in the way of storytelling. It feels like there is an unecessary disconnect between battles and the story because of these random elements. They are literally unpredictable, so there are few good ways to deal with them if you want to tell a good story.

And I want to play a game with a good story. I want complex character interactions, interesting social dynamics, and I only want the battles to be directly relevant to the plot.

Now, how do we do this? This requires a group of decent, cooperative writers or a few good writers and some bad ones that the good writers can use or manipulate. This also requires a good set of freeform guidelines (besides normal roleplaying ethic), like how the magic works and how the host wants to handle battles and character interaction with NPC's.

Does anyone have good examples of this? Am I a raving lunatic or a pretentious butthead? Discuss!

Piedmon_Sama
2010-05-21, 08:26 PM
Well, I did freeform roleplaying online from 2000 to 2005-ish, before I started regularly playing D&D with the same guys I used to do message board games with. So our group is all about "writing first." If you want to try playing online, I might suggest you visit some freeform boards and look around for good writers/storytellers who are interested in a deep story like you are. I'm sure there's still big communities for it out there somewhere.

Optimystik
2010-05-21, 08:28 PM
I'm not sure I understand your contention. Games have to have random elements in order to be games... otherwise they just become a series of scripted events with no chance of failure or success on the part of the players.

I also feel that the most complex strategies are those that account for random chance.

Doc Roc
2010-05-21, 08:35 PM
Try:
Dread
Jenga instead of dice.

OR

Amber Diceless
Does what it says

Also consider:

Mouseguard
Wonderful combat system, doesn't feel random in a bad way.

mrpitchfork
2010-05-21, 08:37 PM
What I mean is, I want conflicts to be between players, and between players and NPC's. I would prefer conflicts not be between players and a simulationist system.

Games don't have to be random in order to be games. Unless Chess stopped being a game?

There's also LARPing among children (which most call make-believe, but really it's LARPing :P ), which has no true random elements, but it's still a game.

gbprime
2010-05-21, 08:37 PM
I'm a big fan of character builds. Partly I do this to protect a game from powergaming munchkinry, but I also consider it an art to make the build be a road map of the character's history. The way the game system is set up with prerequisites for feats and classes, you HAVE to plan ahead. So make that plan tell a story, and make that story more important than raw power. You get the best of both worlds and keep both kinds of players happy.

That said, story is everything. Give every player a part, large for the roleplayers, small for the casual combat monsters. Make sure they can affect the course of that story with their actions instead of being swept along regardless. And get them emotionally involved. You you get them to care, they will react to triumph and tragedy as if they were there, and you'll unnerve them just as well as if they were watching a movie.

As Roger Zelazny said, the secret to good stories is making interesting characters... and then making them suffer. :smallamused:

mrpitchfork
2010-05-21, 08:41 PM
I should also mention Physical Power and Narrative Power, and the difference between them.

Like how Superman is invincible but he's a horrible superhero, but Batman has no true superpowers but he's just too cool and has more narrative power than Superman. Or the difference between Pippin and the Watcher.

Milskidasith
2010-05-21, 08:42 PM
What I mean is, I want conflicts to be between players, and between players and NPC's. I would prefer conflicts not be between players and a simulationist system.

Games don't have to be random in order to be games. Unless Chess stopped being a game?

There's also LARPing among children (which most call make-believe, but really it's LARPing :P ), which has no true random elements, but it's still a game.

Conflicts are between npcs and players even with the system. Predictability and a set story are not the key to a good story, nor is a good, convention following story a good rpg experience.

Doc Roc
2010-05-21, 08:44 PM
I should also mention Physical Power and Narrative Power, and the difference between them.

Like how Superman is invincible but he's a horrible superhero, but Batman has no true superpowers but he's just too cool and has more narrative power than Superman. Or the difference between Pippin and the Watcher.

You might really enjoy Mouseguard, then. It has the free bonus of being one of the most beautiful RPG books ever printed.

gbprime
2010-05-21, 08:45 PM
Heh. Superman is fine if everyone has that kind of power. But in a game where one person plays superman, one plays Lois Lane, and one plays Jimmy Olsen... that wrecks any game.

Narrative power has nothing to do with how many dice you're rolling. Nor should it. Stories are about emotion. Defeating your foes is emotional, but it is FAR from the only source of drama. Angst and failure are equally powerful and should be mixed in to any story. They make the final triumph that much more rewarding.

mrpitchfork
2010-05-21, 08:49 PM
I never meant to say anything about a set, predictable story. I only attacked unpredictability in the context of battles. Unpredictability (obviously only to an extent) is part of storytelling. But it can ruin a ton of drama if Harry MacHero, the guy with the most Narrative Power, dies, not because it helps further the point of the story, but because of randomly-driven battle systems and a low hitpoint count on Harry MacHero's part.

Thank you for the suggestions, Doc. They may make for good reading.

Private-Prinny
2010-05-21, 08:50 PM
I like the battle system as it is. In real life, unexpected things can and do happen. Rolls just happen to simulate that. A lucky hit here, an off-balance swing there, stuff happens.

Also, it is only unpredictable to a certain degree. As long as your idea of a complex strategy isn't "I'll move around and hit him, dealing 23 damage, which is enough for him to be killed by your 42 damage fireball after I do the hokey-pokey to move 5 ft. away" you should be fine. Part of building a good character is minimizing the risk factor.

Raum
2010-05-21, 08:50 PM
And I want to play a game with a good story. I want complex character interactions, interesting social dynamics, and I only want the battles to be directly relevant to the plot.

Now, how do we do this? This requires a group of decent, cooperative writers or a few good writers and some bad ones that the good writers can use or manipulate. This also requires a good set of freeform guidelines (besides normal roleplaying ethic), like how the magic works and how the host wants to handle battles and character interaction with NPC's.

Does anyone have good examples of this? Am I a raving lunatic or a pretentious butthead? Discuss!Wushu. Or, for more structure, Dogs in the Vineyard, FATE, or Risus.

Don't really see the impetus for a rant here. There are hundreds of games out there...find the ones which support the style you and your friends want to play! :)

gbprime
2010-05-21, 08:54 PM
Death is never the end in a fantasy system. Plenty of opportunities exist to continue making life difficult for the PC after he stops breathing.

One of the principle characters in the last game I ran died to a massive critical in the desert. They hauled his body out and tried to raise him... only to find out that his spirit could not return. He was still in that desert, and he had watched them walk away with his body. He tried to follow, but could not cross the White River out of the desert. Then the Caliph's men found him, and took him as a slave. They were dead too, you see. The sands of Kzithrikan do not give up their dead.

At least not without a heck of an adventure when the PC's came back for him. :smallcool:

SilveryCord
2010-05-21, 08:56 PM
Third mouse guard. People who think outside the box are rewarded directly and in quantified ways; it isn't overly reliant on DM involvement to inspire roleplaying, it just naturally includes it.

Optimystik
2010-05-21, 08:57 PM
Games don't have to be random in order to be games. Unless Chess stopped being a game?

Perhaps we're operating off different definitions of "random." By random, I mean there are elements of the game that are outside of each player's control.

In Chess, you can perfectly control your own moves, as well as how you react to those of your opponent - but you cannot control the moves he makes.

If you know in advance everything he will do, then yes, it ceases to be a game and merely becomes a script.

mrpitchfork
2010-05-21, 08:58 PM
I'm not even scratching the surface of worldbuilding. My qualms are with simulationism, which I feel is distracting and unnecessary. If I want to tell a story, say, protesting an aspect of society, I don't want to be hindered by a string of bad rolls in a simulationist system.

Silverycord, is that similar to Perversity Points in the sci-fi psychological thriller RPG Paranoia?


Perhaps we're operating off different definitions of "random." By random, I mean there are elements of the game that are outside of each player's control.

In Chess, you can perfectly control your own moves, as well as how you react to those of your opponent - but you cannot control the moves he makes.

If you know in advance everything he will do, then yes, it ceases to be a game and merely becomes a script.

I knew there must have been a misunderstanding. By "random" I meant more than elements outside the player's influence, I meant elements that were utterly unpredictable even through thought and knowledge, like the roll of a dice.

I'm totally fine with elements as you describe. However in this case, if you know in advance everything your opponent will do it is still a game. You are simply the puppeteer.

Optimystik
2010-05-21, 09:06 PM
I knew there must have been a misunderstanding. By "random" I meant more than elements outside the player's influence, I meant elements that were utterly unpredictable even through thought and knowledge, like the roll of a dice.

I understand you now, but still think you're mistaken. While there are games where dice rolls are "utterly unpredictable even through thought and knowledge," D&D is not one of them.

D&D has a rather large number of mechanics that exert considerable control over dice rolls. Modifiers, auto-success, auto-fail, Take 10, Take 20, changing the size or number of die for a given act (such as dealing damage), empower, maximize etc. While the dice roll itself may be random, the result of that roll - what we the players care about as an end goal - very often is not, or can be restricted to a very manageable range.

For a complaint about randomness in D&D to be valid, it requires not actually utilizing the d20 system to its potential.

