PDA

View Full Version : Sid Meier, D&D, and Why TRPGs are About Fighting Monsters



GreatWyrmGold
2018-01-31, 03:56 PM
Blog Post (https://greatwyrmgab.wordpress.com/2018/01/31/sid-meier-dd-and-why-trpgs-are-all-about-fighting-monsters/)

Summary: If games are a series of interesting choices, how do roleplaying games stack up? Do their systems support many types of interesting choice, or is the burden left entirely on the end user? How does this affect the kind of games we play?

I hope the people on this forum find my points and arguments thought-provoking, or at least interesting.

Max_Killjoy
2018-01-31, 04:10 PM
CRPG and TTRPG are similar things, but also deeply different despite the similar names. Analyzing TTRPGs as CRPGs, without first adapting the principles and tools used, strikes me as a mistake, if that's where this is going.

Published adventures being "the foundation" of GMs' understanding of "appropriate" adventures, and combat being the core focus of "most" TTRPGs, strikes me as a very "D&D-centric" PoV. As someone who's now played far more HERO-based campaigns, oWoD campaigns, and homebrew-system campaigns than anything to do with D&D/d20/PF, neither one is universally true.

HERO is still probably my favorite published system, maybe because for me, putting the "burden" of interesting choices on the "end user" is a strength of TTRPGs, not a liability at all. In fact, I'd say that most CPRGs have more illusionism than real choices anyway.

Knaight
2018-01-31, 04:29 PM
A lot of this article seems to be extrapolating way too much from later D&D. D&D as a system is very combat focused, later D&D favors highly linear modules (early D&D explicitly didn't), the claim that there's no indie RPG community is just wrong, so on and so forth.

There's also the matter of how the focus on interesting mechanical challenges ignores major strengths of TPRGs. Even in very traditional games TRPGs are characterized by an extreme breadth of approach, and while actually executing one step of an approach might be a die roll picking between them isn't.

Tanarii
2018-01-31, 04:37 PM
This kinda lost me at "When you’re rolling dice, you’re not making decisions. Sure, with the right GM you might be able to make choices ahead of time for some circumstance modifiers, but that’s reliant on the GM and the situation, and it may or may not be worth the effort."

First of all, combat, which is held up as where most RPGs put the "interesting decisions", is full of dice rolling in most RPGs.

So this misses the point of exactly how combat manages to be full of interesting decisions in most RPGs. Dice rolling resolves after each interesting decision is made. This should hold true for out of combat as well.

Here's a good 5000 or so words on the subject of where the interesting decisions are out of combat, and using dice (or not) to resolve them:
http://theangrygm.com/adjudicate-actions-like-a-boss/

Jormengand
2018-01-31, 05:34 PM
I have to say that I agree that the focus on combat is very much a D&D problem and less an RPG problem. For example, I happen to have the Song of Ice and Fire Roleplaying rules here, so let's see how much of this is about combat. Bear in mind that SoIaF is basically a setting about people murdering and/or going to war with each other for a variety of reasons.

The book is 223 pages long. Conveniently, pretty much exactly 200 are, in some capacity, rules text. 22 are about personal combat and 18 are about war, which is a fifth of the rules text - by comparison, 13 pages are about a specific type of social interaction and 29 are about creating your noble house. You just don't get a book almost entirely dedicated to combat, even in a setting almost entirely dedicated to combat. In the game I'm currently writing - the combat rules are nearly finished, and the game is nowhere near - the combat rules take up a whole 4 pages, out of 42. And it's about a crapsack world where people murder each other for the thrills.

RPGs don't have to be about combat. They can be about daring multi-part skill challenges, political intrigues, storytelling, or even a form of art as much as a game (yes, games can absolutely be art). D&D just blows at everything which isn't combat.

Tanarii
2018-01-31, 05:44 PM
In D&D 5e combat is 11 pages out of 319 pages.

Using Ability Scores is 9 pages, which is how you resolve (mostly) non-combat stuff. Adventuring (ie exploration) is 7 pages. So that is 16 pages dedicated to non-combat.

Character creation, which includes plenty of features and abilities that can be used in combat and out, is 156.

Spells, which again includes plenty that can be used in combat and out, is 91 pages.

The remainder is introduction, appendix, etc.

Going by straight page count, we can't say D&D is about combat.

In fact, in BECMI & AD&D 1e, I usually found it to be about avoiding combat. It's definitely trended towards encouraging it at the end of 2e with Combat & Tactics, and 3e's ease of use with the battle mat, and 4e's everything. But they've done a good job of making system that doesn't have to be all about combat again.

Even though I certainly make that my primary emphasis when I run 5e. :smallwink:

Jormengand
2018-01-31, 05:49 PM
Still, the fact that 5e shipped with half a skill system and monster listing after monster listing which is almost only used in combat (SIFRP, by comparison has a whole 4 pages for monsters) kinda skews the bias in favour of combat again for D&D. Plus, I believe more spells are combat ones than noncombat ones, but I'm not certain.

Morty
2018-01-31, 05:57 PM
Every modern D&D class has combat abilities. Some have combat abilities and little to no non-combat ones, but there's no class without some sort of tool for combat, except for perhaps Factotum or the Pathfinder Investigator.

Otherwise, yeah, looks like a case of taking D&D and extrapolating on the whole industry with it, plus some completely, hopelessly false claims like "there's no indie RPG community". There's arguably more indie RPGs now than ever. You list Shadowrun and World of Darkness alongside D&D... both of which are traditional, old-school RPGs when it comes down to it. But I've run two Vampire: the Requiem 2e chronicles and there was one combat scene between the two of them.

Tanarii
2018-01-31, 05:57 PM
It a got a fully fleshed out skill system. One superior to many more detailed ones.

And the MM is full of non combat stuff.

But yea I still think of it as combat heavy despite all that. Partially because that's how I use it, and partially because a large chunk of character capacity is combat oriented, including spells. My point was more that page count isn't necessarily indicative.

Anonymouswizard
2018-01-31, 06:04 PM
I'm agreeing with the heavy D&D focus. While I do own both D&D5e and various D&D-alikes (such as Fantasy AGE, which I see as a game which kept some of the good ideas from 4e, and Lamentations of the Flame Princess, as well as other retroclones in PDF), as well as 2e. Looking at my physical bookshelf, I've got one combat focused rulesets, some danger avoidance focused rulesets, some metacurrency driven ruleset, several rulesets that claim to not be combat driven but are, one geared around diving problems without combat, and so on. Of you go into the indie scene more than I have done you even her such things as relationship focused games (which yes, I very much want copies of.

Secondly, tabletop games design is a field that is still active and there is discussion about it, it's just not as common. But if game toolkits such as Fudge can exist and sell then there's certainly an interest in it.

EDIT: for 5e 80% of class abilities are combat focused, and at least 40% of spells (I suspect the number's closer to 60%). Plus there's a core book entirely about monsters, anybody who owns it care to take a stab at how much is combat stats and tactics and how much is fluff and combat stuff?

There's nothing wrong with a combat focused game, the focus made D&D4e great, and it makes Fantasy AGE great. But we shouldn't be insisting combat focused games aren't what they are.

Friv
2018-01-31, 06:11 PM
So, I have three thoughts:

Thought #1 - I've read a lot of published World of Darkness adventures, and very few of them used combat as the primary engine. Many of them had no combat at all, including the default storyline published in the core book of 1st Edition Vampire the Masquerade. So right off the bat, I don't think your premise is valid. My experience with published adventures for GURPS or Shadowrun is much less.

Thought #2 - I don't think you're correct in saying that there isn't a massive indie community for TRPGs, and many of those RPGs have little to no combat.

Thought #3 - You're extrapolating a lot when you say even that "A majority (or at least a plurality) of most RPGs’ core rulebooks are devoted to combat, to the rules for combat and the weapons or spells used for fighting and the special abilities the characters have, with the lists of spells and other special abilities typically focused primarily on spells which affect the combat." Again, that's generally true for D&D, but the majority of spells and special abilities in most game systems aren't actually combat based, unless it's a combat based game.

There's a nugget here worth examining, but you're using broad strokes instead.

Mechalich
2018-01-31, 06:29 PM
There are emotional choices in Fire Emblem? Come on, be serious for a second.

Fire Emblem games are sufficiently difficult - if you play on anything but the easiest diff level - that every choice must be made based on a principle of absolute probability optimization in order to merely survive.

More broadly it is extremely common for a game to offer the illusion of interesting decisions while being burdened with one true playstyle that you are obligated to more or less follow no matter what. This is particularly true for games like Civilization and many other strategy games. Sure you can play as different groups, but most variation is cosmetic and there's a sequence of opening moves that you must make to be competitive at reasonably high difficulties. Competitive games like Starcraft and MOBAs have these sorts of build orders plotted out down to the second.

Also just as the indy TTRPG game scene is small compared to the combat-focused core market, the same is absolutely true of CRPGs. The dominant games on the market all have very linear storylines. Even massive open-world games like Skyrim don't offer much int he way of choices when it comes to actually completing quests. Aside from a tiny number of scripted choice points in each game (something also found in 'choices matter' game like Mass Effect) there really is only the choice to succeed, fail, or go on a massive plot-savaging murder spree.

Tanarii
2018-01-31, 06:46 PM
several rulesets that claim to not be combat driven but arePalladium, especially Rifts, is a good example of this. Seimbieda would always go on and on about character this and story that ... but his games were chock full of combat classes, combat rules, combat weapons, combat robots, combat aliens/demons, and combat-oriented adventures.

OTOH pretty much everything Seimbeida said or wrote outside of the actual game rules were him talking out his ass. So that's hardly suprising.

calam
2018-01-31, 07:06 PM
Palladium, especially Rifts, is a good example of this. Seimbieda would always go on and on about character this and story that ... but his games were chock full of combat classes, combat rules, combat weapons, combat robots, combat aliens/demons, and combat-oriented adventures.

OTOH pretty much everything Seimbeida said or wrote outside of the actual game rules were him talking out his ass. So that's hardly suprising.

I think horror themed games tend to be the worst when it comes to not being about combat but actually are since things like call of Cthulhu and World of Darkness still have special combat chapters while having no chapters for other types of rules and massive lists of weapons compared to other tools (I mean one edition of Call of Cthulhu fully stats out a howitzer!).

Darth Ultron
2018-02-01, 12:19 AM
Most TRPG's are all about combat. Of course, this is our culture as most entertainment is about combat/action/adventure/competition.

D&D has always been about combat. The game only has hit points, attacks and combat options. How do you stop a foe in D&D? You kill them. Sure D&D has tried to soften the ''killer combat'' side...but never too much. It's not like D&D has ever added a ''conflict resolution system'' where characters can ''work out differences in peace and harmony''. Like just think using the d20 model of a whole system of characters with a personal shell rating(aka AC), will points(hp) where you'd make a point(attack) with your base influence bonus. And have all the abilities, powers, spells and monsters support this. Basically a whole other complex system just like combat.

