kyoryu
2010-11-12, 07:47 PM
Had some random thoughts, high on theory but with real-world outcomes, and wanted to get them out for discussion...
The Core of Roleplaying
At its simplest, roleplaying (in terms of RPGs) is a pretty simple game. The GM describes a situation, the players tell the GM what they want to do in reaction, and the GM describes the results of their actions. This is the fundamental core of a role-playing game, and everything else is, pretty much, details.
In most cases, the GM can simply decide by fiat what happens. A player wants to open a window? Sure, no problem. There's now a cool breeze in the room, since the GM knew it was a brisk autumn day. The players insult the King? He yells and orders the guards to throw them in the dungeon.
The Role of Mechanics
This is all fine and dandy for a great number of situations. However, many times several results are possible. A character gets into a duel? Well, he could win, or lose. Either option is possible, and both could make the story interesting. The GM doesn't really want to make the decision by fiat. So, there's some chance the player will win, and some chance they'll lose. Why not roll a die to figure out which one happened?
Essentially, this is what any RPG mechanic exists to do - help the GM decide between one of multiple possible outcomes.
Player Decisions
"Gameplay is a series of interesting decisions." - Sid Meier
Mechanics should be used to decide the result of player decisions and actions, and only the result of player decisions and actions - in other words, a player decision should lead to each roll. This might seem to go against things such as random monster tables, but it doesn't, really - the random monster table is rolled in response to a player decision to travel through a particular area. Since there are a number of possible results to this (the characters arrive safely, they encounter something on the way, weather turns bad and the characters have to deal with this, etc.), a random roll is perfectly appropriate.
I think this is a pretty important guideline - do not require random rolls for things a player has not made a decision about! If you are forcing a player to walk down a hall, don't roll to see if there's a trap there. They haven't made the decision (unless them being forced to walk down the hall is a consequence of an earlier decision...), so springing a lethal trap on them is not gameplay at all.
Designing Play
Each time the GM says, "huh, I don't know what happens" acts as a decision point. When encountering one of these points, the GM should consider the possible outcomes, and use mechanics to determine between them.
If there is only one acceptable outcome, don't use mechanics! There's no point. If the game absolutely requires that the players notice the key under the mat, they notice the key. No roll is required (though rolling to preserve the *illusion* of chance is fine).
Also, make sure that whenever you give the result of an action up to the dice, that you've considered the possible results, and the impact they will have on a game. Orcs randomly ambush the party? Fine - what are the possible outcomes? The obvious outcomes are TPK, or all of the orcs dying. But is that really how you want the game to run? Will you be willing to wipe out the party due to an orc ambush? If so, fine, but otherwise, either come up with other outcomes for the party, or remove the encounter. Instead of killing the players, the orcs could knock them out and capture them, leading to the players needing to escape from captivity. "Orcs losing" and "players getting captured" are more interesting outcomes than "orcs die" or "TPK."
Don't get too bogged down in details, either. If the players enter the Deadly Maze of Death to get the Artifact of McGuffin, you don't need to worry (too much) about the possible outcomes of every room. There's only a couple of possible outcomes for the expedition into the DMD - they'll either TPK, fail to get the McGuffin, or get the McGuffin. How will you deal with those?
The danger is in having only one acceptable outcome to a decision "area." If this is the case, players can start to feel like their decisions don't actually matter, and can feel railroaded. If they *have* to get the McGuffin, and you don't allow them to fail in it, their intermediate decisions have no consequences, and there is, effectively, no game actually being played - just the DM telling a story (which is okay, if that's what you want).
Decisions, not Mechanics
THE RULES DON'T MATTER.
Rolling dice is not playing a game. Adding more dice rolls does not make a game interesting. If the players do not have meaningful choices, no matter how many dice they roll, the game will become dull. If the warrior's only option in combat is "hit thing with axe," and there's only one thing to hit, then the game is going to get pretty dull for the warrior after a while (at least in combat...). Adding more rolls to determine where the warrior hit, and how deep the axe went, and which move the warrior used, will not make it more interesting.