Swordgleam
2010-05-21, 09:07 PM
I second the "just go freeform roleplay" motion. I started out with freeform, and so very many of the complaints I see about gaming systems are from people who want to freeform RP but don't realize that's what they want. Try it. It solves every problem you have. Then you can let the games be games and be happy about it.

gbprime
2010-05-21, 09:08 PM
The randomness imposes a sense that failure is possible. Without that, the PC's generally know they're going to win, and suspending disbelief is harder. They must risk failure to feel good about success.

valadil
2010-05-21, 09:10 PM
Randomness is a broad category to attack. I don't think it detracts from fight mechanics. I do think it's a terrible thing to use when picking a fight. Why use a random encounter when you can have a plotful encounter?

You can run a complex story in D&D. But it's harder than it needs to be. Not because other systems are more conducive to story but because D&D players are accustomed to a certain kind of game. It's usually easier to teach them a new system than to break their old habits and expectations.

Try playing a in a theatre style LARP (which is NOT the same as a boffer LARP - ie foam swords and bean bag lightning bolts). If you're on the east coast, the intercon events are usually pretty awesome. Many colleges and universities have LARP events too. They're usually free and almost entirely about PC on PC interaction and conflict.

mrpitchfork
2010-05-21, 09:22 PM
Will just going freeform solve all my problems? Last time I was big on roleplaying it was all freeform, and in retrospect it was all battle-based despite it being freeform. Perhaps then my issue is not with roleplaying conventions but with bad writers?

gbprime, what I'm getting at is that conflict need not be based on battles or driven by dice.

valadil, I think you're right alot in your post. I still make the colon-forwardslash face at the idea of random battles (though I make the colon-closeparintheses face at the idea of nonrandom encounters), preferring story-driven ones. Story driven like the outcome of the battle is foreshadowing, or the physical outcome of parts of the battle reflect more subtle elements of character interaction.

Going back to my first post where I ask if I am a lunatic or if I am pretentious, I think I'd go with "pretentious".

A good resolution, then? Read This Book and That Book to get a better idea of player/plot dynamic, and find places where the writers are good?

Agrippa
2010-05-21, 09:36 PM
So your basically saying that the designated hero should triumph due to his or her status as a hero, as opposed to becoming a hero due to their success. I prefer the latter. The great legendary heroes we think of are the ones who don't get killed off early in their careers. Don't think of an RPG campaign as a story with a predetermined end with all actions focused towards the same plot. Think of it instead as a series of seemingly unconnected events that may lead to a full fledged story, provided the hero to be survives long enough.

Lost Wanderer
2010-05-21, 09:39 PM
Will just going freeform solve all my problems? Last time I was big on roleplaying it was all freeform, and in retrospect it was all battle-based despite it being freeform. Perhaps then my issue is not with roleplaying conventions but with bad writers?

There is an excellent chance this is true, especially if it was on the Internet you did this FFRP.


I still make the colon-forwardslash face at the idea of random battles (though I make the colon-closeparintheses face at the idea of nonrandom encounters),

Your initial post wasn't especially pretentious, but this phrasing sure is.


preferring story-driven ones. Story driven like the outcome of the battle is foreshadowing, or the physical outcome of parts of the battle reflect more subtle elements of character interaction.

A good resolution, then? Read This Book and That Book to get a better idea of player/plot dynamic, and find places where the writers are good?

You keep using the word "writers", as opposed to "players", so let me ask you this: in an RPG, is immersion (that is, the players really being in the shoes of the characters they portray; only able to act, as players, on character knowledge, generally not knowing things about the story their characters wouldn't, only able to influence the world in ways their characters could, etc.) a good thing, or a bad thing?


So your basically saying that the designated hero should triumph due to his or her status as a hero, as opposed to becoming a hero due to their success. I prefer the latter. The great legendary heroes we think of are the ones who don't get killed off early in their careers. Don't think of an RPG campaign as a story with a predetermined end with all actions focused towards the same plot. Think of it instead as a series of seemingly unconnected events that may lead to a full fledged story, provided the hero to be survives long enough.

I'd say he's perfectly entitled to think about an RPG story like that; rather, D&D isn't the kind of system to use to engage in what is sometimes called "collaborative storytelling", which is what it sounds like he wants.

mrpitchfork
2010-05-21, 09:43 PM
So your basically saying that the designated hero should triumph due to his or her status as a hero, as opposed to becoming a hero due to their success. I prefer the latter. The great legendary heroes we think of are the ones who don't get killed off early in their careers. Don't think of an RPG campaign as a story with a predetermined end with all actions focused towards the same plot. Think of it instead as a series of seemingly unconnected events that may lead to a full fledged story, provided the hero to be survives long enough.

No, I'm not. I'm kinda saying the opposite. I'm fighting FOR artistic games, not against them.

What I'm saying, as I touched upon in a previous post, is that stories shouldn't just be, they should have a point (like protesting against a convention in society that the writer dislikes). The players exist to tell the story. Therefore, the players should help bring the story to a good conclusion.

This does not imply a scripted game. That is a total inference on your part based on putting words in my mouth :/


You keep using the word "writers", as opposed to "players", so let me ask you this: in an RPG, is immersion (that is, the players really being in the shoes of the characters they portray; only able to act, as players, on character knowledge, generally not knowing things about the story their characters wouldn't, only able to influence the world in ways their characters could, etc.) a good thing, or a bad thing?

When I say "writer" I do mean the GM, but now that I think about it that's entirely dependent on the GM-player relationship.

Kris Strife
2010-05-21, 09:59 PM
Heh. Superman is fine if everyone has that kind of power. But in a game where one person plays superman, one plays Lois Lane, and one plays Jimmy Olsen... that wrecks any game.

Do you have any idea how often Jimmy Olsen and Lois Lane had super powers in the classic comics? There's a reason why Superdickery has drinking games for each of them. :smallamused:

And Superman can have a very interesting narrative, its just that it takes more effort to write than Batman does. Just have Batman growl, say 'I'm Batman' and go on about how his parents died when he was young, all while beating up some nameless and faceless thugs, and you've made an acceptable Batman story. Not a good one mind you, but one that people will read and not complain about it too much.

gbprime
2010-05-21, 10:10 PM
Do you have any idea how often Jimmy Olsen and Lois Lane had super powers in the classic comics?

The classic comics are a blur, thanks to Curt Swan. He could take any scene and make it look like it was populated by statues instead of people. While I didn't like the way he was dismissed, it was good to see a more modern drawing style at last.

Threadjack. sorry. :smallbiggrin:

poisonoustea
2010-05-21, 10:12 PM
And I want to play a game with a good story. I want complex character interactions, interesting social dynamics, and I only want the battles to be directly relevant to the plot.

Random elements are annoying and eliminate any complex strategy, and battle-based games get in the way of storytelling.

Will just going freeform solve all my problems? Last time I was big on roleplaying it was all freeform, and in retrospect it was all battle-based despite it being freeform. Perhaps then my issue is not with roleplaying conventions but with bad writers?
I think you probably want to write a novel :smalltongue: and not even a fantasy one; there's a fair deal of randomness into any fight, and the fantasy genre itself is mainly focused on battle.


What I'm saying, as I touched upon in a previous post, is that stories shouldn't just be, they should have a point (like protesting against a convention in society that the writer dislikes). The players exist to tell the story. Therefore, the players should help bring the story to a good conclusion.
That's the role of writers, not that of players. Pen-and-paper roleplaying is a game, you can't turn it into art. It would stop being a game. Start a collaborative writing project instead, it will do much much better and you'll accept D&D as nothing but a game. If it bores you that way, quit playing rpgs and start writing. You should search for satisfaction, no matter what you're leaving behind.

Private-Prinny
2010-05-21, 10:13 PM
What I'm saying, as I touched upon in a previous post, is that stories shouldn't just be, they should have a point (like protesting against a convention in society that the writer dislikes). The players exist to tell the story. Therefore, the players should help bring the story to a good conclusion.

Which is a perfectly reasonable opinion to have. The one thing I can see going awry, however, is that no matter what system you use, the players have to be willing to tell your story. If you don't have their cooperation, there are an infinite number of ways for your story to be derailed and shot to hell if they happen to disagree with the moral.

In my experience (not much, mind you), the DM exists to make a story from the player actions, the players don't exist to make actions according to the DM's story.

Good luck finding what works for you.

mrpitchfork
2010-05-21, 10:38 PM
That's the role of writers, not that of players. Pen-and-paper roleplaying is a game, you can't turn it into art. It would stop being a game. Start a collaborative writing project instead, it will do much much better and you'll accept D&D as nothing but a game. If it bores you that way, quit playing rpgs and start writing. You should search for satisfaction, no matter what you're leaving behind.

Games are art, but I don't want to change the philosophy subject (oh god oh no please don't), and I want to play games because they're interactive and the story (hopefully) ends up feeling more organic (And I can use it later when writing stories solo)


... no matter what system you use, the players have to be willing to tell your story. If you don't have their cooperation, there are an infinite number of ways for your story to be derailed and shot to hell if they happen to disagree with the moral.