But RPGs, and even D&D, have always been more of a starting point: a nice base for some Rule Reality. A system that gamers can agree on to use as a starting point base. And you can just roll play a TRPG just like a video game....or you can make it into something much more with role playing. And storytelling and drama and so forth. And that is the real beauty of TRPGs, you can make them anything you want them to be.

Lord Vukodlak
2018-02-01, 01:51 AM
Yesterday our group of adventures spent almost the entire secession on a murder mystery. Someone had killed this tailor and possibly another one a couple weeks prior. We investigated and long story short. The guy was a serial killer who skinned people to make a suite of leather armor and he killed both tailors when they came close to uncovering the truth, among his victims were children. In three hours we had one fight against him, the rest was gathering clues, figuring out what happened and roleplay.

We captured him alive and brought him to the guard so he could face trial. Francis as he was no named was later executed by waterwheel. My Bard wrote a song about it, then got the crown to sing it.

The Freak on the wheel goes round and round
Round and round, round and round
The Freak on the wheel goes round and round
Until he Drowns.

Furthermore I took a seat above said execution device and would stop singing when he went under only to resume once he was again above water.

Milo v3
2018-02-01, 07:55 AM
Most TTRPGs I've played haven't had a combat focus, and I've run multiple D&D sessions which ended up having no combat at all. TTRPGs are only limited to "Fighting Monsters" if you choose for it to be that limited.

Darth Ultron
2018-02-01, 07:58 AM
TRPG's also have to be linear as that is just how reality works. Things have a start, a middle and an end. And, assuming your game play makes sense and is based on reality as we know it, then your game must be linear.

A published adventure has to be linear, as well it makes sense, is based on reality and has a start, middle and end. After all, the only other way would be for page one of the adventure to say only ''do whatever random stuff you want''. You'd have lots of pages that just said ''whatever'', then the last page of the adventure would say ''the end''.

Yes, there is the sub-non-game type activity of Storytelling TRPGs, made by people that dislike and hate normal TRPGs. And they do have a following. Plenty of people love the Story Now ''And Then'' activity that is sort of like a game. It's fun, for them, to make a random mess of ''and thens'' for a couple hours...then randomly stop and look back and be amazed at the random story they all made together.

Milo v3
2018-02-01, 08:01 AM
TRPG's also have to be linear as that is just how reality works. Things have a start, a middle and an end. And, assuming your game play makes sense and is based on reality as we know it, then your game must be linear.
*Looks at sandbox games which have been done by RPG players for many many many years*

Darth Ultron
2018-02-01, 08:37 AM
*Looks at sandbox games which have been done by RPG players for many many many years*

I did mention the sub-non-game type activity of Storytelling TRPGs, so I got that covered.


For a otherwise normal game it's only ''sort of a sandbox'' and then only ''sort of like that'' for a short time. Yes, lots of games just love getting together and having a non-game like activity where they don't really do anything of any note or consequence. For many it's a great fun, casual time to just do nothing...or very little...and just relax. And some people can do this activity for hours on end.

Most gamers, though, at some point, do what to ''play a game'' and that means do something with a Story, Plot and structure that is linear. So sure they will ''sandbox'' it for a while, and then want to play ''for real''.

Milo v3
2018-02-01, 09:03 AM
I did mention the sub-non-game type activity of Storytelling TRPGs, so I got that covered.


For a otherwise normal game it's only ''sort of a sandbox'' and then only ''sort of like that'' for a short time. Yes, lots of games just love getting together and having a non-game like activity where they don't really do anything of any note or consequence. For many it's a great fun, casual time to just do nothing...or very little...and just relax. And some people can do this activity for hours on end.

Most gamers, though, at some point, do what to ''play a game'' and that means do something with a Story, Plot and structure that is linear. So sure they will ''sandbox'' it for a while, and then want to play ''for real''.

Dude, deal with the fact your game preferences aren't universal. Just because a game isn't linear doesn't mean that they're not doing anything of note or consequence or that isn't playing for real. You're obsession on "My way is the only way" has gotten pretty old and boring of an argument. It's especially ridiculous considering their are RPGs which are intended to be played non-linearly, like Lords of Creation and Exalted.

SirGraystone
2018-02-01, 09:32 AM
How much D&D is about combat or not is up to the DM and the players. I had evening of no stop combat for hours trying to get out of a dungeon alive. I had other with no combat at all, exploring a city looking for informations.

RPG are games about imagination, don't limit yourself.

Heroes can invited to a noble manor and find themselves in the middle of a murder mystery, find out the noble are secretly evil cultist, run after a thief, or just making powerful friends while enjoying wine and fine food.

Travelers meeting robbers on the road can of course fight them, but could use persuasion skill to tell them they have little worth stealing, intimidation to scare them away, offer them some gold and warning that if they want more they'll have to bleed for it, when told by the robbers that road are not safe offer to hire them as guards for their trip.

Who said a dragon need to be meet in battle? Be polite to them, offer them praise, talks to them maybe that green dragon is only causing trouble because lumberjacks are cutting down her forest. But them maybe the Duke who hired the PCs already know that but is too greedy to stop cutting trees and don't care about a few peasants killed by the dragon.

Let your mind go wild :smallbiggrin:

Darth Ultron
2018-02-01, 09:36 AM
Dude, deal with the fact your game preferences aren't universal. Just because a game isn't linear doesn't mean that they're not doing anything of note or consequence or that isn't playing for real. You're obsession on "My way is the only way" has gotten pretty old and boring of an argument. It's especially ridiculous considering their are RPGs which are intended to be played non-linearly, like Lords of Creation and Exalted.

As I said, some people like the sub-non-game type activity of Storytelling TRPGs. There is nothing wrong with that. It has nothing to do with my way.

Though, yes, if your going to do anything of note or consequence then yes you need a story, plot, and a lineal structure. Unless your doing the Storyteller Activity.

I'll admit I know noting about Exalted. So how is it non-linear? Like how does the game work if you can't have ''the DM has something happen'' and then the ''players have their characters react to that'' and then the ''DM reacts to that''. So how does it work with out things happening in a linear structure?

Earthwalker
2018-02-01, 09:42 AM
As I said, some people like the sub-non-game type activity of Storytelling TRPGs. There is nothing wrong with that. It has nothing to do with my way.

Though, yes, if your going to do anything of note or consequence then yes you need a story, plot, and a lineal structure. Unless your doing the Storyteller Activity.

I'll admit I know noting about Exalted. So how is it non-linear? Like how does the game work if you can't have ''the DM has something happen'' and then the ''players have their characters react to that'' and then the ''DM reacts to that''. So how does it work with out things happening in a linear structure?

Just because it is not your preference does not make it "not a game"

Knaight
2018-02-01, 10:06 AM
Still, the fact that 5e shipped with half a skill system and monster listing after monster listing which is almost only used in combat (SIFRP, by comparison has a whole 4 pages for monsters) kinda skews the bias in favour of combat again for D&D. Plus, I believe more spells are combat ones than noncombat ones, but I'm not certain.

I'd disagree on the skill system (light and flexible works fine for some people), but having a book literally titled Monster Manual is pretty much the perfect example of D&D being heavily combat focused.

Anonymouswizard
2018-02-01, 10:40 AM
Most TTRPGs I've played haven't had a combat focus, and I've run multiple D&D sessions which ended up having no combat at all. TTRPGs are only limited to "Fighting Monsters" if you choose for it to be that limited.

There's a difference between rules focus and game focus. Essentially, D&D's rules are focused on combat because most of the individual powers and abilities focus on it (in fact noncombat mundane equipment barely gets rules beyond 'it's an X').

A D&D game could be focused anywhere, I'll admit I've not really played a session that has been more than 60% combat, 40% combat is the norm in my experience (and I had one that was 0% combat, although it was heavy on the wilderness exploration as we were playing kids learning to do exactly that). My favourite GM would run GURPS where combat appeared about once every other session, although the amount shot up when he ran a supers game (which included the official ruling 'the primary language spoken is whatever's spoken in the country, the change the words in the speech bubbles').


How much D&D is about combat or not is up to the DM and the players. I had evening of no stop combat for hours trying to get out of a dungeon alive. I had other with no combat at all, exploring a city looking for informations.

RPG are games about imagination, don't limit yourself.

I think we also have to realise that to some people noncombat rules are limiting, to others they're inspirational. I fall into the latter category, in a 5e game I'll spend most of my time thinking about combat (or spellcasting) because it's the only thing with dedicated rules. In a GUMSHOE game I'm more likely to think about investigating, because GUMSHOE has rules for investigation. A game that goes into detail describing how to model relationships between your PC and other character and organisations will get me thinking about social actions, even if the rules don't have a social influence system beyond 'roll a check'.

Again let me bring up a key point, combat doesn't need anywhere near as many rules as RPGs tend to give it. If you don't want to fiat combat you can resolve it in one roll. RPGs essentially have complex combat rules because people expect RPGs to have complex combat rules, partially because people expect RPGs to be like D&D.


I'd disagree on the skill system (light and flexible works fine for some people), but having a book literally titled Monster Manual is pretty much the perfect example of D&D being heavily combat focused.

This is one of the few times that I've wished this forum had a like button.

They might as well have called the book 'things to stab', because that's what 90% of the book is used for 90% of the time. No, I don't know why a unicorn is in the middle of a dungeon, but the GM put one there (okay, never had that, but the number of times I've seen hydras out of their natural habitat, and then GMs not changing the result of Knowledge checks because it's just there to be killed).

Tanarii
2018-02-01, 10:59 AM
I'd disagree on the skill system (light and flexible works fine for some people), but having a book literally titled Monster Manual is pretty much the perfect example of D&D being heavily combat focused.
You might want to browse it. Roughly half (?) the book is the lore/personality text, or art so you know what you're dealing with (important in any RPG). And this is with a book intentionally full of antagonists for the PCs. Volos is even more lore oriented.

That's probably still pretty high directly combat-oriented content, but it's a lot lower than most people seem to assume.


No, I don't know why a unicorn is in the middle of a dungeon, but the GM put one thereUnicorns man, let me tell you about Unicorns ...

I don't think I've ever encountered a Unicorn in D&D that wasn't a deadly enemy guarding something I was on a quest to retrieve. I remember reading the Dresden series unicorns and being like, Yup, that's Unicorns to a T.

Rhedyn
2018-02-01, 11:06 AM
Combat is a great time killer and very easy to prep for.

And for some, it's the only thing they have fun with.

Max_Killjoy
2018-02-01, 11:25 AM
There's a difference between rules focus and game focus. Essentially, D&D's rules are focused on combat because most of the individual powers and abilities focus on it (in fact noncombat mundane equipment barely gets rules beyond 'it's an X').


Agreed. Unfortunately, there's this philosophy out there that the rules must reflect what a game is "about" and that a game must be "about" what its rules detail. So if you want some social conflict in your game it is a must that you use a system actual detailed rules for social conflict.