In this case, you're adding mechanics, while leaving the warrior without even a single decision. That's a simulation, not a game.
Failing Without Failing
In many games, the assumption is that players will have a single character that they will play throughout the campaign. This is fine. However, it can lead to a playstyle where players succeed at everything because loss of that character is not considered an option. What a game like this needs is a way to fail without causing player death.
To do so, look at the outcomes of an encounter. Instead of the outcomes being "life/death," look at the role of the encounter in the story or world. Why are the characters fighting? Most intelligent beings will avoid life/death confrontations unless pushed to it. Are the PCs trying to defeat an agent of the enemy? Then perhaps a more interesting combat can be around attempting to stop the enemy before he escapes, leaving the outcomes as "enemy escapes/doesn't escape" instead. Or perhaps the players are in a race to acquire an artifact, in which case a "loss" in combat can simply be a matter of using more resources than anticipated, causing them to be more likely to lose the race.
Planning for Failure
If the success of the players is up to mechanics and rolls, there's a chance of failure. As I said before, if you're not going to let the players fail, don't roll. This means that you'd better plan for what happens if they *do* fail!
If the only way into the secret fortress is to find the hidden passage, that's not a good time for a roll. If that has to happen for the plot to advance, *it happens.* If you want to actually allow the players to fail to find the passage, offer other ways for them to get into the fortress. Maybe they can capture someone getting in, and interrogate them. Maybe they can track someone entering the fortress to find the hidden entrance. Maybe they can infiltrate the organization, or sneak in, or something else.
If the players *can* fail, make sure you have a plan for if they do fail. If you don't have a plan, don't even let failure ever be an option.
And remember, even then, failure should be predicated on player decisions, not simply random rolls. Don't hinge your entire game on the result of a die roll you make unprompted, with no actual decisions being made by players.
Decisions and Information
For a decision to be fun, you need to make sure of a couple of things:
1. The players need to know they *can* make a decision
2. The players need to have enough information to make an informed decision
3. The players need to have an end result in mind
Simply presenting the characters with 3 identical cups of liquid, and telling them that they're forced to drink one, but two are poison, without giving them any way to differentiate between the cups is not gameplay. It's not fun. Yes, you're giving them choice, but it's not a choice that they can make an informed decision about.
Randomness as Spice
As GMs, we typically figure out what the most likely thing is to happen, and go with that result. However, that can easily lead to a boring world where everything is predictable and dull. So... roll the dice! Are the characters talking to a merchant? Roll a quick d100 to see how he reacts. Got a 100? Maybe it's a case of mistaken identity, a long-lost friend, or someone from the character's past. You don't even really need a table to do this, just roll the dice! Pick some likely options, and roll to see how "accurate" each possibility is, when you find something you like and rolled high, go with it!
Doing this can help you, as a GM, break out of ruts and provide interesting variations without making every encounter completely bizarre. Sure, most merchant encounters will go as planned, and be routine, but the one that actually is strange will likely be remembered, and may result in a long-term NPC that adds richness to the campaign.
At the same time, though, never be beholden to your random rolls. Remember that all the dice are doing is helping you, the GM, choose between possibilities. If a possibility is not acceptable or is nonsensical, it shouldn't be on the table to begin with. Even if rolling 00 on the encounter table 3 times in a row means you summoned Cthulhu, so what? If that breaks your game, it doesn't happen.
Using Randomness as a Player
Random rolling isn't just the domain of the GM. As a player, it's also an incredibly useful tool. Let your character tell you what he wants! Is a guard intimidating your character? Well, you might decide he'd probably back down, but there's a chance he's just in a bad mood and goes ballistic. Figure a 20% chance of meltdown and... roll the dice! He sees a pretty woman? Roll the dice to see his reaction! Maybe a pattern emerges that he reacts really well to blond women - if so, go with it, and let that become part of the character's personality.