What a great antagonist! >:D And if it turns out the player is convincing and manages to change my mind, that's when I need to make a Plot Twist to make that player a protagonist. Probably a very tricky maneuver, but worth it.


In my experience (not much, mind you), the DM exists to make a story from the player actions, the players don't exist to make actions according to the DM's story.

For any games I run, the players exist to bring my stories to a conclusion. The only reason NPC's exist is to give the players someone to talk to and to help manage the parts of the story the players can't.

I feel like I need to make the point that the players' characters don't have to always come out ahead of the rest of the world by the end of the game. The players just need to have fun.

EDIT: And if it ends up that all the players just die in the end, but they all had fun, then alright. (But I'd like to be able to retell the story and have the listener enjoy the story)

valadil
2010-05-21, 10:51 PM
Will just going freeform solve all my problems? Last time I was big on roleplaying it was all freeform, and in retrospect it was all battle-based despite it being freeform. Perhaps then my issue is not with roleplaying conventions but with bad writers?


Freeform might help. Some level of rules might work too.

LARPing taught me to enjoy light, simple rules. I've played in a lot of games with rock paper scissor being used to decide combat. You know what's awesome about RPS? Nothing! Nobody is going to powergamer rock paper scissor. Nobody is going to get into fights so they can throw down a timely rock. Instead people focus on the interesting part of the game, which happens to be the story. When LARPs start adding interesting fight rules, players want to play with those rules. They pick meaningless fights just so they can play a fun minigame. That's what random encounters are. Meaningless fights with (hopefully) fun mechanics.

I don't know how rules light you have to go to find what you're looking for. I stand by my previous suggestion of finding a LARP group. Other systems might work too. Usually players who want more story flee D&D and head towards other systems, WoD being a good start.




valadil, I think you're right alot in your post. I still make the colon-forwardslash face at the idea of random battles (though I make the colon-closeparintheses face at the idea of nonrandom encounters), preferring story-driven ones. Story driven like the outcome of the battle is foreshadowing, or the physical outcome of parts of the battle reflect more subtle elements of character interaction.

Going back to my first post where I ask if I am a lunatic or if I am pretentious, I think I'd go with "pretentious".

A good resolution, then? Read This Book and That Book to get a better idea of player/plot dynamic, and find places where the writers are good?

I don't think you're crazy or pretentious. I think the games I run are close to what you describe. I've NEVER done a random encounter. If I find myself using one I turn it into a story instead. Maybe it starts out as a random encounter but the enemy ends up having some tie in to the later plot. Or starts up a new plot.

Finding a game where the writers are good is one way to look at it. I prefer to think of it as a game where the story trumps the mechanics. (Of course the danger of such a game is that the story will trump the players too, and you'll have a GM telling the players what happens and not giving them any input.)


I think you probably want to write a novel :smalltongue: and not even a fantasy one; there's a fair deal of randomness into any fight, and the fantasy genre itself is mainly focused on battle.


I used to feel this way. Then I tried writing a novel. Now I'm back to GMing. Writing is one of the many things a GM has to do, but being a GM is distinctly different than being an author.

Ravens_cry
2010-05-21, 11:03 PM
I heard about it at Fear the Boot and I played it at a Con and enjoyed it muchly. I am talking about Dogs in the Vineyard. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DogsInTheVineyard)
It's mechanic is a little odd, though effective in my experience, but it's very narrative and cinematic.

Faleldir
2010-05-22, 12:02 AM
Superman is invincible but he's a horrible superhero
I think the term "superhero" implies that he cares about more than just his own survival.

mrpitchfork
2010-05-22, 12:11 AM
I'm talking about in terms of storytelling.

Kris Strife
2010-05-22, 12:27 AM
And as I said, that's only with a writer who doesn't understand how to write Superman. If the writer portrays him as a flying brick/boy scout, yes, he's boring. Show the actual human side of Superman, show that he has the urges to abuse his powers or use lethal force on his enemies, but that he resists these urges, not to show how much better he is than others, but to be an example to others.

Basically, go watch some Dini-Verse Superman, then get back to me.

Roderick_BR
2010-05-22, 12:36 AM
Randomic elements are necessary for games to NOT be chess games. How do you solve a duel with two people facing off, at the same time, in similar conditions? According to you, only the best one (better stats, better setup, better training, etc) will always win. There's no space for that "damnit, I missed!" because there's no random element.

Randomic exists not to make an obvious superior competitor to miss something he's an expert, it's to show little variants that are not under the control of the character. Maybe he exhales at the wrong minute, the wind chances, the oponent, in a flash of intuition zags instead of zigs, and gets out of the way of your blow, maybe you slips a tiny bit on the sand. Anything.

What tactics does is try to put the conditions on your favor, reducing the chance or error the maximum you can. If people want to play chess, they'll play chess.

Divide by Zero
2010-05-22, 12:56 AM
Randomic elements are necessary for games to NOT be chess games. How do you solve a duel with two people facing off, at the same time, in similar conditions? According to you, only the best one (better stats, better setup, better training, etc) will always win. There's no space for that "damnit, I missed!" because there's no random element.

Randomic exists not to make an obvious superior competitor to miss something he's an expert, it's to show little variants that are not under the control of the character. Maybe he exhales at the wrong minute, the wind chances, the oponent, in a flash of intuition zags instead of zigs, and gets out of the way of your blow, maybe you slips a tiny bit on the sand. Anything.

What tactics does is try to put the conditions on your favor, reducing the chance or error the maximum you can. If people want to play chess, they'll play chess.

QFT. I'd add that if randomness is part of a game, then it simply means you have to incorporate that into your strategy - a backup plan for when you roll a natural 1 on an important save, for example.

Gamgee
2010-05-22, 01:08 AM
What I mean is, I want conflicts to be between players, and between players and NPC's. I would prefer conflicts not be between players and a simulationist system.

Games don't have to be random in order to be games. Unless Chess stopped being a game?

There's also LARPing among children (which most call make-believe, but really it's LARPing :P ), which has no true random elements, but it's still a game.

There is an element of random to chess. Predicting what move your opponent is going to make is never 100%.

Without a bit of random luck a game wouldn't really be a game. It would be as others have said a set of scripted events similar to a movie or book, and maybe this is what your looking for. Just don't go getting confused. ;)

Ravens_cry
2010-05-22, 01:43 AM
There is an element of random to chess. Predicting what move your opponent is going to make is never 100%.

Without a bit of random luck a game wouldn't really be a game. It would be as others have said a set of scripted events similar to a movie or book, and maybe this is what your looking for. Just don't go getting confused. ;)
That's not randomness. That's merely not knowing what your opponent will do.

Chrono22
2010-05-22, 02:22 AM
What's the difference, really?
If you wanted to get into philosophy, any random event is just the conclusion of a series of smaller, predictable events that we do not entirely comprehend.
In the context of the game, NPCs aren't the only enemy a PC has to contend with. The environment itself can pose threats and challenges.
I can understand not wanting to let randomness constantly supersede player choice, but some randomness is necessary to make the threats and dangers feel more credible. Whether this is inserted into the game via dice, cards, or double dealing between PCs doesn't really matter.

Ravens_cry
2010-05-22, 02:57 AM
What's the difference, really?
If you wanted to get into philosophy, any random event is just the conclusion of a series of smaller, predictable events that we do not entirely comprehend.

Actually no. There is purely random events that are literally impossible to predict with 100% accuracy. For example, radioactive decay. Statistically it adds up, but for a given atom the actual moment it will decay is pure randomness, within constraints of increasing improbability. With chess, it is a decision made on the part of the player. You may not be able to read his mind, but a player playing in good faith is trying for the best possible move based on their understanding of the rules and within the constraints of the rules themselves.


In the context of the game, NPCs aren't the only enemy a PC has to contend with. The environment itself can pose threats and challenges.
I can understand not wanting to let randomness constantly supersede player choice, but some randomness is necessary to make the threats and dangers feel more credible. Whether this is inserted into the game via dice, cards, or double dealing between PCs doesn't really matter.
Basically I agree with this. But I think the main reason for randomness is for arbitration without resort to actual skill,while allowing the vagaries of possibility take their place. Otherwise it's just a task of comparing statistics, with no possibility of anything irregular happening. Maybe the thief gets their knife in between the joints of the armour, maybe the wizard makes a lucky blow with their quarterstaff. Maybe the fighter trips over a stone and falls on his sword.
It may not be realistic per say, but it adds an element of mystery.

AstralFire
2010-05-22, 03:58 AM
I should also mention Physical Power and Narrative Power, and the difference between them.

Like how Superman is invincible but he's a horrible superhero, but Batman has no true superpowers but he's just too cool and has more narrative power than Superman. Or the difference between Pippin and the Watcher.

I immediately stopped caring about your opinion any further here.

Yes, you can have a roleplaying game without random elements. Random elements are simply a shortcut to developing a more focused combat system, which is often abandoned in favor of greater options.