Again let me bring up a key point, combat doesn't need anywhere near as many rules as RPGs tend to give it. If you don't want to fiat combat you can resolve it in one roll. RPGs essentially have complex combat rules because people expect RPGs to have complex combat rules, partially because people expect RPGs to be like D&D.


However, if someone wants variety in how they approach combat and for the system to reflect that variety, there is a minimum complexity needed. As an example, a single-roll system doesn't allow for two character fighting sword-and-shield to really reflect that one is more agile while one is stronger, or that the characters are actively using their shields to interrupt attacks, push each other, etc.

Anonymouswizard
2018-02-01, 11:59 AM
Agreed. Unfortunately, there's this philosophy out there that the rules must reflect what a game is "about" and that a game must be "about" what its rules detail. So if you want some social conflict in your game it is a must that you use a system actual detailed rules for social conflict.

True, I tend to fall into this trap a lot because I find rules inspiring instead of limiting.


However, if someone wants variety in how they approach combat and for the system to reflect that variety, there is a minimum complexity needed. As an example, a single-roll system doesn't allow for two character fighting sword-and-shield to really reflect that one is more agile while one is stronger, or that the characters are actively using their shields to interrupt attacks, push each other, etc.

True, but that's a case of 'if combat is important it shouldn't be roll and forget'. The same applies to social interaction, although generally the 'rules' there are the rules of interacting in the real world, crafting things, exploring the wilderness, and so on. They don't have to be detailed, as there are successful games without shield bash rules, but they have to be more than 'one roll and it's done'.

There is a game setting out there about competing in a cookery show, and it includes rules for collecting important ingredients and cooking under pressure (http://drivethrurpg.com/product/205720/Uranium-Chef-o-A-World-of-Adventure-for-Fate-Core?term=uranium&test_epoch=0). It is, of course, a lot more dangerous and violent than real world ones, but the goal is for your character to get past all the steps to create stunning dishes faster and better than the other characters. No use spending all your time taking out the opponents and not making any dishes!

Florian
2018-02-01, 12:09 PM
Agreed. Unfortunately, there's this philosophy out there that the rules must reflect what a game is "about" and that a game must be "about" what its rules detail. So if you want some social conflict in your game it is a must that you use a system actual detailed rules for social conflict.

Ok, first problem, we're still talking about a game, right? So no pure RP because that ain´t really part of a game?

In another recent topic, we were talking about the "thrill" of the "potential of losing" and how combat simulates that quite well because "death" is maybe the ultimate losing condition. So?

Edit: I think this is very much a cultural as well as media-influenced thing to see "violent conflict" as the only "end condition", else you have a "fighting chance". An secret agent or undercover cop that has blows cover is normally "out". Same agent that received a "burn notice" or a samurai who "lost face" is "dead" for all practical purposes, too. Now we seem to weight a fist to fist against Don Corleones thugs as more serious than a face to face with Don Corleone, because we expect that losing at the later will result in a fist to fist, that we can still win, and so on, the circle repeats.

Jama7301
2018-02-01, 12:55 PM
There is a game setting out there about competing in a cookery show, and it includes rules for collecting important ingredients and cooking under pressure (http://drivethrurpg.com/product/205720/Uranium-Chef-o-A-World-of-Adventure-for-Fate-Core?term=uranium&test_epoch=0). It is, of course, a lot more dangerous and violent than real world ones, but the goal is for your character to get past all the steps to create stunning dishes faster and better than the other characters. No use spending all your time taking out the opponents and not making any dishes!
Wait, hold the phone what?

exelsisxax
2018-02-01, 03:05 PM
Wait, hold the phone what?

I guess i'll also suprise you with an RPG (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?290243-High-School-Harem-Comedy-(Game-System-PEACH)) about groups of teenage girls competing with each other and/or cooperating in order to individually or as a group secure the romantic interest of a helplessly clueless other party. As per the holy rules of harem anime, of course.

Jama7301
2018-02-01, 03:38 PM
I guess i'll also suprise you with an RPG (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?290243-High-School-Harem-Comedy-(Game-System-PEACH)) about groups of teenage girls competing with each other and/or cooperating in order to individually or as a group secure the romantic interest of a helplessly clueless other party. As per the holy rules of harem anime, of course.

I've seen that one posted around before, and it's still delightful. I very much enjoy seeing how different genres try to codify things into a playable ruleset.

Milo v3
2018-02-01, 06:27 PM
Agreed. Unfortunately, there's this philosophy out there that the rules must reflect what a game is "about" and that a game must be "about" what its rules detail. So if you want some social conflict in your game it is a must that you use a system actual detailed rules for social conflict.
To be fair... Why would someone build a system about "x" and then not focus their ruleset around "x"? To do it your way, there is no reason to actually play the game because another system will probably actually be a lot better at representing the campaigns thematics or setting.

Frozen_Feet
2018-02-01, 07:15 PM
As a comment on the blog: if the writer has never seen game design principles applied to tabletop games, man are they unfortunate. Similarly, their lack of awareness of the indie RPG community is sad. Can't fault them, because the hobby really does seem to live in shadow of D&D, globally speaking.

To give an idea how different things are on my end: the most notable local RPG makers tend to double as video game designers, for several that's their day job. The indie RPG community is alive and well and includes LARPers, novevelists and other creative types, so the cross-pollination of hobbies and ideas is heavy.

Now to specific questions:



Summary: If games are a series of interesting choices, how do roleplaying games stack up?

Trivially, yes, that's why they keep being played. The question here is, what is the standard to which we're stacking them up to? This goes for video games just as well. Icewind Dale and Geneforge are both CRPGs with "interesting choices", but the amount and type of choices is entirely different.


Do their systems support many types of interesting choice, or is the burden left entirely on the end user?

Depends on the game.

It's worth noting that computer games and tabletop games follow two, different modes of game design. Computer games tend towards closed, or complete design. That is: out of necessity, the entire playable space of the game must be defined by the rules, specifically, source code of the program. Failure to adhere to this makes a game unplayable on a computer.

Tabletop RPGs tend towards open or incomplete design. That is: the rules are purposefully incomplete, with the idea that a living human will serve as an Oracle to provide the missing content.

The history for the RPG way of doing things goes back to wargames and Kriegspiel. Shortly: originally, Kriegspiel was fairly complete. However, this completeness also made it rules-heavy and slowed down play. To quicken play and make the game better modem what it was meant to, some rules were eliminated and replaced with a living human who would make on-the-spot decisions in corner cases.

It was understood that this could lead to inaccuracies and unfairness in the game. Hence, it was recommended that only experts be used in this role, to ensure fidelity to reality.

That is the history of a "game master" position in a nutshell, and tabletop RPGs inherited it practically wholesale.

The underlined parts are material to your question in several ways. First we must ask: who is the end user? The players, or the GM?

If you answer "the players", then it is easy to see how a game with other, living humans as participants may allow for more intuitive communication of choices, and more choices than a closed computer game. However, this is more hypothetical than real: actual, individual humans may not be very receptive to or capable handling "interesting choices". In theory, the GM exists to lessen the burden on the players and allow them to be more flexible, in practice, it's a mixed bag. The reason is simple: because tabletop games have little way of ensuring the GM is any sort of expert.

If you think the "end user" is the "the GM", you shift the goal posts significantly. Because at that point the correct comparison is not to complete games (which are meant to be played by players), it is to game editors and engines, which are meant for a living human to create games.

And as noted, a game editor, being incomplete as a game, is not a playable game in itself. In order to get one out of such a thing, the end user, the GM, has to assume mantle of a game designer. Specifically, a scenario designer, for most tabletop games. This is a big burden and, again, tje failure of many tabletop games stems from the simple fact that the GM is not up to task.

(I'll tackle GM-less games separately later.)


How does this affect the kind of games we play?

Majority of common tabletop issues are game design issues, that is, they stem directy from the GM's inability in scenario design.

Railroading, 15-minute-workday, one-note-adventures, etc. are primarily linked to inability to make robust scenarios.

It affects how we discuss games also. Typically, players who suffer from an inept GM demand more, and more complete, rules. Or they demand that the GM's "power" (responsibilities, actually) be shared more evenly among a playgroup. This has actually sparked several trends of game and systems design within the hobby, but because the people involved often were no better than their GMs (from a game design perspective), the results were lackluster.

And that's before we get to the fact that, historically, tabletop RPGs came into existence when computer games and game design were in their infancy, and the two have existed in a feedback loop since almost day one. No, seriously, go look how long it took for someone to try computerizing D&D.

Pretty much all the "videogamey things" in RPGs are something videogames inherited from tabletop games first. The focus on combat is among those. RPGs as we know them evolved from wargames, and it just happens that the wargame part was the most complete and easiest to computerize. Things like social interactions, complex environments, drama etc. were, by contrast, much harder - not that they haven't been done and to a great degree of success too, it's just that as a matter of trivial, technological fact, it's not easy to replace imaginative human with a machine.

But, this cuts both ways. There are things which are easy for a given human to do, and things which are hard. And often what is easiest is what a person is used to. RPGs as glorified, linear tactical wargames happens because that is easier to run than the more ambituous, open-ended scenarios, because that is what was done in the past. The trend of turning genre tropes and conventions into gameable rules is more of the same: copying a known structure is easier than being truly imaginative.

Max_Killjoy
2018-02-01, 07:19 PM
Agreed. Unfortunately, there's this philosophy out there that the rules must reflect what a game is "about" and that a game must be "about" what its rules detail. So if you want some social conflict in your game it is a must that you use a system (with) actual detailed rules for social conflict.



To be fair... Why would someone build a system about "x" and then not focus their ruleset around "x"? To do it your way, there is no reason to actually play the game because another system will probably actually be a lot better at representing the campaigns thematics or setting.


I'm not arguing against the "could", or "you might want to"... I'm arguing against the notion of "must".

You don't need a system with a complex and lengthy social resolution system to have a campaign of political or court intrigue -- you might want to, or you might not want to.

Milo v3
2018-02-01, 07:43 PM
You don't need a system with a complex and lengthy social resolution system to have a campaign of political or court intrigue -- you might want to, or you might not want to.
Yeah, but there is no reason to use an RPG which is about "Politcial/Court Intrigue" if it doesn't have good systems for political intrigue. It must have a good enough political system, or there is no reason to actually play the system in the first place, and instead should probably be playing a different RPG.

Max_Killjoy
2018-02-01, 07:52 PM
Yeah, but there is no reason to use an RPG which is about "Politcial/Court Intrigue" if it doesn't have good systems for political intrigue. It must have a good enough political system, or there is no reason to actually play the system in the first place, and instead should probably be playing a different RPG.


Or a group could to decide to handle it other ways besides a good or bad in-depth system.

Milo v3
2018-02-01, 07:54 PM
Or a group could to decide to handle it other ways besides a good or bad in-depth system.

Exactly, so if they're going to do that, there is no reason to play that political system rather than a different one which will have better mechanics for the other areas of play.