The Core of Roleplaying
At its simplest, roleplaying (in terms of RPGs) is a pretty simple game. The GM describes a situation, the players tell the GM what they want to do in reaction, and the GM describes the results of their actions. This is the fundamental core of a role-playing game, and everything else is, pretty much, details.
In most cases, the GM can simply decide by fiat what happens. A player wants to open a window? Sure, no problem. There's now a cool breeze in the room, since the GM knew it was a brisk autumn day. The players insult the King? He yells and orders the guards to throw them in the dungeon.
The Role of Mechanics
This is all fine and dandy for a great number of situations. However, many times several results are possible. A character gets into a duel? Well, he could win, or lose. Either option is possible, and both could make the story interesting. The GM doesn't really want to make the decision by fiat. So, there's some chance the player will win, and some chance they'll lose. Why not roll a die to figure out which one happened?
Essentially, this is what any RPG mechanic exists to do - help the GM decide between one of multiple possible outcomes.
Player Decisions
"Gameplay is a series of interesting decisions." - Sid Meier
Mechanics should be used to decide the result of player decisions and actions, and only the result of player decisions and actions - in other words, a player decision should lead to each roll. This might seem to go against things such as random monster tables, but it doesn't, really - the random monster table is rolled in response to a player decision to travel through a particular area. Since there are a number of possible results to this (the characters arrive safely, they encounter something on the way, weather turns bad and the characters have to deal with this, etc.), a random roll is perfectly appropriate.
I think this is a pretty important guideline - do not require random rolls for things a player has not made a decision about! If you are forcing a player to walk down a hall, don't roll to see if there's a trap there. They haven't made the decision (unless them being forced to walk down the hall is a consequence of an earlier decision...), so springing a lethal trap on them is not gameplay at all.
Designing Play
Each time the GM says, "huh, I don't know what happens" acts as a decision point. When encountering one of these points, the GM should consider the possible outcomes, and use mechanics to determine between them.
If there is only one acceptable outcome, don't use mechanics! There's no point. If the game absolutely requires that the players notice the key under the mat, they notice the key. No roll is required (though rolling to preserve the *illusion* of chance is fine).
Also, make sure that whenever you give the result of an action up to the dice, that you've considered the possible results, and the impact they will have on a game. Orcs randomly ambush the party? Fine - what are the possible outcomes? The obvious outcomes are TPK, or all of the orcs dying. But is that really how you want the game to run? Will you be willing to wipe out the party due to an orc ambush? If so, fine, but otherwise, either come up with other outcomes for the party, or remove the encounter. Instead of killing the players, the orcs could knock them out and capture them, leading to the players needing to escape from captivity. "Orcs losing" and "players getting captured" are more interesting outcomes than "orcs die" or "TPK."
Don't get too bogged down in details, either. If the players enter the Deadly Maze of Death to get the Artifact of McGuffin, you don't need to worry (too much) about the possible outcomes of every room. There's only a couple of possible outcomes for the expedition into the DMD - they'll either TPK, fail to get the McGuffin, or get the McGuffin. How will you deal with those?
The danger is in having only one acceptable outcome to a decision "area." If this is the case, players can start to feel like their decisions don't actually matter, and can feel railroaded. If they *have* to get the McGuffin, and you don't allow them to fail in it, their intermediate decisions have no consequences, and there is, effectively, no game actually being played - just the DM telling a story (which is okay, if that's what you want).
Decisions, not Mechanics
THE RULES DON'T MATTER.
Rolling dice is not playing a game. Adding more dice rolls does not make a game interesting. If the players do not have meaningful choices, no matter how many dice they roll, the game will become dull. If the warrior's only option in combat is "hit thing with axe," and there's only one thing to hit, then the game is going to get pretty dull for the warrior after a while (at least in combat...). Adding more rolls to determine where the warrior hit, and how deep the axe went, and which move the warrior used, will not make it more interesting.