Chrono22
2010-05-22, 04:14 AM
Actually no. There is purely random events that are literally impossible to predict with 100% accuracy. For example, radioactive decay. Statistically it adds up, but for a given atom the actual moment it will decay is pure randomness, within constraints of increasing improbability.
In my view that's a fallacy. Something being "literally impossible to predict with 100% accuracy" /= "purely random". There are always an undefined number of factors at work on anything at any time.
In a vacuum, two identical things will act identically. Reality is not a vacuum. Variance occurs, no matter how rigorous and careful an experiment/observation is.
You call it random chance? Luck? I call it ignorance.

Sliver
2010-05-22, 04:37 AM
"I don't like the randomness in battle and prefer a more storytelling method of solving it."
"Then go freeform."
"But will it actually solve my problem?"

Yes, yes it will. It's your past experience that is bad, not the method of implementation. Freeform battles seem kinda dull to me, because no matter the input of the players, how their actions are resolved depends purely on the whim of the "writer"*.

Thinking of the DM as a writer seems really wrong to me. Sure, he writes, but he is far from a writer as in author. Your game ends up as a story, but you don't DM with the goal of making an entertaining story for others to read out of it, but an entertaining game for your players to play.

AstralFire
2010-05-22, 04:52 AM
Freeform is amazing with the right people. My last thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8534842&postcount=13) - while discussed in Saga game mechanics (as I keep them in mind when roleplaying) - was actually freeform entirely.

Saph
2010-05-22, 05:19 AM
Random elements are annoying and eliminate any complex strategy, and battle-based games get in the way of storytelling. It feels like there is an unecessary disconnect between battles and the story because of these random elements. They are literally unpredictable, so there are few good ways to deal with them if you want to tell a good story.

As previously pointed out, you are one hundred percent wrong when you claim that random elements eliminate complex strategy.


For any games I run, the players exist to bring my stories to a conclusion.

This is pretty much the exact definition of a railroading DM. Note the possessive phrasing: the players exist to bring your stories to a conclusion. Then one paragraph before, you claim that you want games to be "interactive". You can't have both. If you genuinely want a game to be interactive, then you have to ditch the idea that the story is your personal property.

As for random chance, here's the thing: what makes you so sure that you're the best authority for where the story should go? Let's take this statement of yours:


But it can ruin a ton of drama if Harry MacHero, the guy with the most Narrative Power, dies, not because it helps further the point of the story, but because of randomly-driven battle systems and a low hitpoint count on Harry MacHero's part.

What makes you so sure that having Harry McHero dying is bad? Maybe Harry McHero is boring the socks off everyone else at the table precisely because you've designated him as the hero and therefore every battle he gets involved in is predictable and dull. By the same token, who are you to say what the "point" of the story is? Maybe the players would be much more entertained if the point was something that you HADN'T scripted in advance.

This is why games use random elements: because they're unpredictable, and having a certain degree of unpredictability is interesting. Often, the consequences of a random out-there event end up being much more entertaining and memorable than what was "supposed" to happen.

PhoenixRivers
2010-05-22, 05:29 AM
Were it not for randomness, everything would be known beforehand.

Randomness adds mystery. Random elements force you to adapt, to be dynamic.

In other words, it's the difference between telling a story, and making one.

And for any game to be interactive, the players must have some active control over the story. Their decisions have to be able to change the game, or they're not interacting. They're just sitting at your tea party, being the stuffed dolls.

AstralFire
2010-05-22, 06:31 AM
Phoenix and Saph, I contend that it is possible to have games with no or minimal random (dice or RNG) elements. The issue is just that it's not suitable for many types of roleplaying systems.

Otherwise I quite agree on the difference between interactive and a story. Even while we're freeform roleplaying, we are not following a script - anything can (and does) happen against hopes, including character death.

PhoenixRivers
2010-05-22, 06:41 AM
Phoenix and Saph, I contend that it is possible to have games with no or minimal random (dice or RNG) elements. The issue is just that it's not suitable for many types of roleplaying systems.
Correct. Only the ones that are worth their salt.

Art imitates life, friend.

The most accurate way to figure out the outcome to something that is unknown? Use something that you cannot know. A die roll.

I submit that a die roll is not random. It's merely unknown. After all, gravity, friction, air resistance, wind, elasticity, all of these can be predicted. Just because you don't know what the result will be doesn't mean it's random. Wasn't that your argument?


Otherwise I quite agree on the difference between interactive and a story. Even while we're freeform roleplaying, we are not following a script - anything can (and does) happen against hopes, including character death.
If anything can happen, then the earlier argument against MacHero dying is invalid. Because if you are removing randomness to prevent his death, then no, anything cannot happen, because you are artificially restricting the outcomes.

As for randomness removing tactics? Try a game of backgammon. Try Texas Hold 'em. There's a reason that World Series final tables consistently have so many familiar faces.

AstralFire
2010-05-22, 06:45 AM
Correct. Only the ones that are worth their salt.

Art imitates life, friend.

The most accurate way to figure out the outcome to something that is unknown? Use something that you cannot know. A die roll.

I submit that a die roll is not random. It's merely unknown. After all, gravity, friction, air resistance, wind, elasticity, all of these can be predicted. Just because you don't know what the result will be doesn't mean it's random. Wasn't that your argument?

The most -simple- way (and simple is not bad, in fact I often prefer simplicity for tabletop gaming - it makes things flow faster) is a dice roll. Most action video games do not use purely abstract RNG to any notable degree, because they can afford to spend processing power on all those sorts of things. A complex enough roleplaying system focused on one type of combat can and could conceivably avoid heavy reliance (or even any reliance) on RNG. The issue is that it becomes a very narrow focus, which isn't something we usually put into such games.


If anything can happen, then the earlier argument against MacHero dying is invalid. Because if you are removing randomness to prevent his death, then no, anything cannot happen, because you are artificially restricting the outcomes.

I'm arguing against him, not against you here. My point was that even freeform roleplay is typically interactive, and not scripted. I see characters die that weren't planned to for the overall plot simply because the attacks presented against them were too effective and the players conceded defeat. Even in freeform roleplay, he should be prepared to deal with that.

Jair Barik
2010-05-22, 06:47 AM
As far as I can understand TC basically wants a system where combat is like it is in the Fire emblem series except your characters are incredibly powerful and every single random chance is removed. People have a set amount of damage that they will do and for the TC wether or not you hit is a pre determined factor based upon specific scores. To me that doesn't sound very fun but maybe I'm reading this wrong. It just seems as if you want all risk to be removed from your games. Either Hero Mc Fighty Person is some sort of God who due to narrative rule can do no wrong and cannot die, or he knows precisely the level of enemy he can fight and as such turns tail and runs the minute anything that could challenge him appears.

Oslecamo
2010-05-22, 06:47 AM
Phoenix and Saph, I contend that it is possible to have games with no or minimal random (dice or RNG) elements. The issue is just that it's not suitable for many types of roleplaying systems.


Well the problem with no-random it's that it promotes system mastery and eliminates suspense on the part of the players.

System mastery because you can't rely in luck to save you. In chess for example make one wrong move against an equally or more skilled player and you're dead. Nothing can save you then unless your oponent stumbles in purpose.

Suspense because well, people find the unknown exhilirating. What random treasure awaits in the chest? Can I hit the monster with my attack this turn? Am I going to be able to resist that wizard's spell? How much damage will I deal? Puting your fate on dice can be pretty satisfying, even when things go wrong.

AstralFire
2010-05-22, 06:49 AM
Well the problem with no-random it's that it promotes system mastery and eliminates suspense on the part of the players.


Phoenix and Saph, I contend that it is possible to have games with no or minimal random (dice or RNG) elements. The issue is just that it's not suitable for many types of roleplaying systems.

We're in agreement here. I was pointing it out for sake of theory. :smalltongue:

It doesn't necessarily eliminate suspense, that depends on the style of gameplay (simultaneous resolution systems, where all players reveal their planned actions for the round at once, frex), but it certainly does promote system mastery which I am against in pencil and paper gaming.

Zen Master
2010-05-22, 06:57 AM
Hm ... I'll try to illustrate something. Same situation, different rules.

As you walk down a dark alley, you hear the heavy step of hoofs behind you. Turning, you see to your horror that you are about to be charged by a minotaur.

Diceless:

You tell the GM your actions: You want to try and tackle the legs of the minotaur, effectively going under it's horns and try to make it stumble and fall. The GM responds that you fail at this - the minotaur is simply too fast for you. After being bowled several yards down the alley, you square off in melee. The GM tells you the minotaur is clearly more than a match for you. It rains down staggering blows on you - yet eventually you win by scoring a lucky hit to its head, smashing it's skull and scattering it's brains.

With dices:

Rolling for initiative, you lose. You would have liked to ready an action to trip the minotaur, but alas - instead you are bowled several yards down the alley. You square off in melee, and as the dice roll, you quickly realise the minotaur hits harder and more often than you - you are losing. Frantic, you contemplate escape, surrender, or some way to cripple the minotaur so you can gain the upper hand. However, before it comes to that, a natural 20 lets you splatter the minotaurs skull - thank god for lucky crits.