Frozen_Feet
2018-02-01, 08:02 PM
Yeah, but there is no reason to use an RPG which is about "Politcial/Court Intrigue" if it doesn't have good systems for political intrigue. It must have a good enough political system, or there is no reason to actually play the system in the first place, and instead should probably be playing a different RPG.

Define "system".

As a matter of fact, a list of character bios and a chart of interpersonal relations is probably enough of a system for any sort of social intrigue on the tabletop. Then you just let people be people. This is not too different from myriad other games with important social components. How many rules does Poker have for bluffing again?

In general, the issue here seems to be about what is the purpose of rules. Wrll here's the thing: rules exist to facilitate a game. They don't necessarily tell you what the game is about. So for a political game, you need to define political roles and resources of the players, such as what nation they represent and which armies they control. You don't need to define how people talk or how to make alliances, because living humans can talk, ally and betray each other just fine without extra help from the rules.

Case in point: Diplomacy. The game is famous for its player interactions and backstabbery, the actual rules don't touch on this because most of the titular diplomacy takes place between turns and often through metagame channels.

Milo v3
2018-02-01, 08:14 PM
Define "system".

As a matter of fact, a list of character bios and a chart of interpersonal relations is probably enough of a system for any sort of social intrigue on the tabletop. Then you just let people be people. This is not too different from myriad other games with important social components. How many rules does Poker have for bluffing again?

In general, the issue here seems to be about what is the purpose of rules. Wrll here's the thing: rules exist to facilitate a game. They don't necessarily tell you what the game is about. So for a political game, you need to define political roles and resources of the players, such as what nation they represent and which armies they control. You don't need to define how people talk or how to make alliances, because living humans can talk, ally and betray each other just fine without extra help from the rules.

Case in point: Diplomacy. The game is famous for its player interactions and backstabbery, the actual rules don't touch on this because most of the titular diplomacy takes place between turns and often through metagame channels.

Yes? I agree with this completely. That's actually one of the reasons For my argument.

Frozen_Feet
2018-02-01, 08:28 PM
Well it appears to be Max's point too. So what is it you're arguing about?

Max_Killjoy
2018-02-01, 08:33 PM
Well it appears to be Max's point too. So what is it you're arguing about?


OK, so it's not just me wondering what's going on here...

Milo v3
2018-02-01, 08:39 PM
Well it appears to be Max's point too. So what is it you're arguing about?
I agreed with his rebuttal too, it's just both rebuttals don't actually argue against with my point to begin with....

Say you want to play a campaign about X. If you want mechanical backing for X's themes or general concepts, then you should look to games about X. If you don't care about mechanical backing for X's themes or general concepts, there is no point looking for games about X because your not looking for X type things in regards to how the system is.

That means that if there a game about X which doesn't actually cover the themes or general concepts of X mechanically, there is no reason for it to exist, since only people who don't want it to be mechanically backed in those areas are going to be interested playing your system, but those people then have no reason to actually play your system over more general systems that also don't mechanically back those themes or concepts.

Frozen_Feet
2018-02-01, 09:07 PM
The reason why that argument makes no sense is because people who want X from a game will look for a game which claims to be about X. Whether or not it has mechanical backing for X, for whatever value of "mechanical backing", borders on irrelevant.

For them to use a more general system which makes no claim of being about X, pretty much requires them to be already familiar with that system and confident that they can do X in that system.

The weirdness in your argument seems to stem from you coupling "wants X" and "wants mechanical backing for X". When in reality a person can just want X without any idea about how much, or which kind, of mechanical backing they'd like. Just the game proclaiming it is about X is enough of a reason to play it.

Milo v3
2018-02-01, 09:32 PM
The reason why that argument makes no sense is because people who want X from a game will look for a game which claims to be about X. Whether or not it has mechanical backing for X, for whatever value of "mechanical backing", borders on irrelevant.
Then they are wasting their time. There is literally no reason to use a system about X over a general system if it doesn't actually provide anyway to do X, since the general system means you can do your X game just as well as the "Game about X" + more.


For them to use a more general system which makes no claim of being about X, pretty much requires them to be already familiar with that system and confident that they can do X in that system.
It's rather unlikely for people to have a higher awareness of niche systems over general systems considering how niche things have much less awareness than the general ones.


The weirdness in your argument seems to stem from you coupling "wants X" and "wants mechanical backing for X".
Except I specifically describe for both people who "want x and want mechanical backing for x" and "want x and want mechanical backing for x", so that's blatantly false.... My argument is specifically based on those two positions, with only one of those positions I wouldn't believe what I believe.


When in reality a person can just want X without any idea about how much, or which kind, of mechanical backing they'd like.
YES. I AGREE. Please read my actual argument. :smallsigh:


Just the game proclaiming it is about X is enough of a reason to play it.
Except it isn't actually about X unless it actually has stuff in it about X. If D&D was marketed as a game about playing civilian merchants in the far future, that does not count as reason to play D&D for a campaign where you're civilian merchants in the far future, since it doesn't actually have anything which aids that form of campaign. You can do that campaign in it, but there is no reason to do it over a general system.

Max_Killjoy
2018-02-01, 09:54 PM
I'll go right back to where this started, and reiterate that it's mistaken to assert that a campaign "about X" must or should use a system that heavily focuses on mechanics for X, or has detailed complex mechanics for X.

If the group wants to handle X entirely as RP, entirely as GM fiat, entire by table-vote, with literal rock-paper-scissors, with quick single-roll rules, or a complex multi-resolution system, that's their preference and nothing more, and long as they all buy in, and they're all satisfied with the outcomes and the feel, it's no one else's call what they "must" or "should" use.

Personally, this is just me, even in the most social-heavy campaign, I'll never play in a campaign using rules that allow someone else (or random results) to tell me what my character thinks, or feels, or wants.


A system doesn't have to be "about" anything in the first place -- that was one of the big mistakes of The Forge, IMO.

And really, I'd rather use an all-around good system lacking detailed support for X in a campaign "about X"... than use a bad system that happens to have been made to be "about X".

Frozen_Feet
2018-02-01, 11:59 PM
@Milov3: yes, there is "no good reason" to use a specific system over a general one if the general one already does everything the specific system does... beyond the extremely obvious one that a system proclaiming it's about a thing is what gives the idea that it can be used that way.

To give an actual example, Lamentations of the Flame Princess core rules aren't any more equipped to implement horror... *ahem*, "weird fantasy", but the fact that the game states that's what it's about direct the players to use it for weird fantasy.

On the other end of the spectrum, Call of Cthulhu's rules are generic enough to suit almost any kind of modern or near-modern campaign, but it's marketed as Lovecraftian Horror so that's how it's played.

In theory, your point about niche versus general games is a good one, in practice, it doesn't pan out. If it did, GURPS would be more popular than D&D, and LotFP would've been a total flop because people wouldn't need anyone to tell them that yes, you can do horror... errr, weird fantasy in D&D.

Now, if I reduce your argument to where you're basically just talking about false advertizing (=product claims to be of a thing but doesn't have the thing at all), then there'd be nothing to argue about, since you'd be trivially right. If we don't, we're back to: define "system". Define "mechanical backing". Your exact words suggest there's a minimal level of mechanization a game needs to have in order to justify being "about" something. So what is it?

Florian
2018-02-02, 02:36 AM
This drifts off into looney country again.

When regular folks say "a game about X", they mostly means "a game that has elements that concretely support X in the form of setting, rules and mechanics". It´s easier to use "D&D as a game about samurai and honor" by rewriting the Fighter class and replacing alignments with honor, than using "D&D as a game about naval conquest and fleet battles", as you'd have to come up with naval and fleet battle rules.
That doesn't really have anything to do with the reductionist approach the forge took back then.

In a political game, the question "does she trust me?" carries the same weight as "do I hit the dragon?" in a dungeon crawl game and should be equally well supported.

Satinavian
2018-02-02, 03:23 AM
Define "system".Case in point: Diplomacy. The game is famous for its player interactions and backstabbery, the actual rules don't touch on this because most of the titular diplomacy takes place between turns and often through metagame channels.The game completely defines what actions players actually can perform and thus also completely which bargaining power/leverage they have. There is not even randomness involved in the resolution of their actions, making the knowledge of each participants power absolute. It also defines their goals of the players. It also sets rules and boundaries about the kind of (secret) communication allowed between each step of action resolution.

Player interaction and backstabbery is actually more codified in Diplomacy (including exact boundaries of player decision space) than in quite a lot of RPGs that have social skills or stats.

Now : should you use a system about X with rules for X to play X ?

- If you play X and your system does not have rules for X you are basically freeforming/handwaving everything. It has exactly the same benefits/drawbacks than general freeform roleplaying has.

- If your system has detailed rules about Y but you are playing X, that is just baggage. It doesn't necessarily hurt as you don't use it. But if you really rarely use it and then have to use a stupid amount of time reading/looking up detailed rules for Y to do this one event and then forget about it again for half a year, that baggage becomes annoying. There is a reason most system aim for fast resolution for things hardly ever needed.

- If you have a system your groups know well, it is often not worth switching for a single campaign/adventure about X even if other systems handle X better

jojo
2018-02-02, 03:38 AM
IMO the article in question proceeds from a fundamental misunderstanding of what does and does not represent a "decision point."

When you're talking about a "vidya game" the most significant decision point is resolved prior to pressing play. While this is also somewhat true of TRPGs it is significantly less true than other games.

For instance if I've chosen to play Skyrim I can't engage in say... horse racing. If I've chose to play a TRPG however then I can combine two or more existing rules/mechanics to create a fair and mechanically balanced horse racing encounter without having to actually create special rules.

Sticking with Skyrim as our example, once I've chosen to play that game I can't choose to resolve the Civil War quest line by travelling to Cyrodill and negotiating a treaty with the Emperor on behalf of the Nords. Expanding on this I could not utilize my position as the Leader of the Mage's Guild to resolve the Civil War quest line by wiping out both belligerents and establishing a new government which is better equipped to resolve the main quest line.

Contrast this to a TRPG where, when presented with a Civil War, my PC could in fact pursue either of the proposed resolutions above, or neither. My PC could easily choose to simply decamp to an entirely separate region and pursue the opportunities that lie there instead.

The real significance of "decision points" in any game is whether or not those decisions subsequently impact the game in meaningful ways. In video-games they don't. In TRPGs they don't always but they can sometimes.

As far as the article's contentions regarding indie games, developers and systems within the TRPG industry I find them to be both ludicrously false and willfully ignorant. Spend ten minutes on this forum or on /tg and you'll encounter ongoing discussions about a dozen indie games. Pop over to drivethrurpg and the storefront will bombard you with a dozen more, so claiming otherwise is really just absurd.

Anonymouswizard
2018-02-02, 04:19 AM
I'll go right back to where this started, and reiterate that it's mistaken to assert that a campaign "about X" must or should use a system that heavily focuses on mechanics for X, or has detailed complex mechanics for X.

Here's my problem.