In this case, you're adding mechanics, while leaving the warrior without even a single decision. That's a simulation, not a game.
Failing Without Failing
In many games, the assumption is that players will have a single character that they will play throughout the campaign. This is fine. However, it can lead to a playstyle where players succeed at everything because loss of that character is not considered an option. What a game like this needs is a way to fail without causing player death.
To do so, look at the outcomes of an encounter. Instead of the outcomes being "life/death," look at the role of the encounter in the story or world. Why are the characters fighting? Most intelligent beings will avoid life/death confrontations unless pushed to it. Are the PCs trying to defeat an agent of the enemy? Then perhaps a more interesting combat can be around attempting to stop the enemy before he escapes, leaving the outcomes as "enemy escapes/doesn't escape" instead. Or perhaps the players are in a race to acquire an artifact, in which case a "loss" in combat can simply be a matter of using more resources than anticipated, causing them to be more likely to lose the race.
Planning for Failure
If the success of the players is up to mechanics and rolls, there's a chance of failure. As I said before, if you're not going to let the players fail, don't roll. This means that you'd better plan for what happens if they *do* fail!
If the only way into the secret fortress is to find the hidden passage, that's not a good time for a roll. If that has to happen for the plot to advance, *it happens.* If you want to actually allow the players to fail to find the passage, offer other ways for them to get into the fortress. Maybe they can capture someone getting in, and interrogate them. Maybe they can track someone entering the fortress to find the hidden entrance. Maybe they can infiltrate the organization, or sneak in, or something else.
If the players *can* fail, make sure you have a plan for if they do fail. If you don't have a plan, don't even let failure ever be an option.
And remember, even then, failure should be predicated on player decisions, not simply random rolls. Don't hinge your entire game on the result of a die roll you make unprompted, with no actual decisions being made by players.
Decisions and Information
For a decision to be fun, you need to make sure of a couple of things:
1. The players need to know they *can* make a decision
2. The players need to have enough information to make an informed decision
3. The players need to have an end result in mind
Simply presenting the characters with 3 identical cups of liquid, and telling them that they're forced to drink one, but two are poison, without giving them any way to differentiate between the cups is not gameplay. It's not fun. Yes, you're giving them choice, but it's not a choice that they can make an informed decision about.
Randomness as Spice
As GMs, we typically figure out what the most likely thing is to happen, and go with that result. However, that can easily lead to a boring world where everything is predictable and dull. So... roll the dice! Are the characters talking to a merchant? Roll a quick d100 to see how he reacts. Got a 100? Maybe it's a case of mistaken identity, a long-lost friend, or someone from the character's past. You don't even really need a table to do this, just roll the dice! Pick some likely options, and roll to see how "accurate" each possibility is, when you find something you like and rolled high, go with it!
Doing this can help you, as a GM, break out of ruts and provide interesting variations without making every encounter completely bizarre. Sure, most merchant encounters will go as planned, and be routine, but the one that actually is strange will likely be remembered, and may result in a long-term NPC that adds richness to the campaign.
At the same time, though, never be beholden to your random rolls. Remember that all the dice are doing is helping you, the GM, choose between possibilities. If a possibility is not acceptable or is nonsensical, it shouldn't be on the table to begin with. Even if rolling 00 on the encounter table 3 times in a row means you summoned Cthulhu, so what? If that breaks your game, it doesn't happen.
Using Randomness as a Player
Random rolling isn't just the domain of the GM. As a player, it's also an incredibly useful tool. Let your character tell you what he wants! Is a guard intimidating your character? Well, you might decide he'd probably back down, but there's a chance he's just in a bad mood and goes ballistic. Figure a 20% chance of meltdown and... roll the dice! He sees a pretty woman? Roll the dice to see his reaction! Maybe a pattern emerges that he reacts really well to blond women - if so, go with it, and let that become part of the character's personality.