I don't know if that illustrates my point, but I hope so. Without dice, RP becomes a guessing game. Clearly the GM shouldn't set you up just to kill you - but since you cannot just announce that you score a crit to the monsters head, all that is in the hands of the GM. What you can do is try and 'guess' the proper response to the threat - throwing sand at it's eyes, tripping it, fleeing, whatever.

I think there is more excitement to be had - and more freedom (!) - in playing with the dice. The dice gives a greater level of control to the players. Even though they are random, they are something the GM doesn't control - and the players decide what dice to roll (as in attack, or skill, or whatever).

AstralFire
2010-05-22, 07:04 AM
Games as opposed to freeform certainly do offer more rollercoaster excitement, but I find freeform RP almost moves -much- quicker than even the lightest of systems, and offers extremely adaptable depth - I've had an extremely intricate duel with another person where they made use of their greater limb length to intelligent effect, and I can just go slashing through an endless horde.

Basically, they both have their place and I enjoy both thoroughly. Frex, freeform doesn't require anyone to have any prior specific knowledge of a system - however, it has a more stringent requirement on either writing or oratory skill. Freeform kicks the legs out from under munchkins who seek refuge for their actions in the rules, but systems prevent someone from just saying "well, I can do this because it's cool, so there - to hell with what you all think."

Taelas
2010-05-22, 07:07 AM
Even freeform games must have an arbiter -- a GM -- in order to remain games and not just collective storytelling.

With a GM, a freeform game can be as loose or as tight regarding gameplay as the GM wishes.

AstralFire
2010-05-22, 07:09 AM
I don't know if freeform can ever really be considered a game, GM or not. Unless the GM's role is solely limited to being a referee and not a participant; if they run any NPCs of note, they're really just 'a girl who plays multiple characters who we give the nod to in disputes', and not truly a Game Master. This is how I feel.

Taelas
2010-05-22, 07:13 AM
Freeform games can have storylines just as well as games that have actual rules. The GM sets the stage.

AstralFire
2010-05-22, 07:26 AM
Storylines, yes, but I think they cross the line from roleplaying game to just roleplaying, is all.

Totally Guy
2010-05-22, 07:32 AM
It is possible to implement a degree of strategic uncertainty in place of the random uncertainty.

You could have a conflict interaction matrix.

The interaction between what you choose and your opponent chooses then means something significant.

In Man vs. Minotaur the player (I've assumed to be playing the man) is conflicted. "If I choose to feint using the red cloth to make him fall into the fire then I'll win if the GM has chosen to Charge... not but if he's picked a plain old strike with the axe then I'd be better off choosing to fight defensively..."

I like a combination off both this and dice rolling, similar to Mouse Guard.

Dice puts everyone on a level playing field. It's not all about who has the greatest presence amongst the group.

AstralFire
2010-05-22, 07:36 AM
That's what I was driving at earlier, Glug, but put much better. Thank you. 'Conflict interaction matrix' is good.

PhoenixRivers
2010-05-22, 08:14 AM
The issue with that is that conflict interaction matrixes already exist in D&D.

Set a weapon vs charge, anyone?

Ready actions?

These things exist.

Putting dice to it allows for a non-arbitrary way of dealing with the game.

Perhaps a very good group of players and a very good DM, with very good interaction ability, all together, will create a game that's balanced in free form.

I've DM'd for hundreds of people over 3 decades of play. In all that time, I can say that I've probably met two players with that level of maturity.

Rules exist to protect. They keep players (and DM's) in line. Rules are why beginning adventurers don't face Ancient Dragons. They're why one player can't arbitrarily wipe out a town with a yawn.

By defining a power structure, and putting the game within it, you give a consistent framework where people can know what to expect. Everyone can be assured of getting a fair shake.

When the game is wholly arbitrary, that can't be said.

So, ironically, that randomness? Removes a lot of the guessing.

AstralFire
2010-05-22, 08:24 AM
Arbitrary isn't the same as a CIM, and notably it becomes a lot more rock paper scissors the more it's focused on.

The rest of this stuff... I'm not even sure who you're talking to, or about what, so. No one here has been putting down Rule-Based Games. CIMs have mostly been a topic of discussion with rules systems. Freeform is just that - freeform. You're kind of throwing all of your arguments into some weird sort of bundle here.

PhoenixRivers
2010-05-22, 08:31 AM
Arbitrary isn't the same as a CIM, and notably it becomes a lot more rock paper scissors the more it's focused on.

The rest of this stuff... I'm not even sure who you're talking to, or about what, so. No one here has been putting down Rule-Based Games. CIMs have mostly been a topic of discussion with rules systems. Freeform is just that - freeform. You're kind of throwing all of your arguments into some weird sort of bundle here.

Because freeform games are necessarily arbitrary. Every decision is individually arbitrated, and that can lead to inconsistency. With almost every player I've seen, removing the rules turns it into a power trip for someone.

I'm not big on watching people power trip while I eat pizza and drink Mountain Dew.

AslanCross
2010-05-22, 08:33 AM
I have never really seen the disjunction between story and combat even in D&D. The last battle we had in today's session was really brought out a great deal of emotion in the players, as the dwarf crusader (de facto party leader) realized the rakshasa assassin they were facing was his wife's killer.

It was a see-saw battle in terms of the advantage, but all of the players felt both a great loathing for the mocking rakshasa and had a very real fear of dying yet again. With a series of creative tactical choices that were certainly not flat and undramatic (the cleric casting Light of Venya, the assassin hamstringing the dwarf crusader as he tumbled across the room, the rogue using a scroll he had to entangle the assassin, etc), they were able to bring him down. When they had finally slain the fiend, there was much rejoicing IC and OOC, and the players truly felt that justice had been served.

Now this may not be your experience in whatever games you have played, and that's understandable. I'm rather blessed to have a group I really have a lot of good chemistry with---not all groups are in the same situation.

A couple of points:

1. I do agree with many posters who have said that the element of randomness keeps arbitrary adjudication in check. That's a great part of the game element.

2. Deep character interaction, resolution without random chance, and what is essentially a script remind me not of a roleplaying game, but a play. Drama. Theatre. These are not bad things; mind you---as an English teacher I enjoy theatre quite a bit and just love mentoring the students do play productions.
I'm sure there are freeform systems that might be what you are looking for, but scripted action, IMO, cannot simply be the core of a game.

I'm not really sure how Amber Diceless works, but I'd wager it still has a way of conflict/task resolution that doesn't work like a script.

AstralFire
2010-05-22, 08:35 AM
Because freeform games are necessarily arbitrary. Every decision is individually arbitrated, and that can lead to inconsistency. With almost every player I've seen, removing the rules turns it into a power trip for someone.

I'm not big on watching people power trip while I eat pizza and drink Mountain Dew.

Okay, seriously, cut it out. CIMs can go into rules systems in place of dice (or alongside them), just as I've seen freeform RPers start tossing dice when they can't decide. It is removed from the other discussion. CIMs are not inherently arbitrary, they are rules.

You don't like freeform RP, fine. I've seen it work very well and the people I don't want to freeform RP with are the people I at most tolerate when I'm tabletopping with them anyway. I found I enjoyed RPGing a lot more once I stopped grabbing people I merely tolerated, personally. But you want to make an argument against CIMs, don't do it on the basis of association with freeform - that's just conflation.

PhoenixRivers
2010-05-22, 08:42 AM
Okay, seriously, cut it out. CIMs can go into rules systems in place of dice (or alongside them), just as I've seen freeform RPers start tossing dice when they can't decide. It is removed from the other discussion.
And those freeform RPers made the arbitrary decision to do that. Because the only thing that controls what happens? Is what they want.

You speak of CIM's. Point out a CIM system that encompasses every possible choice and their interaction (or at least, the vast majority). If you can do that, then it's not wholly arbitrary.

If a storyteller has to evaluate two interactions, and make his own decision?

Then it's arbitrary.

You assume that they're seperate.

They.
Are.
Not.

CIM's are still an overglorified way of eyeballing it, and saying "yeah, that seems about right". Not bad for something simple, but the Golden Gate Bridge wasn't built on guesstimation.

Deme
2010-05-22, 08:42 AM
I'd also like to add: the results of random elements are great opportunities to start new, unexpected character arcs. They can make great places to change or diversify your story -- and if you're really good, you'll keep it on-theme, too.

As a player, take my paladin Krym. Krym was not a bad paladin -- faithful, but more in it to help people then to serve a diety. But still, I wasn't planning on giving him a crisis of faith. Cue two sessions in which Krym failed horribly due to the dice -- the wind wasn't his way, the rocks he was climbing crumbled, all that jazz. When he hit, he rolled low damage, even. Now, I could have complained that it wasn't letting me do what I had planned -- or I could plan to do with what I had. I gave him a little mini-crisis of faith, an uncertainty that this was what his diety really wanted him to do -- but it was helping people, wasn't it? Now, his luck eventually turned, and he wrote it off as paranoia...Until the events of the plot made him question again, and he remembered this occaison, which led to a whole bunch of awesome conflict there.