When I say that I don't want complex mechanics for combat, because it's not important and we can must roleplay it, people respond as if I've broken one of the holy commandments of RPGs. 'But you can't have tactical choices in combat!' I know, we don't want any in this game. 'But you can't simulate combat properly!' Yes, but combat is just distracting from what we consider the important bits.

On the other hand if I want complex mechanics for alliances people talk as if I've gone insane. 'But it's social stuff, you can roleplay that!' Yes, but having mechanics to encourage roleplaying and say what support PCs can call on would be useful.


To give an actual example, Lamentations of the Flame Princess core rules aren't any more equipped to implement horror... *ahem*, "weird fantasy", but the fact that the game states that's what it's about direct the players to use it for weird fantasy.

Getting closer though, especially with the proposed change to the magic system!

But yeah, the main innovations LotFP has in this regard are essentially 'Summon sorrel calls random, incredibly powerful creatures you might not control' and 'no set monster list, GM creates all'.

Here's another question, what counts as an interesting choice in a tabletop game game? I'd assume that Chess is full of them, as every move is entirely player decided and changes the board state. In games where movement is entirely decided by dice movement isn't a choice, but if I'm playing Cluedo (the version I owned has single die movement) and I'm seven away from any room, is my movement still an interesting choice? What if it's a three and I'm four spaces away from any room? Is an interesting choice only one that moves me closer to solving Dr Black's murder? Because we all know it's Professor Plum that did it, Reverend Green's player hasn't suspected anybody else for for turns and didn't show me his card when asked.

weckar
2018-02-02, 04:21 AM
I agree with most of the article, from personal experience. It is much harder to get people into a new TRPG than an indie computer game, because the former is much more of a commitment. A computer game can be put down after a few hours if you don't like it, but to get a good taste of a TRPG it is an investment of weeks or months for a group of people!

I also agree that many RPGs find it difficult to create significant mechanical conflict without it being combat OR so abstract it ceases to be engaging. I do not know a solution here but I wish I did. If, for example, there were a good way to play the Star Wars senate scenes (and only those) I'd be so there for that!

Florian
2018-02-02, 05:28 AM
I also agree that many RPGs find it difficult to create significant mechanical conflict without it being combat OR so abstract it ceases to be engaging. I do not know a solution here but I wish I did. If, for example, there were a good way to play the Star Wars senate scenes (and only those) I'd be so there for that!

Pathfinder actually takes a very modular approach to that. The various "Ultimate" books contain different sub-systems that you can use when needed. That solves a lot of problems that we know from D20-based systems, like the basic combat (skirmish, actually) system not being good for dynamic 1-on-1 duels or chase scenes, so Ultimate Combat comes with rules for duels and chases that you should use instead (It always astonishes me how few people seem to know that the stuff is there, considering how often questions come up about how to run away from faster creatures, when the answer is: switch to chase rules). Look up Ultimate Intrigue. The rules for Influence and Social Conflict (No, this is _not_ social combat, it deals with (tracking) the long-term effect of actions and choices) a very good at setting the stage for Verbal Duels (Which in turn is kinda-sorta social combat, but way more concerned with influencing the audience then "defeating" the opponents).

Max_Killjoy
2018-02-02, 07:51 AM
Here's my problem.

When I say that I don't want complex mechanics for combat, because it's not important and we can must roleplay it, people respond as if I've broken one of the holy commandments of RPGs. 'But you can't have tactical choices in combat!' I know, we don't want any in this game. 'But you can't simulate combat properly!' Yes, but combat is just distracting from what we consider the important bits.

On the other hand if I want complex mechanics for alliances people talk as if I've gone insane. 'But it's social stuff, you can roleplay that!' Yes, but having mechanics to encourage roleplaying and say what support PCs can call on would be useful.


I think the problem there is (at least in part) that some people don't look at what you want out of a system and what you plan to do with it, before they have their reaction based on their preferences.

On the combat side, personally I'd be a little ticked if my character was supposed to be very good at combat but then got maimed or killed because the system was so simple that the single bad roll that determined the fight went poorly and there were no subsequent chances to recover from or overcome that one bad roll. But if a group of players doesn't mind that, and buys into that system, then I have on gripes about them using that system if it's what works best for them.

A non-combat example would be oWoD, where many of the Vampiric Disciplines were built as save-or-suck powers... that often required you to roleplay not trying to resist once you'd failed that single chance to resist, which often came not as your own roll, but as a roll by the "attacking" Vampire. IMO... :smallfurious:


But sometimes, people have to realize that a system, or setting, or combination, just isn't for them. L5R 4th ed... wow, intriguing setting, lushly presented... but as I worked through the mediocre organization and random placement of the rules across multiple books, I realized that neither the system nor the setting were for me at all... I was constantly looking for ways around both the mechanical and the 'fictional' limits because what I wanted was often specifically blocked by one or both.


Part of the problem with many social systems in RPGs is that they just port over the same system used for physical conflict, and end up treating all social interaction as combat, as a win-lose situation wherein one character wins the other is defeated. It leaves no room for two characters coming to an actual agreement or compromise, no room for two characters dealing with a situation where they both want the same thing but neither will come out and say it for whatever of many reasons, no room for a character to simply be unwilling to give in no matter what is said or done, etc. Given how often social systems in RPGs fail to produce results that don't feel utterly artificial along those lines, how often they fail to capture any form of subtlety or complexity... it's maybe not surprising that even people who want to play a heavily social-focused campaign decide they'd rather handle it all through roleplaying, rough stat comparisons, etc.

Rhedyn
2018-02-02, 08:11 AM
TTRPG content is really cheap and easy to make. (Once you have a rules set)

Could there be a video game about time traveling super heroes and one of them is a shapeshifting bioweapon from the future? Sure. But I'm playing that campaign next week and the GM wrote it up in a couple of months not a couple of years like AAA video games.

Inversely, you don't need as many people to line up schedules to play a video game.

Frozen_Feet
2018-02-02, 09:08 AM
Player interaction and backstabbery is actually more codified in Diplomacy (including exact boundaries of player decision space) than in quite a lot of RPGs that have social skills or stats.

And I don't disagree. The point I was making was about how the game codifies it, and what it tells you of what the game is "about".

The question and your answer are important because to a lot of hobbyists, "social skills and stats" is what "a system" means. And because of that, they may miss entire layers of the game. The homologue here is someone who doesn't realize you can bluff in Poker because the rules don't say exactly how and when to do it.

---



On the other hand if I want complex mechanics for alliances people talk as if I've gone insane. 'But it's social stuff, you can roleplay that!' Yes, but having mechanics to encourage roleplaying and say what support PCs can call on would be useful.

The irony here is that defining what resources characters have for violent conflict is a powerfull facilitator of alliance mechanics. See again: Diplomacy.

I'd extent that to all resource mechanics, really. I sometimes hear people say they dislike counting food rations (etc.) because that "gets in the way of roleplaying". But if you ask me, when player-character-combinations end up arguing heatedly about who gets to eat today and who will be left to starve, you're at the root of roleplaying. :smalltongue:


Getting closer though, especially with the proposed change to the magic system!

But yeah, the main innovations LotFP has in this regard are essentially 'Summon sorrel calls random, incredibly powerful creatures you might not control' and 'no set monster list, GM creates all'.

Taken as a whole, the LotFP product line has quite a bit of innovation - but 95% of that innovation is in module and scenario design. Or in other words, it deals with stuff the GM does to facilitate the game, and very little with what the players do to play it.


Here's another question, what counts as an interesting choice in a tabletop game game?

This is where I'd like to link you to an earlier discussion of Player Agency and dialogue between me and Lorsa. Oh well.

Long story short: there's actually two things you're talking of in the same breath, player agency and the feeling of agency.

Player agency is straightforwardly measured by number of meaningfull choices a player can make, "meaningfull" referring to those choices which impact the course of the game.

Feeling of agency, that is, which choices feel interesting (or feel like choices to begin with) is much more subjective. Generally, feeling of agency is measured by amount of meaningfull choices that the player cares about making. The specific motivations behind a player caring vary immensely from game to game, from the simple ("doing this scores me points! I like points!") to the complex ("doing this allows me to retrace steps of Cambpellian monomyth!").


I'd assume that Chess is full of them, as every move is entirely player decided and changes the board state.

Yes and no. Chess is a game of high total agency, that is, there are a lot of meaningfull choices each player makes during the entire game.

Chess is also a game with very low feel of agency when played at high levels, because each player has to rely on rote memorization in order to avoid losing the game early.

Even more, the amount of agency is dynamic, it changes at every turn. So, for example, a game against a superior opponent can be very low in both agency and feel of it, because your opponent pressed you into a series of turns where you have very few legal moves.


In games where movement is entirely decided by dice movement isn't a choice, but if I'm playing Cluedo (the version I owned has single die movement) and I'm seven away from any room, is my movement still an interesting choice? What if it's a three and I'm four spaces away from any room? Is an interesting choice only one that moves me closer to solving Dr Black's murder? Because we all know it's Professor Plum that did it, Reverend Green's player hasn't suspected anybody else for for turns and didn't show me his card when asked.

Well, you are in the right direction in that randomization tends to decrease player agency, at it moves impactfull events from players to the randomizer. Likewise, being able to predict where a game is going will lessen the feel of agency, especially if that prediction comes with the knowledge that your ability to change the game's course is limited.

I don't have all rules of Cluedo in fresh memory, so I cannot comment the specific example any better. But I hope this opens up the general principle.

Anonymouswizard
2018-02-02, 09:37 AM
The irony here is that defining what resources characters have for violent conflict is a powerfull facilitator of alliance mechanics. See again: Diplomacy.

I'd extent that to all resource mechanics, really. I sometimes hear people say they dislike counting food rations (etc.) because that "gets in the way of roleplaying". But if you ask me, when player-character-combinations end up arguing heatedly about who gets to eat today and who will be left to starve, you're at the root of roleplaying. :smalltongue:

All true, in the game starting this evening my character's roleplay and interaction with other characters stems from such things as the choice I made for sex and gender, my race and class, the equipment I'm carrying (a lot of it, I've got three full blown toolkits, to the point where the character really needs to get a cart and beast of burden), the other PCs (one of which I already know my character will like, one of which he's likely to loathe at the beginning), the actions that happen, and so on.

But because we're not playing a game where politics and long term planning are important beyond getting time to craft we're not going to be tracking relationships with NPCs or long term effects, and leave it up to what feels cool while we're playing.


Taken as a whole, the LotFP product line has quite a bit of innovation - but 95% of that innovation is in module and scenario design. Or in other words, it deals with stuff the GM does to facilitate the game, and very little with what the players do to play it.

True, although I'll note here that this is because the system was initially made to support the modules, rather than the other way around. It's a houseruled set of B/XD&D rules because the modules were for retroclones and the writer didn't want to write more complex rules.


This is where I'd like to link you to an earlier discussion of Player Agency and dialogue between me and Lorsa. Oh well.

Long story short: there's actually two things you're talking of in the same breath, player agency and the feeling of agency.

Player agency is straightforwardly measured by number of meaningfull choices a player can make, "meaningfull" referring to those choices which impact the course of the game.

Feeling of agency, that is, which choices feel interesting (or feel like choices to begin with) is much more subjective. Generally, feeling of agency is measured by amount of meaningfull choices that the player cares about making. The specific motivations behind a player caring vary immensely from game to game, from the simple ("doing this scores me points! I like points!") to the complex ("doing this allows me to retrace steps of Cambpellian monomyth!").



Yes and no. Chess is a game of high total agency, that is, there are a lot of meaningfull choices each player makes during the entire game.

Chess is also a game with very low feel of agency when played at high levels, because each player has to rely on rote memorization in order to avoid losing the game early.

Even more, the amount of agency is dynamic, it changes at every turn. So, for example, a game against a superior opponent can be very low in both agency and feel of it, because your opponent pressed you into a series of turns where you have very few legal moves.



Well, you are in the right direction in that randomization tends to decrease player agency, at it moves impactfull events from players to the randomizer. Likewise, being able to predict where a game is going will lessen the feel of agency, especially if that prediction comes with the knowledge that your ability to change the game's course is limited.

I don't have all rules of Cluedo in fresh memory, so I cannot comment the specific example any better. But I hope this opens up the general principle.

Yeah, really just trying to make a point I'd realised, that we can't say if a tabletop game is a series of meaningful choices until we determine what a meaningful choice is. Is it one that changes the state of the game? That moves you towards the goal of the game? Something else?

Florian
2018-02-02, 10:44 AM
Yeah, really just trying to make a point I'd realised, that we can't say if a tabletop game is a series of meaningful choices until we determine what a meaningful choice is. Is it one that changes the state of the game? That moves you towards the goal of the game? Something else?

I don´t think there's an easy way to tackle those questions, due to different styles and approaches of how to game.

Personally, I think that each group will always have some implicit or explicit "goal", even if they never bothered to actually think and talk about it. Often, that might include seeing it as a "victory condition" to not trigger the "loss condition" and "keep on playing", as in "Play your character, just avoid death (to not start all over with a new character)". Trivial, but still a goal that includes that meaningful decisions are based around "avoiding death".

That's probably the baseline and we can stack and explore layers of complexity based on that, which will lead us to more victory and loss conditions, and gives more context to choices and what is meaningful.

Frozen_Feet
2018-02-02, 11:22 AM
"Moves the game towards its goal" is a subset of "changes state of the game". Neither is wildly different from my "impacts course of the game". All are highly abstract, and must be, because they are variables based on the game. This said, spotting what they mean for any given game is pretty easy.

For example, in Chess, the goal is to checkmate the other player's King while preventing them from checkmating yours. It's easy to see when game moves are changing the state of the game towards either outcome, and also when they no longer cannot (f.ex., when the game is about to end in draw and hence becomes "not interesting").

It's not any harder for RPGs. The primary difference is that sometimes the goals are set by players rather than the game. For ease of understanding, let me reiterate my guide on how to win or lose in a roleplaying game:

Your character wins if, at the end of the game, they're as good as or better off when they started. They lose if they're worse off.

You as a player win if, at the end of the game, you're as good as or better off than when you started. You lose if you're worse off.

Often, these align, though not always.

Now then, an interesting choice is a choice which can change the state of the game towards one of the above outcomes. From the viewpoint of a player who wants to win, the most interesting choices are those with greatest chance of benefiting them or their character, or greatest chance of averting detriments, penalties etc.

For example, if the player sets out to play a heroic knight, interesting choices are those which allow them to display knightly virtues and lay claims to rewards associated with knighthood, such as the princess and half of the land. The exact level and type of interest depends on difficulty of the task compated to skill level of the player. If acting out the choice is too hard for the player, they will become frustrated and lose interest. If it is too easy, they may become bored. If it is just at the edge of their ability, they will feel challenged.

By contrast, choices which have nothing at all to being a heroic knight, or otherwise do not change the state of the game (such as, often, what kind of icecream the knight would like), tend to not be interesting and are glossed over in most games.

ross
2018-02-02, 06:31 PM
The most notable content creators in the discourse are probably Extra Credits

kek, do people really watch that cringe fest?

also this guy really thinks nobody applies game design theory to make believe board games? what a joke

Anonymouswizard
2018-02-03, 05:52 AM
My point was, of you're defining a meaningful choice as any one that changes the state, while I'm defining it as only choices that move you towards or away from the goal, we're going to come to different conclusions. Therefore to have meaningful discussion we should agree in a definition


The most notable content creators in the discourse are probably Extra Credits

kek, do people really watch that cringe fest?

also this guy really thinks nobody applies game design theory to make believe board games? what a joke

To the first, yes. On many topics their videos are a good first introduction, although I really wish they'd go deeper. But I've stopped watching most of them just because the more recent episodes bore me.

On the second, yeah I'm agreeing. Especially because people do so here, on this forum. We just have to use different theories to video games due to the different medium.

Florian
2018-02-03, 09:51 AM
My point was, of you're defining a meaningful choice as any one that changes the state, while I'm defining it as only choices that move you towards or away from the goal, we're going to come to different conclusions. Therefore to have meaningful discussion we should agree in a definition

A RPG system by itself most often doesn't include any goals at all. Grab a Pathfinder PHB and tell me what the inherent goal of it is. On that level, the only thing that it manages is changing states, nothing more, that is part of the incomplete nature of most RPG systems. To actually function, they need the participants to provide content to interact with (there's no real difference whether this is gm-based or group-based), with the content being the instance that brings actual goals to the game, ie. "I play a game of Jade Regent using the Pathfinder rules" or "We play a game of ronin trying to kill the mountain witch". So, I see Pathfinder as the "incomplete state" and Jade Regent as the "complete state", and AD&D as the "incomplete state" and Greyhawk Sandbox as the "complete state" (or substitute whatever the gm uses as content, comes up with and even winging it does it).

What you'll get is some very negative reactions on the word "goal", mostly by people that equate "I play AD&D" with "I role-play", mostly because they take content as a given an the natural state of things. So, in short, before talking about the definition of meaningful choice, I think it is necessary to talk about the difference between complete and incomplete state and which one of the two should provide that choices.

GreatWyrmGold
2018-02-03, 11:09 PM
There are some criticisms I've come across which I feel deserve an in-depth response (and which bundle together nicely into a core theme), but there's one I'd like to respond to quickly.

This kinda lost me at "When you’re rolling dice, you’re not making decisions..."
I don't think you took me quite literally enough. I don't mean that actions which involve rolling dice at some point don't involve making choices; I mean that while you are rolling dice, you are not making decisions. You make a decision to roll the dice beforehand, and the results may inspire new decisions, but rolling dice itself does not involve decisions. This is primarily a critique of most RPGs' skill systems, which generally involve the player deciding to try something and rolling dice. Contrast this with the core mechanics of any given game. This varies. In D&D and many other RPGs, it's combat; in New Gods of Mankind, it's tribe management and miracles. For such challenges, you can make decisions outside of whether or not to try.
Given that nobody else seems to have focused on this, am I correct in assuming that this wasn't a common misinterpretation? Or is it something I screwed up?



Most TRPG's are all about combat. Of course, this is our culture as most entertainment is about combat/action/adventure/competition.
-snip-
And you can just roll play a TRPG just like a video game....or you can make it into something much more with role playing.
It's funny that you focus on video games, because they're not homogeneously about combat. There are entire genres of video game with no combat whatsoever (prominently including visual novels, racing games, sports games, and most puzzle or sim-type games); the same is true of most media. You have sappy romance films with no violence beyond the occasional slap, horror novels where violence is quickly realized to be pointless, slice-of-life shows, and so on.
TRPGs are a medium, but they act like a genre. They have these set tropes and expectations, and the medium is dominated by a handful of releases. Film has your big rom-coms, your big action flicks, your big comedies, your big family films, and so on; you don't really see that kind of thing in TRPGs, because the dominant titles are so dominant.

Tanarii
2018-02-03, 11:53 PM
I don't think you took me quite literally enough. I don't mean that actions which involve rolling dice at some point don't involve making choices; I mean that while you are rolling dice, you are not making decisions. You make a decision to roll the dice beforehand, and the results may inspire new decisions, but rolling dice itself does not involve decisions.I took you literally enough.

As I said, combat is full of rolling dice. But the point is, despite that, resolution in combat follows from decision making. Decide, attempt, resolve. Resolving the attempt may be automatic success, automatic failure, or commonly when the result is in question roll the dice.

Why is this process not also the case when you run out-of-combat, that it bothers you so much on the decisions front?
Not enough important decisions?
Not enough micro-decisions & resolutions adding up to a end result?
No tactical map with terrain you can manipulate to your advantage?
Not enough moving pieces (HPs, enemies, spells) to make decisions around?

Anonymouswizard
2018-02-04, 07:05 AM
It's funny that you focus on video games, because they're not homogeneously about combat. There are entire genres of video game with no combat whatsoever (prominently including visual novels, racing games, sports games, and most puzzle or sim-type games); the same is true of most media. You have sappy romance films with no violence beyond the occasional slap, horror novels where violence is quickly realized to be pointless, slice-of-life shows, and so on.
TRPGs are a medium, but they act like a genre. They have these set tropes and expectations, and the medium is dominated by a handful of releases. Film has your big rom-coms, your big action flicks, your big comedies, your big family films, and so on; you don't really see that kind of thing in TRPGs, because the dominant titles are so dominant.

Let's be honest though, video games versus tabletop RPGs is like tabletop Games versus CRPGs. On my shelf are copies of Carcassonne, a great game where you're trying to build a map and optimally place your farmers, and Sushi Go, a game about trying to draft the most delicious combination of sushi you can. I've also played tabletop games about art auctions, painting a cathedral, going down a waterslide, car racing, sports, and many I've forgotten. Then there's Privateer, a game which features taking your opponent's ships but where the important part is getting the treasure back to your port. Oh, and I have two chess sets in my room, because one's a travel set and one's a display set.

Honest Tiefling
2018-02-04, 12:09 PM
A wee bit of a tangent, but do DnD players really only play adventure paths? I played one. As in, one session, and boy howdy did the party not stay on the rails. I am very used to the DM offering up a world they have made, but am I in the minority? I know organized play relies on adventure paths, but I didn't think they made up the majority...

PhoenixPhyre
2018-02-04, 12:34 PM
A wee bit of a tangent, but do DnD players really only play adventure paths? I played one. As in, one session, and boy howdy did the party not stay on the rails. I am very used to the DM offering up a world they have made, but am I in the minority? I know organized play relies on adventure paths, but I didn't think they made up the majority...

I've never actually played in an adventure path. My first one will be soon, once the campaign in DM for wraps up.

Anonymouswizard
2018-02-04, 12:57 PM
A wee bit of a tangent, but do DnD players really only play adventure paths? I played one. As in, one session, and boy howdy did the party not stay on the rails. I am very used to the DM offering up a world they have made, but am I in the minority? I know organized play relies on adventure paths, but I didn't think they made up the majority...