Or Sarojin. Sarojin's backstory was that, due to some magic that had been with him from when he was small, bad things just kind of...happened to him. So whenever a random roll went bad, I'd use that to remind the DM and my fellow players -- that natural 1 was the crossbow's mechanism blowing up in his face, that 5 on a climb check was being hit by a swarm of passing bats (which sounds ridiculous, but this was Sarojin -- ridiculous bad things happened to Sarojin as a matter of course.) I used it to re-inforce a major character trait when I could, which in turn influenced his feelings about the rest of the party -- when his luck was good, he'd be much more open and friendly (which was how Sarojin was by nature), when his luck was bad, he'd remember how dangerous it could be for other people to be around him. In the end, it didn't sway matters too much -- a healthy dose of character developement made the changes in his behavior due to the bad luck decrease over time...but it helped his arc a lot.

From a DM's perspective, when a die roll goes against a crucial piece of foreshadowing (other than maybe realising you really should have thought of foreshadowing that did not need a die roll), that is your friend Mr. Dice throwing down a glove. You now have to build your story around that failure -- how do you fix it? Was it foreshadowing something else, or have the powers of narritivium started failing this universe, or some third idea? A good DM needs to know how to roll with the punches -- a good writer/DM needs to be able to figure out how to roll with the punches and still make the story work.

Random die rolls aren't just resolutions -- that's being simplistic. They're prompts. Challenges -- duels between your group and the forces of story entropy! I like a challenge like that, personally. If you don't, then yeah -- you want to switch systems, maybe even to something freeform or a group story project. Those are more or less your options, and you won't get anything better -- adapt to the system or change the system you're using.

AslanCross
2010-05-22, 08:47 AM
I'd also like to add: the results of random elements are great opportunities to start new, unexpected character arcs. They can make great places to change or diversify your story -- and if you're really good, you'll keep it on-theme, too.

<snip>

Random die rolls aren't just resolutions -- that's being simplistic. They're prompts. Challenges -- duels between your group and the forces of story entropy! I like a challenge like that, personally. If you don't, then yeah -- you want to switch systems, maybe even to something freeform or a group story project. Those are more or less your options, and you won't get anything better -- adapt to the system or change the system you're using.

This is a great insight. I totally agree with everything here. The final, fatal shot the rogue in my group took against a rampaging blue dragon wouldn't have been as dramatic if he'd been failing every single shot since the start of the battle.

It would've been easy for the player to just say "This guy's just too strong. I'm bored. Let's call it a day." But he stuck to his guns and made one last shot just as the dragon was about to fry him and the cleric with its breath.

I'm not sure we would've had the opportunity to see that dramatic turn if it had been all narrative.

AstralFire
2010-05-22, 08:52 AM
And those freeform RPers made the arbitrary decision to do that. Because the only thing that controls what happens? Is what they want.

You speak of CIM's. Point out a CIM system that encompasses every possible choice and their interaction (or at least, the vast majority). If you can do that, then it's not wholly arbitrary.

One was already given - Chess. (And it is quite possible to roleplay Chess.)

I said multiple times that going purely CIM isn't suitable or preferred for many systems, simply because you have to become extremely detailed in a particular field. It is, however, quite possible theoretically, and arbitrary - last I checked - was still a big part of a DM's toolset for things which fall outside a given system's rules. That doesn't make Amber Diceless (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amber_Diceless_Roleplaying_Game#Conflict_resolutio n) (the most famous example of a system lacking a purely abstract dice usage) freeform anymore than it makes Spirit of the Century or D&D 1E freeform.

CIM is an element in freeform or rules games, end of story. You already admitted as much considering you opened up saying that D&D 3 contains elements of it. Just as much as a system can go purely dice, a system can go purely diceless - or anywhere inbetween.

@Aslan and Deme
You are pointing out the joy of uncertainty, not the joy of randomness, specifically. Dice are one of the best ways to do that, granted, but it is not actual randomness which you are applauding.

Totally Guy
2010-05-22, 08:57 AM
The games I like are he antithesis of freeform. I've found that freeform works nicely until something that matters a lot is at stake and the participants are unwilling to come to a compromise.

I like the things that matter to be at stake. Regularly. So it's not for me.

Here is an example of complicated table used to resolve combat thet we consult regularly... :)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v44/macdonnell/FightMatrix.gif

AstralFire
2010-05-22, 09:01 AM
The games I like are he antithesis of freeform. I've found that freeform works nicely until something that matters a lot is at stake and the participants are unwilling to come to a compromise.

I like the things that matter to be at stake. Regularly. So it's not for me.

Here is an example of complicated table used to resolve combat thet we consult regularly... :)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v44/macdonnell/FightMatrix.gif

I really urge you to consider trying freeform with the same people you play with ordinarily, people you know really well. That made the ticket for me.

When all is said and done, I prefer rules and games, though it's gotten to be very difficult for me to find people who share my preferred mediums and settings and characters. But over the last year, I've found freeform RP to be extremely rewarding, and seen more than one person 'let go' of something they and their character really wanted. Particularly with death, it helps to not lock the character into only one storyline, I've found - so if you die, it's the end of that storyline for that character, and not the end of your escapades with that character.

Deme
2010-05-22, 09:03 AM
@Aslan and Deme
You are pointing out the joy of uncertainty, not the joy of randomness, specifically. Dice are one of the best ways to do that, granted, but it is not actual randomness which you are applauding.


Actually, I'm talking about the joy of rolling with the unexpected. I don't care about uncertainty or randomness -- I'm talking about the effects of dice, and don't give a darn about whether they're truly random or merely uncertain, because frankly, all that matters is what I do with the numbers I get.

AstralFire
2010-05-22, 09:04 AM
Actually, I'm talking about the joy of rolling with the unexpected. I don't care about uncertainty or randomness -- I'm talking about the effects of dice, and don't give a darn about whether they're truly random or merely uncertain, because frankly, all that matters is what I do with the numbers I get.

That's an excellent attitude to take for roleplaying life. I'm merely appropriating you for my larger argument. ;)

PhoenixRivers
2010-05-22, 09:58 AM
One was already given - Chess. (And it is quite possible to roleplay Chess.)

I said multiple times that going purely CIM isn't suitable or preferred for many systems, simply because you have to become extremely detailed in a particular field. It is, however, quite possible theoretically, and arbitrary - last I checked - was still a big part of a DM's toolset for things which fall outside a given system's rules. That doesn't make Amber Diceless (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amber_Diceless_Roleplaying_Game#Conflict_resolutio n) (the most famous example of a system lacking a purely abstract dice usage) freeform anymore than it makes Spirit of the Century or D&D 1E freeform.

CIM is an element in freeform or rules games, end of story. You already admitted as much considering you opened up saying that D&D 3 contains elements of it. Just as much as a system can go purely dice, a system can go purely diceless - or anywhere inbetween.

@Aslan and Deme
You are pointing out the joy of uncertainty, not the joy of randomness, specifically. Dice are one of the best ways to do that, granted, but it is not actual randomness which you are applauding.

Chess is not a CIM. Or at least, it's a very, very simple one.

Piece attacks? It wins.

The rules allow for a very simple, constrained ability on what you can do.

There is no random chance, because the attacking piece always wins.

Let's apply this to D&D.

Level 1 kobold commoner (pawn) charges at the Ancient dragon (queen).

Kobold wins.

Arbitration IS a part of games. I'm not saying that arbitration is EvilBadWrong.

I'm saying that a game that is ALL arbitration is like a boat with no engine and no sail on the high seas. You are completely at the mercy of the arbiter. A game which has rules, and is arbitrated for questionable interpretations of those rules? That's one thing.

A game that has, at its core: "yeah, go ahead and, well, just tell me what you're doing, and I'll see what everyone else is doing and then I'll just kinda wing it and we'll all see what happens" ?? That's something else entirely.

It's a different sort of game entirely. But a game with pretty much no rules has no foundation to base anything on.

true_shinken
2010-05-22, 10:07 AM
And I want to play a game with a good story. I want complex character interactions, interesting social dynamics, and I only want the battles to be directly relevant to the plot.

Read a good book. Watch a good movie. Buy a few nice comic books. Maybe check the theaters for a classic play or something.

PersonMan
2010-05-22, 10:19 AM
Freeform games can have storylines just as well as games that have actual rules. The GM sets the stage.

On the forums that I usually play freeform, the thread starter posts a setting, rules, etc. The "players" usually respect the wishes of the "Game Master", but outside of that the OP just plays along with everyone else.

So, yes, there are rules, but these are mostly to discourage insane power levels and "power playing", controlling another's character(I am X. "X shoots Y, and Y is hit in the arm!" is generally seen as overstepping the boundaries). So while it is freeform, the games have some rules to limit the power/abilities/whatever of the people playing it.

However, some situations don't require rules as much. When I was younger, I would quasi-LARP/freeform with some of my friends, and we had just about no rules, but the situations worked out well because none of us would do things that would disrupt the game.

It depends on who you're playing with, where/how you're playing and what kind of game you want. I still consider the games with the basic rules freeform, it's simply a different type than the other games I used to play.


Read a good book. Watch a good movie. Buy a few nice comic books. Maybe check the theaters for a classic play or something.

Have a good DM/GM and lots of roleplay-friendly players? I don't know any GMs who just randomly throw combats into the game, and if you focus more on roleplaying than on the rules, you can get some of the stuff you want, even if DnD isn't best suited for it.

Optimystik
2010-05-22, 10:31 AM
Were it not for randomness, everything would be known beforehand.

Randomness adds mystery. Random elements force you to adapt, to be dynamic.

In other words, it's the difference between telling a story, and making one.

And for any game to be interactive, the players must have some active control over the story. Their decisions have to be able to change the game, or they're not interacting. They're just sitting at your tea party, being the stuffed dolls.

Bolded for truth and emphasis.

AstralFire
2010-05-22, 10:42 AM
Chess is not a CIM. Or at least, it's a very, very simple one.

Piece attacks? It wins.

The rules allow for a very simple, constrained ability on what you can do.

There is no random chance, because the attacking piece always wins.

There is no random chance.

But there is uncertainty. You do not know what strategies your opponent is using when you begin the game, you have to guess.

You're looking at Chess Pieces as D&D when you'd be looking at the story of the war instead.


A game that has, at its core: "yeah, go ahead and, well, just tell me what you're doing, and I'll see what everyone else is doing and then I'll just kinda wing it and we'll all see what happens" ?? That's something else entirely.

It's a different sort of game entirely. But a game with pretty much no rules has no foundation to base anything on.

I like how you conveniently missed Glug's table for another example of this. He is not freeform whatsoever. Chess is not freeform whatsoever. It is still a game.


Bolded for truth and emphasis.

Wrong. You're still going after uncertainty and unpredictability and tying it all to randomness.

Chrono22
2010-05-22, 12:04 PM
AstralFire has the truth of it in regards to uncertainty playing a bigger role in gaming than randomness, folks. Playing cards, and even the other players' minds can make a much better "realism canvass" than a bunch of unpredictable outcomes.
Think about it this way- if you substituted cards for dice:
You could have a built-in concentration/focus mechanic. (Loosing all in hand makes you lose concentration, focusing allows you to add a card to hand).
You could allow a player to choose between using a card in his hand (take "ten") or draw with the hopes of getting a higher result.
So long as the cards in peoples' hands are not revealed, and the decks they draw from are not revealed and are shuffled properly, you can have uncertainty even if a player never draws directly from the deck the entire game. He can never fully comprehend the actions/potential of all the other players/participants. Every choice is a gamble based on many factors, it doesn't have to all hinge in a number result on a die roll.

mrpitchfork
2010-05-22, 01:12 PM
I've abandoned the thread because people are conveniently ignoring my statements in favour of misinterpreting previous ones.

And this used to be a pretty nice game theory thread...

Optimystik
2010-05-22, 04:43 PM
Wrong. You're still going after uncertainty and unpredictability and tying it all to randomness.

Read the OP more closely: you'll see that "uncertainty and unpredictability" IS the problem he has with tabletop gaming. He wants to craft an epic yet interactive story but doesn't want his designated heroes and/or villains dying prematurely due to the vagaries of fate.

Phoenix and I were telling him that without that chance of things not falling out as he (the DM) or his players expect it to, it can't truly be called a game anymore, just a collaborative script.

The Big Dice
2010-05-22, 08:13 PM
John Wick uses something he calls Plot Immunity, in tandem with a thing he calls Dire Peril. The idea being, he won't kill PCs off without story reasons, but if he uses the phrase "Dire Peril" then all bets are off and PCs can die. He talks a lot about this in his Youtube segments.

Personally, I dislike the idea, but then I always say if you want to tell a story, go write a book. But that's my own idiosyncracy and shouldn't be taken as me saying bad things about the storytelling paradigm.

As for dice in RPGs, there needs to be a means of resolving situations where the outcome is in doubt. The most obvious is combat, but games like (N)WoD, Legend of the Five Rings and Pendragon all have a strong social aspect to them.

Using dice rolls rather than simply roleplaying out social situations means that a player with the gift of the gab who built his character for combat, figuring he can talk his way through situations doesn't have a major advantage over a less eloquent player who wants to play a highly social character.

AstralFire
2010-05-22, 08:19 PM
Okay, you know what? If people are going to dogpile onto the thread and not even try to read counters to the point you're about to make, I'm not gonna bother. Irritating as hell to respond to the same argument I knocked the legs out from under seven or eight times.


Read the OP more closely: you'll see that "uncertainty and unpredictability" IS the problem he has with tabletop gaming. He wants to craft an epic yet interactive story but doesn't want his designated heroes and/or villains dying prematurely due to the vagaries of fate.

Phoenix and I were telling him that without that chance of things not falling out as he (the DM) or his players expect it to, it can't truly be called a game anymore, just a collaborative script.

Read my posts more closely. Phoenix and I were on a tangent entirely, with Phoenix charging that it was impossible to get that without dice and without going to freeform.

Oslecamo
2010-05-23, 05:58 AM
AstralFire has the truth of it in regards to uncertainty playing a bigger role in gaming than randomness, folks. Playing cards, and even the other players' minds can make a much better "realism canvass" than a bunch of unpredictable outcomes.
Think about it this way- if you substituted cards for dice:
...


It's called Magic The Gathering {Scrubbed} Wich means you not ony have to worry about sheets and tactical map, you also need to worry about keeping decks of cards in order and cheating becomes that much easier when the DM has to keep his eyes on several players. It's considerably harder cheating with a dice and if you suspect they're cheating it's easier to verify by simply rolling the dice to see if they're loaded.

Plus statistical choices are already implemented on D&D classes themselves. How much do you power attack? How much points I put on my psionic power? Should I expend psionic focus? If yes then when can I recover it? Do I shoot another maneuver or should I recover them?

Chrono22
2010-05-23, 06:35 AM
If you need to worry about cheating in your games, that's a player problem; no rules are going to fix that for you.
Otherwise, what's your point? You don't seem to be disagreeing with me, just reiterating my point- there are many nonrandom yet uncertain outcomes in play.

stenver
2010-05-23, 07:27 AM
My current game is a very deep roleplaying game, characters have inter party conflicts and many characters have had mental breakdowns, because it simply is too complicated. Combat is all part of the story(no X random encounters a day or so on or forth), if you make a few enemies, then you will see combat. If my players would be nice to everyone, then they would see no combat, however, they wouldnt get anywhere either. Its a brutal world to them, they need to choose allies and friends. They screw up often, because there isnt any easy Right or Wrong decisions, every decision has its ups and downs.

That said, it is a freeroam world, with a plot built into it, and it is up to them weather or not they will affect the plot.

So far it has been great, with few sessions completely without combat and others almost completely combat

Realms of Chaos
2010-05-23, 08:35 AM
I know that Mrpitchfork has abandoned the thread but I hope that he'll see this post, if out of idle curiosity if nothing else. I have read through this thread and greatly apologize for any counter-arguments that I may have missed.

Games as Art is a new concept for me and one that intrigues me greatly. Doing away with the trials of simulationism and having multiple people collaborate with the goal of creating a masterpiece, giving everyone a general idea of what the game should symbolize or where it leads while having players iron out each detail and sub-plot sounds like it could be a really rewarding experience.

Ideally, such a group would set its goal and find its enjoyment not (or not only) in the destruction of great evils and the completion of tasks but in the telling of the story itself. They would find suspense not in the roll of the dice or flip of a coin but in the unexpected turns set up for them by the other players and the DM. Even knowing where a story goes, I find that I can find excitement and suspense in watching how it gets there.

I for one support the view that the result of a dice roll (which no one can predict) is not the same as a plot twist provided by the DM or (in a very trusting environment when dealing with mature writers) the players. Conversely, I do acknowledge that most groups skilled enough to accomplish a campaign like this would likely possess the skills to bend any accidental success or failure to the advantage of the story and that most systems attempt to reduce the risks that players actually take with their random rolls.

As you have said, simply running a freeform game isn't enough to get rid of the battle-centric attitudes that are so prevalent. I would add an addendum, however, to where you suggest that good writing from a DM (I'm pretty sure that you qualified the term "writer" as referring to the DM in a later post) to properly make the game. As has been suggested already, your players have to have the proper attitude in order for your proposed game to really function and would likely require a very mature (or even somewhat professional) team to regularly produce tales that are not only fun to create but are enjoyable to recount and hear about.

That said, beyond your basic concepts of wanting the campaign to be finely tuned both within its story (a story augmented and created in part by those playing through it), I know very little of how this proposed game would be played. I wish that I knew how you envisioned a "campaign", a "session", or even a small bit of gameplay would work. I personally envision an informal set of checks and balances based partially on plot, partially on the strengths and weaknesses of characters/NPCs/Monsters (included only when necessary/symbolic), and the self-restraint of your own party members. Then again, you may be thinking of something entirely differently. Oh well, I will probably never know...