In my experience, no.

I ran modules when I was learning to GM, but they tended to be more classic 'site' modules, not adventure paths. It wasn't until I tried other games until I learnt my 'style' of GMing, which is essentially 'drop the players in a place, give them a problem, and sit back'. Which means in many ways I'm a bad GM, many of my NPCs have shallow personalities because I don't expect to use them again, and any shopkeeper I have will sound a lot like any other shopkeeper, and I can 'quantum ogre' a lot to pull off encounters I want to use, but players seem to enjoy it.

I've also seen no other GM actually use a published module as anything other than inspiration (which I can do as well). Not even when running D&D. I've seen people use published worlds, although ironically the only one designed for games is Warhammer (both versions). I've been in more or less railroady games, but have never had to suffer the 'because that's in the published adventure' I associate with actual APs.

Although I outright refuse to run D&D these days there's several related or similar games I am willing to run, and one where there's a published adventure I want to run (specifically Better Than Any Man for Lamentations of the Flame Princess). But even then the module is less adventure path and more 'there are a bunch of problems, try to get out of the area alive'.

Florian
2018-02-04, 01:24 PM
A wee bit of a tangent, but do DnD players really only play adventure paths? I played one. As in, one session, and boy howdy did the party not stay on the rails. I am very used to the DM offering up a world they have made, but am I in the minority? I know organized play relies on adventure paths, but I didn't think they made up the majority...

Hm.. German RPG culture is heavily influenced by DSA (our 800pt. gorilla in the room). That uses a "Living" approach for the setting, so it´s basically shared world experience because the ongoing meta-plot is hardwired into setting, modules and source books. It´s pretty common for games in FLGS or cons to swap stories how their "year of fire" was and how their character survived it, and so on.

Folks who switch to Pathfinder are more interested in more "pulp" and "high magic" than DSA tends to offer, but the mentality stays the same.

Quite frankly, there's too many incompetent gms around and too many boring campaign worlds, but it´s easy to recruit for adventure paths. People know that the quality is ok, and that there's a ton of support, tips and assistance on the net and from other groups, so you can expect it to be a smooth ride.

Darth Ultron
2018-02-04, 02:55 PM
It's funny that you focus on video games, because they're not homogeneously about combat. There are entire genres of video game with no combat whatsoever (prominently including visual novels, racing games, sports games, and most puzzle or sim-type games); the same is true of most media. You have sappy romance films with no violence beyond the occasional slap, horror novels where violence is quickly realized to be pointless, slice-of-life shows, and so on.

Guess you missed all the words after combat?


A wee bit of a tangent, but do DnD players really only play adventure paths? I played one. As in, one session, and boy howdy did the party not stay on the rails. I am very used to the DM offering up a world they have made, but am I in the minority? I know organized play relies on adventure paths, but I didn't think they made up the majority...

Well, D&D does rely on an adventure...and so do most TRPGs. After all the Adventure is ''something to do''.

A lot of DM like to do the Casual way of just making a setting and then sitting back and letting the players pick an adventure to do. Then the DM makes or uses an adventure and runs the game. A normal game the DM might just say here is the adventure, lets play; and the casual game will just waste a ton of time, maybe hours, and then run an adventure. So it's really all the same.

A lot of gamers don't like to waste time. So as much fun as it is to do nothing for four or five hours, they would much rather play through an adventure in a game for hours instead.

Quertus
2018-02-04, 03:53 PM
Only on the first page so far, so apologies if this has been covered.


Summary: If games are a series of interesting choices, how do roleplaying games stack up? Do their systems support many types of interesting choice, or is the burden left entirely on the end user? How does this affect the kind of games we play?

I hope the people on this forum find my points and arguments thought-provoking, or at least interesting.

Let me ignore your link for the moment, and just respond to this summary: if a game is a series of interesting choices, then RPGs stack up as well as the players and GM are in sync. I think that this is a brilliant definition to use to talk about gaming styles. And RPGs have incredible potential to achieve amazingly high ratings for "interesting choices", so, therefore, RPGs stack up better than almost anything else in the world of Man.


I did mention the sub-non-game type activity of Storytelling TRPGs, so I got that covered.


For a otherwise normal game it's only ''sort of a sandbox'' and then only ''sort of like that'' for a short time. Yes, lots of games just love getting together and having a non-game like activity where they don't really do anything of any note or consequence. For many it's a great fun, casual time to just do nothing...or very little...and just relax. And some people can do this activity for hours on end.

Most gamers, though, at some point, do what to ''play a game'' and that means do something with a Story, Plot and structure that is linear. So sure they will ''sandbox'' it for a while, and then want to play ''for real''.


As I said, some people like the sub-non-game type activity of Storytelling TRPGs. There is nothing wrong with that. It has nothing to do with my way.

Though, yes, if your going to do anything of note or consequence then yes you need a story, plot, and a lineal structure. Unless your doing the Storyteller Activity.

I'll admit I know noting about Exalted. So how is it non-linear? Like how does the game work if you can't have ''the DM has something happen'' and then the ''players have their characters react to that'' and then the ''DM reacts to that''. So how does it work with out things happening in a linear structure?

Allow me to quote & paraphrase myself here:

Try to imagine that this is not the case.

Suppose the Fighter does go first, and cleaves through all the thugs in one attack. Maybe this means that the party gains a reputation of "don't mess with these guys", and maybe the town guard shows them fear and/or respect.

Or maybe the Fighter used subdual damage, and then turned them in (respect from the town guard), interrogated them (plot hook), Or even let them go (reputation, favor from the thieves guild, future plot hook).

Maybe no-one in the party took Diplomacy, so getting the King to help them on their quest is impossible. Maybe they decide that this is ok. Or maybe they decide that they really need the king's help. So maybe they decide to curry favor with another noble, to intercede on their behalf. Or maybe they try to leverage their reputation with the town guard. Or maybe they hire a diplomat to speak for them.

Or maybe the Wizard goes first, and takes out all the thugs with one spell. Maybe this has a very similar consequence chain to the Fighter doing so... except that, when they go to see the King, the guards seem very wary, and the wizards is required to be bound, gagged, blindfolded, whatever, so the party gains additional information that the King fears and despises powerful wizards (a fact that they can use in future negotiations).

Or maybe the Rogue goes first, and subtly flashes the thugs some secret sign saying, hey, I'm one of you guys, I paid my dues, don't **** with us. Then he "convinces" the thugs to stand down. If the Rogue isn't a local, maybe he now owes a favor to the local guild. Then, when they go to see the King, maybe the party gets the "clearly very diplomatic" Rogue to be their spokesperson, which could lead to some interesting role-playing opportunities... or to the Rogue suggesting one of the alternative approaches I mentioned earlier.

Or maybe the Cleric goes first, screams obscenities to his god, and cracks one of the thugs' skulls open before one of the other PCs ends the encounter.

Or maybe one of the thugs goes first. Maybe he happens to score a crit, or fumble, or otherwise distinguish himself such that the party takes a liking to him, and promote him to a Named NPC.

Point is, there a lot of possible fun games that can result by simply not tailoring encounters to the party.

Now, this is still fairly linear, in terms of "have Encounter A (thugs), then Encounter B (meet with the King), even though it does have the optional side quests of meet with the law, interrogate the thug, meet with the thieves guild, meet with random noble, meet with diplomat, and uncover facts to utilize king's hatred of mages.

But what if the game is entirely player driven, and, instead of going to get help from the King, they instead choose to try to get help from the church, or from some random noble, such that the encounters with the King never happen? How is that any less of a game than if the plot is linear?

Anonymouswizard
2018-02-04, 04:30 PM
Well, D&D does rely on an adventure...and so do most TRPGs. After all the Adventure is ''something to do''.

A lot of DM like to do the Casual way of just making a setting and then sitting back and letting the players pick an adventure to do. Then the DM makes or uses an adventure and runs the game. A normal game the DM might just say here is the adventure, lets play; and the casual game will just waste a ton of time, maybe hours, and then run an adventure. So it's really all the same.

A lot of gamers don't like to waste time. So as much fun as it is to do nothing for four or five hours, they would much rather play through an adventure in a game for hours instead.

It depends on the exact plot model.

I'm going to use stupid terms here, but a proactive plot is one like you tend to support, where something happens and the PCs have to react to it. A reactive plot is one where the PCs do something and the plot develops based on that.

Unless you have a really good GM a proactive plot is generally more fun, because there's going to be interesting things happening. With a reactive plot the GM has to try to come up with ways to keep the situation interesting while letting the PCs remain as the thing driving the plot forwards, which is really hard.

In an ideal sandbox game the PCs are in a location with goals, and the story being followed is the PC's attempts to achieve those goals. The world reshapes itself around the PCs, occasionally sending problems for them to deal with but mostly letting the PCs get themselves into trouble. This story of struggle starts from the first moment the PCs try to move towards their goal, time is not wasted because the point of the game is for the PCs to try and complete their goals instead of solving the world's issue.

Now, a game without a strong proactive plot is not going to have a central villain. Which is in and of itself fine, a story doesn't need a villain, it just needs conflict.

There's also nothing wrong with a sandbox moving into a plotted adventure, but the PCs will need reasons to abandon whatever goals they were pursuing and chase the plot (if you can't weave their goals into it).

Max_Killjoy
2018-02-04, 04:49 PM
Call it "proreactive" or "reproactive" plot.

There is stuff going on, lots of stuff, and the PCs can get involved or not in various parts of it, some of which will tie back together.

The idea that it's somehow a choice between a directly imposed single plot and "structure", or absolutely structureless chaos with a purely reactive DM who just sits and responds to the PCs... is a silly claim we've rebutted 100-and-some times already.

Anonymouswizard
2018-02-04, 04:59 PM
Call it "proreactive" or "reproactive" plot.

There is stuff going on, lots of stuff, and the PCs can get involved or not in various parts of it, some of which will tie back together.

The idea that it's somehow a choice between a directly imposed single plot and "structure", or absolutely structureless chaos with a purely reactive DM who just sits and responds to the PCs... is a silly claim we've rebutted 100-and-some times already.

If you're replying to me, I'm fully aware of that, I just decided to present the two extremes because my point was that there is a possible game structure that breaks DU's assumptions, not that there's only two structures.

We can, if we want, make a scale of 'PCs reacting to world' versus 'world reacting to PCs', as most games are somewhere in the middle. Which yes, is literally a longer way to say 'linear versus sandbox'. However I consider such an idea relatively useless as when discussing games we don't really need to know more than which way your game tends when discussing a game, as games tend to move along the scale depending on the exact session and point in the session.

Or rather, I didn't see the middle ground because to me it's obvious that there is a middle ground between any two extremes. In fact any great game will generally lie between the two extremes, as otherwise the PCs either have no freedom or sudden plot twists are unlikely to occur.

I'm not even sure why I even made that post anyway, discussions with Darth Ultron can sometimes be distressingly similar to convincing a wall that it's a door.