Oslecamo
2010-05-23, 12:27 PM
If you need to worry about cheating in your games, that's a player problem; no rules are going to fix that for you.


On the contrary good rules help a lot to discourage about cheating. DM providing all the dice, rolling over the table in plain view, providing a copy of your sheet to the DM, ect, ect.

Because the temptation is always there. "The oportunity makes the thief" it's what they say in my country. If you make it too easy to cheat, even the best willed person may fall to it, but if you make it hard to cheat, then even the bad players will be more willing to just follow the rules.:smallwink:

A more simple example may be the common fridge of my student residence. Leave good expensive stuff like chocolates in plain view and it WILL mysteriously vanish if you don't eat it quickly. But hide it inside an opaque plastic bag and tuck it under some vegetables and it will last months.




Otherwise, what's your point? You don't seem to be disagreeing with me, just reiterating my point- there are many nonrandom yet uncertain outcomes in play.

That most RPGs are already complicated enough that you don't need to add complex random generator to it. M&M prouds itself of running just with d20s for example.

Another_Poet
2010-05-23, 12:38 PM
I would start with rethinking this:


This requires a group of decent, cooperative writers or a few good writers and some bad ones that the good writers can use or manipulate.

If you really want to put together a solid freeform group then ditch the elitist tone. The idea that you could/should bring in some "bad writers" for the "good writers" to manipulate it just eerie. It doesn't set up a playing field for a fun game. It's like saying, "We need 20 professional rugby players, or at least 15 professionals and 5 minor league kids whom the rest of us can bully in the locker room."

What a horrible basis for a game.

It's amazing how much better a freeform game can run if you treat everyone as respected equals. In fact, that's probably the one thing that will let people play out a story without the structure of rules, random events, simulationist combat, etc.

Matthew
2010-05-23, 12:40 PM
A more simple example may be the common fridge of my student residence. Leave good expensive stuff like chocolates in plain view and it WILL mysteriously vanish if you don't eat it quickly. But hide it inside an opaque plastic bag and tuck it under some vegetables and it will last months.

Opportunity does not make thieves equally, though. In post graduate halls of residence, in my experience, there is rarely any pilfering of food from fridges because the people are grown ups. :smallwink:

Seriously, though, reducing the opportunity for abuse will reduce abuse, but it may also bring other undesirable elements, such as an over codified rule set and reduced trust between players and game master. Better, on the whole, to play games with people who are not inclined to cheat as a matter of course.

Oslecamo
2010-05-23, 01:29 PM
Opportunity does not make thieves equally, though. In post graduate halls of residence, in my experience, there is rarely any pilfering of food from fridges because the people are grown ups. :smallwink:

Well lucky you. However not all grown ups act as grown ups.



Seriously, though, reducing the opportunity for abuse will reduce abuse, but it may also bring other undesirable elements, such as an over codified rule set and reduced trust between players and game master. Better, on the whole, to play games with people who are not inclined to cheat as a matter of course.

And it would be even better if books were free, there were instant learning machines and there was world peace as an extra.

Unfortenely, the world is unperfect, and in my country where society itself teaches you to be lazy and cheating whenever possible to suceed and such beahaviours are actualy seen as "cool", finding players not inclined to cheat is a precious luxury, not something to be expexted. Heck in my MTG times you would need to always keep one eye on your oponent and the other on your own cards to make sure no sneaky jerk would steal them. Not to mention all the "forgeting" of rules whenever it was convenient for them.

The Glyphstone
2010-05-23, 01:33 PM
Well lucky you. However not all grown ups act as grown ups.



And it would be even better if books were free, there were instant learning machines and there was world peace as an extra.

Unfortenely, the world is unperfect, and in my country where society itself teaches you to be lazy and cheating whenever possible to suceed and such beahaviours are actualy seen as "cool", finding players not inclined to cheat is a precious luxury, not something to be expexted. Heck in my MTG times you would need to always keep one eye on your oponent and the other on your own cards to make sure no sneaky jerk would steal them. Not to mention all the "forgeting" of rules whenever it was convenient for them.

While I generally tend to agree that All Humans Are Bastards*....if you can't even trust someone not to cheat at a card game, why are you playing with them again? The simple act of sitting down to play a game, any game, with someone requires an inherent level of trust. If you're willing to grant that minimum level, there's no harm in extending it a little further if you consider them worthy of it.



(*Link it yourself, you lazy slobs :) )

Yora
2010-05-23, 01:33 PM
John Wick uses something he calls Plot Immunity, in tandem with a thing he calls Dire Peril. The idea being, he won't kill PCs off without story reasons, but if he uses the phrase "Dire Peril" then all bets are off and PCs can die. He talks a lot about this in his Youtube segments.

Personally, I dislike the idea, but then I always say if you want to tell a story, go write a book. But that's my own idiosyncracy and shouldn't be taken as me saying bad things about the storytelling paradigm.

That's about what I always did. I didn't inform the players about it, though. But most of the time, I do not actively try to have them face more than they can reasonably handle and when things get rough I'll provide ample oportunities for them to get out of it alive. This goes for random encounters and sliping while climbing over a wall in the back of a mansion. It might still cause them to fail their goals and have other severe consequences, but I won't have such things bring an end to a character.
But when they actively decided to put their characters into situations that pose a real danger to their lives, I treat it as a real danger to their lives. A group of bandits or goblins might be driven off by wandering NPCs in the last minute or decide to take the PCs prisoner. But when they knowingly walk into the dragons lair, the dragon will use its breath and will eat up anyone who stumbles while running for the exit.
It wouldn't be much fun if you never risk anything, and when a character dies in such situations, most players are okay with it. And if they really don't want it to happen, they have to find ways to achieve their goals without putting the characters into real danger, wich is also very fun to play.

mrpitchfork
2010-05-23, 01:57 PM
{Scrubbed}

Matthew
2010-05-23, 02:06 PM
Well lucky you. However not all grown ups act as grown ups.

Of course not, but you are better off playing (or indeed living) with ones who are.



And it would be even better if books were free, there were instant learning machines and there was world peace as an extra.

Unfortunately, the world is imperfect, and in my country where society itself teaches you to be lazy and cheating whenever possible to succeed and such behaviours are actually seen as "cool", finding players not inclined to cheat is a precious luxury, not something to be expected. Heck in my MTG times you would need to always keep one eye on your opponent and the other on your own cards to make sure no sneaky jerk would steal them. Not to mention all the "forgetting" of rules whenever it was convenient for them.

Sounds like you have a root cause problem. A failure of trust and respect within a group for a supposedly cooperative and non-competitive game needs to be addressed at the source, which is to say the participants. Building trust is not necessarily easy, but it is perfectly possible with even players who habitually cheat at Magic the Gathering or whatever.

erikun
2010-05-23, 10:52 PM
My first suggestion to Mr. Pitchfork would be: perhaps collaborative storytelling is more your style? If you and your friends are interesting in making creative and suspenseful stories with your characters, perhaps it would just be better to brainstorm a plot and challanges together rather than have one person create a setting and the rest of the people merely interact with their sole characters.

If you are still looking for a system, then freeform roleplaying will probably work best. Amber diceless has already been mentioned as a system that doesn't use dice, and I believe the Mind's Eye Theatre line of books have ways around the whole dice mechanic.

Any system you use will have the ability to run combat. In fact, it would be very strange for a system not to be combat-capable, and I wonder how well such a system would run. Just because you've seen a system ran combat-heavy (freeform, in this case) does not mean that all games in that system will be combat-heavy, especially in your specific group.

On the other hand, reading through your posts, I wonder if the problem really is the system at all. You mention you dislike dice rolling because combat takes too long. You mention that random elements are a problem because players should have control of their characters. Neither of these are dependant upon the other; this sounds more like a gaming philosophy problem than a system problem. There is nothing in D&D which says you need to roll up random encounters, or have X number of fights each level. There is also no rule dictating that theree natural 20's is an automatic death. (and you can always change such rules if there are)

You might want to check out a few different systems which emphasize the roleplay or character interaction aspect over the combat aspect of the game. World of Darkness generally focuses on the PCs interacting with NPCs and the plot rather than killing everything. Mouse Guard/Burning Wheel has a mechanic where failed rolls result in "complications" or additional challanges rather than just failure. Faery's Tale has a mechanic where the players can introduce additional challanges in exchance for Essence (HP/magical power).

Seeing as it sounds like the problem is not necessarily combat but plot-irrelevant combat, you could even use a more "combat heavy" system like Mutants and Masterminds or Exalted where it is assumed that fights are either significant to the plot or so easy they barely need to even be run.

Optimystik
2010-05-23, 11:31 PM
Read my posts more closely. Phoenix and I were on a tangent entirely, with Phoenix charging that it was impossible to get that without dice and without going to freeform.

Eh? I don't care about "tangents." I bolded Phoenix's statement because it mirrored my own stance towards the OP, and the tradeoff he was experiencing between the story and game aspects of the tabletop. Whatever side argument you were having was never relevant to me, so I'm not sure on what grounds you were pronouncing me "wrong."