RFLS
2018-02-04, 06:37 PM
Yesterday our group of adventures spent almost the entire secession on a murder mystery.

I'm reading through the thread in lurker mode, but this typo gave me a chuckle.

Darth Ultron
2018-02-04, 07:23 PM
Now, this is still fairly linear, in terms of "have Encounter A (thugs), then Encounter B (meet with the King), even though it does have the optional side quests of meet with the law, interrogate the thug, meet with the thieves guild, meet with random noble, meet with diplomat, and uncover facts to utilize king's hatred of mages.

The point is that if it's linear, and has a structure, and if the game makes sense: then it's not a Sandbox.



But what if the game is entirely player driven, and, instead of going to get help from the King, they instead choose to try to get help from the church, or from some random noble, such that the encounters with the King never happen? How is that any less of a game than if the plot is linear?

I guess ''player driven'' is a popular buzz word, but it really does not have much meaning. I guess your saying ''the DM just sits there and players with a fidget spinner, and the player make and have an awesome game'', but that is a very dumb thing to say.

If the activity done in a RPG is linear, then it's game and even normal. It's only when it's the Random Sandbox Mess of non-linear not much of anything that it's Barley a Game.


It depends on the exact plot model.



I don't see the difference as both are ultimately the same thing.

1.The players show up to play the game, but don't overly care ''what'' they are doing in the game. So the DM picks something.
2.The players pick something to do in the game and what to do that something.

Either way: The DM makes an adventure. It does not matter much if it was the DMs idea or the players idea.



The idea that it's somehow a choice between a directly imposed single plot and "structure", or absolutely structureless chaos with a purely reactive DM who just sits and responds to the PCs... is a silly claim we've rebutted 100-and-some times already.

Plot vs chaos is very basic. And even the the most faux die hard sandbox gamers admit their game is not a pure sandbox(aka random mess) and has some linear structure and a plot.

I guess some one could give an example of a game that makes sense, but has no linear structure and a plot.

Milo v3
2018-02-04, 07:47 PM
Question, Darth Ultron, are you aware that there are RPGs in existence which don't even have a GM yet can still lead to stories naturally occurring?

Also, I find the idea that Pure Sandbox = Randomness rather funny.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_video_game_terms#Sandbox_game
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_world
https://www.techopedia.com/definition/3952/sandbox-gaming

Anonymouswizard
2018-02-04, 08:01 PM
I guess ''player driven'' is a popular buzz word, but it really does not have much meaning. I guess your saying ''the DM just sits there and players with a fidget spinner, and the player make and have an awesome game'', but that is a very dumb thing to say.

If the activity done in a RPG is linear, then it's game and even normal. It's only when it's the Random Sandbox Mess of non-linear not much of anything that it's Barley a Game.

Fun fact, the original RPG games and adventures had no plot, except for 'there is a dungeon filled with monsters and treasure, find the treasure without being killed by the monsters'.

You have a tendency to present games you don't like as wrongbadfun. There is no wing way to play make believe with your friends. Of people enjoy spending five hours a week every week 'messing around and not doing an adventure' then they're not paying RPGs wrong. What they're doing is not 'barely a game', it's s different type of game.

FWIW player driven is essentially 'the GM is not alone in introducing story elements'. Again it's a question of style, I've been in a game entirely driven by PC actions and ones where the GM has a plot beforehand.


I don't see the difference as both are ultimately the same thing.

1.The players show up to play the game, but don't overly care ''what'' they are doing in the game. So the DM picks something.
2.The players pick something to do in the game and what to do that something.

Either way: The DM makes an adventure. It does not matter much if it was the DMs idea or the players idea.

Alright, in one the GM has a plan for where things are going, and everybody is on the choo choo train (and might be allowed to explore the area around the stops, bit the conductor will get them back on the train eventually).

In the other the GM is entirely reactive. They have a site, a bunch of characters to draw from, and whatever else they've brought, but they don't do more than decide the consequences to the PC's actions. This is 'Random Sandbox Mess', although really it's just being directed by somebody other than the GM. (I'll not that true examples of this are rare, because eventually the PCs begin focusing on one area so the GM will focus their perpetration there).

Now there is a middle ground (actually many of them, scale and all that), where the GM asks the players what they want to do and writes an adventure based on that.

None of these are wrongbadfun. You might not like sandbox games, but other people do. I once had to turn a sandbox into a plot because the players had no idea what to do, I nudged them towards one area for the remainder of the first session and came back with a plot in the second game, and everybody had more fun. Conversely I was in a group that had a lot more fun when the GM stopped giving us missions and just plonked us in city with a goal, while the works moved on whether or not we witnessed developments changed a lot as we shuttled between areas doing things that interested us (there was a lot of visiting taverns to chart with the locals in that game, certainly more than finding clues as to the murder mystery we were supposed to investigate).


Plot vs chaos is very basic. And even the the most faux die hard sandbox gamers admit their game is not a pure sandbox(aka random mess) and has some linear structure and a plot.

I guess some one could give an example of a game that makes sense, but has no linear structure and a plot.

You seem to be so adamant against the idea of an emergent plot, where a sequence of events becomes a plot over time.

Also I now have the urge to run a nonlinear game. I'm thinking of moving between two or more time periods, with how events play out in the later ones dictating facts about events in the earlier ones.

Why are you so adamant a game must have a plot structure? What's so bad with the 'adventurers trying to get rich' model? It worked forty years ago, and it works today.

Not that I use it, I'm an adamant supporter of lightly plotted games. But I've plagued such games, and they're fun.

Darth Ultron
2018-02-04, 08:57 PM
Question, Darth Ultron, are you aware that there are RPGs in existence which don't even have a GM yet can still lead to stories naturally occurring?


Sure, I mention it all the time. Not like anyone reads that when I do.

Like watch: There are RPG's with no DM where you can have an activity for a while make make a Story After. I also call this type of activity a Storytelling game or the ''and then'' type game.


Fun fact, the original RPG games and adventures had no plot, except for 'there is a dungeon filled with monsters and treasure, find the treasure without being killed by the monsters'.

I agree that a Dungeon Crawl is a Sandbox type of game. After all, a dungeon crawl is just a bunch of random encounters.



You have a tendency to present games you don't like as wrongbadfun. There is no wing way to play make believe with your friends. Of people enjoy spending five hours a week every week 'messing around and not doing an adventure' then they're not paying RPGs wrong. What they're doing is not 'barely a game', it's s different type of game.

It's a bit more accurate to say that is what people ''read between the lines'' or ''read what is not there''. I can type it again, but bet you won't see it, again: Anyone can play anything any way they want to have fun. Did you see it? Oh, well, moving on.




FWIW player driven is essentially 'the GM is not alone in introducing story elements'. Again it's a question of style, I've been in a game entirely driven by PC actions and ones where the GM has a plot beforehand.

But where is the difference?

1.DM says ''your characters will go stop the Bandits of Bunglewood''
2.The players say ''our characters will go stop the Bandits of Bunglewood'

So, either way the DM is making the Bandits of Bunglewood Adventure.




Alright, in one the GM has a plan for where things are going, and everybody is on the choo choo train (and might be allowed to explore the area around the stops, bit the conductor will get them back on the train eventually).

In the other the GM is entirely reactive. They have a site, a bunch of characters to draw from, and whatever else they've brought, but they don't do more than decide the consequences to the PC's actions. This is 'Random Sandbox Mess', although really it's just being directed by somebody other than the GM. (I'll not that true examples of this are rare, because eventually the PCs begin focusing on one area so the GM will focus their perpetration there).

Well, if the DM has no plan or plot or structure or anything linear then nothing can ''go'' anywhere as there is nothing to ''go''.

I do call this ''reactive'' game the 'Random Sandbox Mess' or the Second Life game. The DM writes a novel, or worse just makes up stuff on the fly as the players have their characters aimlessly wander about at random and do random meaningless things of little or no consequence. And this type of game is lots of fun for lots of people. It's very slow paced, and casual and relaxing. And the players can have their characters do lots of random things meaningless things of little or no consequence that can still e fun.

But even as you say, eventually, most players stop playing in the 'Random Sandbox Mess' and want to do some meaningful game play of consequence.




You seem to be so adamant against the idea of an emergent plot, where a sequence of events becomes a plot over time.

Not really ''against'', more like it's just silly....and a bit untrue. Like a get some DM's either don't want to do any prep work for a game, ''don't have the time'' or just want to have a Casual game. So this type of DM shows up for the game with nothing other then the setting. Then the DM just sits back, and lets the players have their characters randomly wander around...often for hours. The DM will react to things, but mostly just wait for the players. Eventually, maybe, the players will pick something to do and then the normal game will start.

I agree this approach works great with picky, nit-picky or hostile players as they can ''pick'' what they want to do. Then, later in the normal game, they can't complain as the DM will say ''you guys picked this, now lets continue.''



Why are you so adamant a game must have a plot structure? What's so bad with the 'adventurers trying to get rich' model? It worked forty years ago, and it works today.

Not that I use it, I'm an adamant supporter of lightly plotted games. But I've plagued such games, and they're fun.

I love Dungeon Crawls myself. I wish I could get a PBP going of that...

I guess a light plot game has a.......plot. So, what is the point there?

Max_Killjoy
2018-02-04, 11:35 PM
If you're replying to me, I'm fully aware of that, I just decided to present the two extremes because my point was that there is a possible game structure that breaks DU's assumptions, not that there's only two structures.

We can, if we want, make a scale of 'PCs reacting to world' versus 'world reacting to PCs', as most games are somewhere in the middle. Which yes, is literally a longer way to say 'linear versus sandbox'. However I consider such an idea relatively useless as when discussing games we don't really need to know more than which way your game tends when discussing a game, as games tend to move along the scale depending on the exact session and point in the session.

Or rather, I didn't see the middle ground because to me it's obvious that there is a middle ground between any two extremes. In fact any great game will generally lie between the two extremes, as otherwise the PCs either have no freedom or sudden plot twists are unlikely to occur.

I'm not even sure why I even made that post anyway, discussions with Darth Ultron can sometimes be distressingly similar to convincing a wall that it's a door.

It was a reply in part to your post, but not a refutation... the false dichotomy I was pointing out was the same one you were replying to.

halfeye
2018-02-05, 02:46 PM
Blog Post (https://greatwyrmgab.wordpress.com/2018/01/31/sid-meier-dd-and-why-trpgs-are-all-about-fighting-monsters/)

Summary: If games are a series of interesting choices, how do roleplaying games stack up? Do their systems support many types of interesting choice, or is the burden left entirely on the end user? How does this affect the kind of games we play?

I hope the people on this forum find my points and arguments thought-provoking, or at least interesting.
For me, it wandered into D&D early, so I wondered why you bothered mentioning Sid Meier, he's not very relevant to D&D, I went in looking for Sid related info, and dropped it hard when D&D took over (paragraph one? two?).

Jay R
2018-02-05, 11:36 PM
The statement "TRPGs are about X" is overly simplistic and overly general, for pretty much any value of X.